A trip around the blogosphere yielded some interesting finds in the world of legal blogs.

First, Space Law Probe discusses a very specialized area of law- all the legal issues surrounding law in outer space. I have to admit this is something I know nothing about. And understandably it's no small matter as more and more governments are trying to create space stations and private citizens are planning trips to outer space:

And Rene Oosterlink of ESA and professor of space law at the University of Ghent in Belgium, featured in the video, concludes, the Outer Space Treaty was drafted at a time when all space activities were governmental while today, most space ventures are private, including launch, telecom, etc. Thus, "there would be a need to review the space treaty."

Next, erblawg gives a review of what the Supreme Court has been up to, at least with respect to their less publicized cases/issues:

Currently, the Court is considering whether a convicted killer is entitled to a new trial because of potentially inflammatory "victim photo buttons" worn by the victim's family at his initial trial. Mathew Musladin's conviction and life sentence had been thrown out by a lower court because of the buttons. The Court will consider whether Appeals Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt correctly ruled that the buttons sent the wrong message to the jury.

Finally, the UCL Practitioner touches on a very interesting topic, particularly to law bloggers- whether or not Judges cite law blogs in their judicial opinions and the answer is not only surprising, but also validating:

3L Epiphany has scored a coup-interviews with two judges who have cited legal weblogs in their published opinions. Ohio Supreme Court Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger and United States District Judge Richard G. Kopf of the District of Nebraska both cited the blog Sentencing Law & Policy in their opinions, and both have some interesting things to say about law blogs.

It used to be that judges relied primarily on past cases and law review articles (and of course the statute and legislative intent) when bolstering their arguments for or against a particular legal position. This is an interesting development that will likely prove controversial in some legal circles.