Reading people who have spent any significant amount of time in the fedsoc orbit tends to be like reading a religious scholar in a faith you don't believe in. "But wait, why is originalism good here?" is not a question that will be considered.
But like. Even saying that they are hypocritical for not putting Originalism in their argument credits their view of Originalism as serious when they never had any serious reason to be for Originlaism in the first place.
I get it. These guys are writing in Reason. So maybe I shouldn’t take them seriously either. But I respect Levy and so I assume this person is worth considering.
I respect Levy too, but then lots of folks that I respect are more willing than I am to treat the right side of the legal academy as people worth talking to..
I think it's noteworthy that the decision is getting criticism from people who generally love the Roberts Court even if the precise nature of the criticism makes me roll my eyes and make a jerk off motion.
And while I think the logic and implications of the decision are much more significant, it is also true that Sotomayor completely demolishes the majority on originalist grounds.
Yes.
I’m also interested in the vagueness argument.
How is the “boldness and activeness” (I don’t have the words to hand) supposed to be supported and encouraged by removing the concerns of criminal liability when the ruling os completely vague on what’s covered and what isn’t.
I didn't catch this when I first read it but 5-4 pointed out that Roberts is willing to identify specific acts in the indictment that are definitely immune, but no specific acts that are definitely subject to prosecution. Really gives the game away.
It also seems to me that some of the stuff with presumptive immunity could only have that presumption removed by resorting to evidence that’s either excluded by absolute immunity or else also under presumptive immunity, and it becomes a regress.
I don't want my account to become 100% posting about how bad Trump v US is but it just keeps bouncing around in my brain and revealing new ways that it's terrible. It's up there with Dred Scott and I hope I live to see that become consensus.
Yes. This is my point. How are lawyers not lighting their hair (or if like me no hair) clothes on fire?
Meanwhile I hear legal podcasts where they are like well here’s what’s left of X Trump prosecution.
Like. SCOTUS just told you. They aren’t going to let you prosecute Trump. There no law.
Yes. They are 100% going to make it impossible for any of the cases against him to proceed. The only way Trump doesn't skate is if Dems win the election by a big enough margin that they pack the court by june 2025.
Exactly. If there’s no way to know. Then how is that “freeing” of action.
And of any of this is the case then how is it possible for lay people like me who knows nothing to point out that a crucial scotus decision is completely nonsense how can it be a real thing?
It's an expression of political power, not a coherent argument. They have six votes to save Trump (and remake the Republic in the process). Sotomayor has obviously got Roberts's number, but he has the votes.
Are there any “conservative” lawyers left?
Or is it like politics? There’s no conservative thinkers anymore. Either Never Trump or just nakedly political without principle.
