Asawin Suebsaeng: A preeminent example of this is Bush admin attorney / Trump defender / Berkeley (lol) professor who when Bush was in office did the Powerpuff Girls episode where the new mayor writes on a piece of paper “crime is legal”, except he did it in real life with a war crime, because laws are fake.

I have very well meaning, impressively educated liberal friends who think justices are abundantly principled and that laws are real, as opposed to what the blatantly obvious truth is which is: “a lawyer is someone who you can ask to get you somewhere, and they can find out a way to do it…”

These mistakes originalist justices are making aren’t about disputed interpretations of history, with evidence on both sides. They’re pulling quotes out of context to attribute ideas to founding figures that those figures adamantly opposed. (via @andycraig.bsky.social) reason.com/volokh/2024/...

The Supreme Court's Dubious Use of History in Department of State v. Munozreason.com Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion includes significant errors, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history.

And a justice is just a lawyer and an operative. That’s it. Do you really think there’s a single bombshell, unassailable manicured legal analysis and bulletproof logic that could persuade ACB that abortion isn’t a disease that needs to be wiped away from the earth, with her help?

A preeminent example of this is Bush admin attorney / Trump defender / Berkeley (lol) professor who when Bush was in office did the Powerpuff Girls episode where the new mayor writes on a piece of paper “crime is legal”, except he did it in real life with a war crime, because laws are fake.

Your precious institutions are theoretically there, up until the point a clause or constitutional understanding about “emoluments” or “insurrection” become too inconvenient for their allegedly busy schedules and social lives

Post