Michael Tae Sweeney: Not having to give a shit anymore about logic or accuracy is a demonstration of power. Showing the world that their power no longer depends on the law but on something else

Not having to give a shit anymore about logic or accuracy is a demonstration of power. Showing the world that their power no longer depends on the law but on something else

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.

The "Who's going to stop us?" school of jurisprudence

Google translator tells me the Latin for this is "Quis nos vetat?" I know lawyers love the patina of authority and tradition a little Latin provides

As one of my law school profs would say, "SCOTUS is not the court of last resort because it's infallible, it's infallible because it's the court of last resort."

Telling credible, well-crafted, believable lies is a sign that you (at least partially) respect the people you're lying to, and may be concerned about the consequences of being found out. As you note, from these people telling transparently obvious lies is a demonstration of power and contempt.

The basic bad scholarship is so appalling. Is proof-texting more common in legal writing generally? Please say no. As a historian I cannot abide. It has to be disingenuously intentional or have they talked themselves into believing their bullshit interpretations?

They've just moved on to their version of "textualism", which means finding any random piece of writing, even if it directly contradicts the entire piece it was taken from or was from an actual SCOTUS dissent rather than the majority opinion.

The fascist currency is not credibility, it’s power.

“You may be asking yourself: isn’t this all bullshit? Well, I’m not here to talk about that,,,” Lionel Hutz stuff bsky.app/profile/saba...

8:44: "Isn’t this all smoke & mirrors? Really, isn’t SCOTUS just using history & tradition to cover up what’s really going on, which is that it’s policy decision-making at the Court? Well I guess I’m not here to defend everything about history & tradition today" www.youtube.com/live/31YZrgo...

Over here we sometimes call this the "politics of the grotesque".

Logic, facts, and reason matter only when the powerful have something to prove or to lose. That's why democracy - popular power - is so important, and why unaccountability so dangerous. Once more, reminds me of liberal academia, except their absolute power has limited subjects.

It's the same thing like Cheney in the 2000s. Losers have to live in a fact-based reality while winners make that reality.

Post