I think it goes something like this: Orange made said he wanted this, and Orange man was acting in his capacity as President Orange man, so President Orange man gets whatever President Orange man wantā¦ We LOVE President Orange man (please donāt send goons after us, dear leader)ā¦
They really are. Fucking assholes.
They clearly are willing to throw our entire country away in order to impose a fascist regime on all of us. As long as they get that, they donāt give two shits about the courts own power. They fucking want to see all of us fucking suffer if we donāt believe in the exact same bigoted, nasty, shit that they do.
āIt pisses off the left. Yay!! Mision accomplished.ā I think that pretty much sums up the ālegalā reasoning involved. Seriously, I am not a historian of any measure, but the degree of petty partisanship in this court has got to be reaching historical levels! Ceding their power (and that of the legislative branch) to the executive is just mind boggling! I always believed that checks and balances were the very heart of our foundersā genius in forming our governmental structure. So much for āOriginalism,ā eh?
Con Law professor walks into class. Stands in the center of the room. Lights a cigarette.
āIdk what to tell you,ā he says. He opens a Four Loko and chugs half.
āVibes,ā he says. āItās just vibes now.ā Students ask him questions but he has nothing more to say. He just continues with his drink.
Thatās pretty much how Iām feeling studying Con Law for the bar exam.
Treat it like a history class? How about a fantasy literature class? Perhaps philosophy?
Or Sci-Fi: either time travel or alternate universe.
Iām just going to pretend that what the NCBE says the law is is what it is, even though I know the current SCOTUS would rule differently with some of these fact patterns. For example, the NCBE is still pretending that administrative agencies still have rule making authority based on the Congressional statute that created them. How quaint.
For purposes of passing the bar, you need to keep in mind what the answer is supposed to be, never mind what it actually is. I have to do this dance with my board exams too. Very frustrating.
Not (yet) scotus related, but maybe it will get there?
Wishful thinking on the part of Lawrence Lessig. There is no chance the current SCOTUS upholds a law banning SuperPACs. āYes, please do take away the thing that has allowed me and my friends to become incredibly wealthy.ā
I find myself regularly frustrated by some of his thinking.
He was originally (as in when he was in high school) a liberarian/conservative. He has held onto some of that libertarian thinking over the years. I think heās a brilliant legal scholar, and I agree with him more often than not, but like a lot of very smart people, he is overly confident in his ability to persuade others. He kind of has engineerās disease, or the legal version of it.
ETA: Also, I didnāt realize this, but he clerked for both Richard Posner and Antonin Scalia. He was basically the token liberal on their clerk staffs. I donāt think most judges today would do that. Can you see Thomas or Alito having a liberal clerk?
Yeah, that makes senseā¦
Oh hell no. Theyād just send them straight to jailā¦
Yeah, I get the sense he feels exposing them in a catch-22 will somehow force them to reverse their hypocritical rulings.
But heās trying.
Were that true, SCOTUS wouldnāt have found that Biden couldnāt discharge student loan debt, but Trump could dismantle the entire Department of Education. Hypocrisy is one of the cornerstones of conservatism.