The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

Maybe they're thinking of Dershowitz, who was just sanctioned.

 

Oh OK. Maybe this is a fake then.

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/laurence-tribe

 

Probably not. Just because he spoke at some of their events doesn't mean his a card-carrying member.

From the website itself: (emphasis mine)

 

Well, the fact that the link has what looks like a disclaimer. . .

A person listed as a contributor has spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society. In most cases, the biographical information on a person's "contributor" page is provided directly by the person, and the Federalist Society does not edit or otherwise endorse that information. ​

Incidentally, the remainder of the disclaimer might be the most bad faith exoression of a disclaimer I've ever read

The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion by a contributor are those of the contributor.​

@yossarian . . . Is that true that the FedSoc "takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues"?

EDIT: rslfanboy can bite a fart.

 

My disgusting plague-rat daughters are on it!

 

Thanks. I was basically reading it as implying, "we don't take positions, we simply expound the Truth."

 

There seems to be an emerging theory on the right that makes the FedSoc Originalism look progressive... Here's a (long ass) article about a recent conference in D.C. devoted to an emerging conservative approach that has interested some young (i.e., still in law school) Fed Soc people

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...conservative-legal-philosophy-courts-00069201

On the one side of this debate are defenders of the conservative legal status quo, who made up the majority of the speakers at the Cambridge symposium. By and large, these conservatives continue to champion the time-honored legal principles of the right: the sanctity of individual rights, the importance of judicial restraint and the wisdom of limited government. Practically all of them continue to identify as originalists.

On the other side of the debate are those who, like {Adrian} Vermeule, want to push the conservative legal movement in a more radical direction. Partisans of this camp hail from different sectors of the American right, and they go by different names. (Some eschew the label of “conservative” for the edgier “postliberal” or “integralist,” two terms that are variously applied to Vermeule.) But they have cohered around a shared desire for a more muscular judiciary, one that sheds the guise of judicial neutrality in favor of a more assertive right-leaning posture. The members of this camp are almost uniformly critics of originalism — or at least of originalism as it’s practiced now — and many, though not all, are Catholic. They remain a distinct minority within the broader conservative ecosystem, but as the youthfulness of the audience in the Revolution Room suggested, their ideas have made particular inroads among young conservative lawyers and law students.

“These are the things that people are talking about in FedSoc chapters all over the place,” said a clean-cut law student from Georgetown University as we chatted under the hotel’s marquee, referring to the conservative legal behemoth the Federalist Society. “I think our generation is a lot more open to it than the older generation.”
​

And just what do they have in mind in their "right leaning posture." Based on the author's reading of Vermeule's book. . .

In conservative legal circles, Vermeule has become the most prominent proponent of “common good constitutionalism,” a controversial new theory that challenges many of the fundamental premises and principles of the conservative legal movement. The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them. In practice, Vermeule’s theory lends support to an idiosyncratic but far-reaching set of far-right objectives: outright bans on abortion and same-sex marriage, sweeping limits on freedom of expression and expanded authorities for the government to do everything from protecting the natural environment to prohibiting the sale of porn.
​

Long ass article, as I said, that I haven't finished yet, but I know a few Catholics who would call themselves Integralists, and even they are (okay, the one guy I've actually talked to about Vermeule) thinking this is crack-potty.

 

You there with any SC justices?

 

I'm now disappointed that you aren't SCOTUS.

 

Can’t think of a funny joke about “guess” lecturing but I’m sure it’s out there somewhere just waiting to be created.

 

Everyone should have 1 or 2 professors like this

 

Every time I read InTheNet's posts I always imagined it was Dave Foley from Kids in the Hall whenever he played jerks or people who had no business in things.

 

I was getting fairly adept at lecturing/leading class discussion while watching a stream AND tracking a match (I pace a lot. . . Standing by the monitor would have attracted suspicion.

Alas, finals week ended today.

Oh. . . And I'm watching Season One episodes of Deep Space Nine with the wife... And typing.

 

When did he lose the "n" (Vermeulen)?

 

Add multi-tasking to your CV.

 

Kids in the Hall is back on Amazon Prime and it is very funny.