The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Decade From NFIB To Dobbs
A very unexpected path.
This weekend I find myself in Louisville, Kentucky for Judge Boggs's clerk reunion. I clerked here back in 2011-12, and the last reunion was in June 2016. In many ways, these three points in time were inflection points for the conservative legal movement, and for my role in that process.
In June 2012, as I wound down my clerkship, the Supreme Court decided NFIB v. Sebelius. At the time, I was already writing my first book on the Obamacare litigation. The Chief Justice, and his saving construction, signaled to many conservatives that the Roberts Court was not what they thought it was. We chanted "No more Souters," but instead, we got a Roberts. In hindsight, all the signs were there--Roberts had more red flags than a Soviet parade. But NFIB crystalized the Chief's priorities. About a month later, right after my last sitting, I began teaching at the South Texas College of Law.
Fast-forward to February 2016. I was still an untenured professor, and hadn't been protested yet. My work was read in certain circles, but my influence was admittedly limited. Justice Scalia died, and Senate Republicans refused to even hold a hearing on whoever the President nominated. June 2016 represented one of the worst months for conservatives on the Supreme Court in recent memory. Whole Woman's Health, Fisher II, a 4-4 in Texas v. U.S., a punt in Zubik v. Burwell, and so on. Things looked bleak. Then, to (almost) everyone's surprise, Trump won. And in rapid succession, we got Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Now, in June 2022, I am back in Louisville. I'm tenured, and my work consistently drives national conversations. We have Dobbs and NYSRPA, and I played some role in both decisions. I could not have fathomed either case a decade ago after NFIB, or even six years ago after Justice Scalia's passing. For nostalgia's sake, I drove past my own apartment. I imagined going back in time, and paying a visit to Josh circa 2012. We had a chat about all that would happen over the ensuing decade. (I will assume the rules of time travel from Back to the Future are not in effect.) Would 27-year old Josh have even believed it? I wouldn't have. Would any of you--ten years younger--have fathomed what would happen in a decade?
The conservative legal movement has achieved something that was once unthinkable. Now, there will be backlash. And disorder. And contention. I don't expect the near-future to be pleasant. People on the right have long-internalized the crushing blow of defeat from Casey. Now, people on the left will have to internalize the even-more-crushing blow of defeat from Dobbs. For now, the reaction will be raw, but in time, a new equilibrium will form. What that balance is, no one knows. The courts will still be called upon to decide cases affecting abortion, but those decisions will turn on other, more established areas, far less contentious of law including federalism, separation of powers, and interstate comity--not whether the Due Process Clause protects a right to abortion.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This fucking guy.
He is the court jester of American law.
Increasingly, he even looks the part.
"Would any of you--ten years younger--have fathomed what would happen in a decade?"
I am shocked about what has happened in 40 years, a 10% improvement. Progress is exceedingly slow. I want to take the $trillion wasted on the lawyer profession and move it into research and development. Technology has been the sole source of progress. The legal profession has only stymied progress.
Little too old for you?
Seriously, "Reverend" you're embarassing your supposedly "Better" self, I know your 486 Packard Bell won't handle it, so go to your local Barnes & Nobels, ask for "Chess for Beginners" and you'll stop moving your Horsey the wrong way...
Frank O-O-O
Looks like you've sobered up, Frank
If you don't want to read his posts, don't read them.
I prefer to mock him.
Except when he's recounting his fantastic dates, great social life, and solid family life.
I know you do, that's why you're in Prison.
His posts can be quite entertaining in terms of how little he realizes what a piece of shit he comes across as.
Like yours!
A little self important:
“ I'm tenured, and my work consistently drives national conversations.”
I’d more say his work is a part of national conversations. He gets cited a fair bit in court decisions, and his work with SBT on emoluments was both novel and fairly convincing, although probably not enough to move the inertia of settled understanding on the topic.
He probably brags at cocktail parties that Sarcastr0 is one of his regular readers, I hope you won’t be petty enough to take that away from him.
I miss the function on the old website where you could filter certain authors out of the blog feed.
Hmm, funny, my computer has this thing called a "Keyboard" and a "Mouse" and you can chose to read what you want, you must be one of the "Reverend" Jerry Sandusky's "Klingers"
Looks like the good Reverend lives in your head, Frank. I'm sure he, like the rest of us, find it amusing
His picture accompanies the dictionary definition of "onanistic."
The DSM-5 code for Josh is 301.81.
"We chanted "No more Souters," but instead, we got a Roberts. In hindsight, all the signs were there--Roberts had more red flags than a Soviet parade."
This is naïve. There is no difference between Scalia and Ginsberg. All are Ivy indoctrinated, rent seeking, big government biased, lawyer scumbags. I predict Barrett will be the same after 2 years in Washington.
A new Judiciary Act is needed.
1) Move the Supreme Court to Wichita, KS, the middle of the continental US, away from Washington, the rent seeking capital of the US;
2) make the number of Justices even, and 500, if they are to act like a legislature in violation of Article I Section 1;
3) 20 year term limits to reflect generational changes;
4) no one who has passed 1L should be allowed on the Court. Most Justices have not been lawyers;
5) make a fast track for Congress to impeach Justices for their decisions;
6) require all decisions be written at the 6th grade reading level, that of defendants, or be void.
And the code for Josh Derangement Syndrome?
not a serious response
For one, you're right. Your response is not serious.
It was the level of response your comment deserved.
The diagnosis is a more general one, DDB. Democrat Douche Bag, Unspecified.
I will be submitting this proposal, to add it to the ICD 10. FY20.25, easy to remember, Fuck You in 2025.
https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/newrevisedcodes
Well it’s not really a serious topic trying to do mental diagnosis over the internet either.
I’m sure we all fall somewhere on some mental disability spectrum, however most of us are well functioning.
On the other hand Josh is by any measure quite high functioning, and it may well be his high regard for himself contributes to that functioning by allowing him to brush off criticism from anonymous internet commenters who religiously read almost every thing he posts.
Ooh Ooh Ooh!!! Mis-tuh-Kot-Air!!!!!!!!!!!
Captcrisis wants to play DSM-5 Ranks!!!!!!!!
Well, I'm an Old School/Old Fool (HT TagTeam) so I'm gonna do a "Throwback" to DSM-2
"Well You're a 303.2"
Today we'd call that a "Reverend" ArthurKirtland/JerrySandusky
Frank "Suck my N48.30(ICD10)"
Still need a serious Haircut
Would you tell an African American with a fro they need a serious Haircut?
Josh should move to Dallas. The girls there are really pretty and rich. In Houston, they are triple baggers.
I don't think this comment has any practical relevance to the reality-based world.
That is sad at the personal level, but a benefit to our society.
Hi, Rev. I just care too much. One of the people I really care about is you. You should try to be more lawyerly.
Given your started opinions about anyone who has passed 1L, what outcome do you expect from someone trying to be more lawyerly?
Nope, because N-words will (redacted) the (redacted) out of you.
The Male N-words are even worse (Rim Shot)
Frank "There's a thousand N-word Jokes in the ATL (just make sure none are around when you tell them)"
I imagined going back in time, and paying a visit to Josh circa 2012. We had a chat about all that would happen over the ensuing decade.
What happened was exactly what conservative legal circles have been working towards for the last four decades. They fostered multiple generations of ideologues with the credentials and resumes that could get them appointed by Republican presidents to the federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. And with the abuse of the process for "advise and consent" in the Senate, along with its over-representation of socially conservative rural states, they made sure that Democrats would have a harder time getting judges confirmed that they would.
(Conservatives conveniently forget why Harry Reid unleashed the 'nuclear option' on judicial filibusters - McConnell had Senate Republicans escalating its use to the point where many seats were going unfilled, particularly on the D.C. Circuit. Once in the majority, McConnell effectively made a dam out of obstruction. That was something he gleefully took credit for when asked by Sean Hannity why Obama left so many openings for Trump to fill.)
Conservatives have been highly successful at turning the Constitution into a mechanism for minority rule. They don't need to win a majority to wield power, so they don't bother trying to obtain the support of a majority of the country anymore.
exactly
This is nothing better Americans can't handle.
When their betters are done with them, these clingers will be whimpering for mercy.
Except for one. He'll be using a vile racial slur every chance he gets, to the delight of his bigoted, downscale, deplorable fans.
Rev. Where in your comment or in any of them is there the slightest ort of evidence of your ever attending law school?
Arthur/Jerry attended the "Baby Law School"
problem was he was 52,
it's why he sounds like someone who gets fucked up the ass regularly,
Frank
The Constitution is explicitly a mechanism for the protection of the rights of minorities.
and it worked so well!!!!
No it's not.
Yes, it is.
Nearly every right and mechanism built into the Constitution is designed so that the tyranny of the majority can't just overrule it.
As I say below, the rights of minorities are protected by limitations on what the majority can do and the difficulty of obtaining majority support throughout all branches and levels of government. I can't think of anything said or written by any prominent Founders that suggests that a minority faction should ever be permitted control of the whole federal government. The structures that make it possible for this to happen were an effect of the compromises deemed necessary to get the Constitution written and ratified, not by intentional design.
"highly successful at turning the Constitution into a mechanism for minority rule"
The Constitution was expressly written to amplify the influence of minorities.
All your whining misses the point: If you don't like it campaign for a Constitutional Convention.
It, among other things, is a bulwark against the excesses of the majority.
It does NOT instantiate minority rule.
But minority rule sure is what some around here want!
Have you seen the Trump folks here talk? They don't want democracy - that might mean Democrats sometimes win, and they're so evil that tearing down our Republic is a cheap price to pay to keep them out of power.
The Constitution was expressly written to amplify the influence of minorities.
It seems that you think that a minority faction needs to have extra power in order to protect itself from the majority. But what then protects the majority from that minority faction once it has control? I suppose I am not really surprised that people like you that make that kind of argument never seem to have thought of that. It is almost like you don't really care about protecting your rights as much as you care about having the power to rule over others.
As Sarcastr0 points out, the Constitution was aimed at moderating the will of the majority as a way of protecting the rights of those not in the majority faction of the moment. It tries to accomplish this through separation of powers (three separate branches) and checks and balances between those branches. Basically, dividing government up makes it harder to get and maintain a majority coalition. Government could only be truly unified with an overwhelming majority of the populace supporting it, which would only be likely to happen on individual issues, not a whole faction or political party.
At least, that was the theory I think they were going with. But they definitely expected ordinary legislation and actions to work according to a simple majority. The idea that a faction representing less than a majority could control Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary simultaneously would almost certainly have been viewed very negatively. I would challenge you to find anything written by prominent Founders that suggests that would be a positive outcome.
Thank you. Well said.
The Democrats started the business of filibustering Court of Appeal nominees, starting with Miguel Estrada.
Outrageous that the Republicans repaid the compliment.
As for those shocking unfilled vacancies on the DC Federal Appeal Court, Harry Reid actually deployed his filibuster nuke to force through Patricia Millett's confirmation in 2013. That seat had been open since John Roberts had vacated it to go to the Supreme Court in 2005.
The only reason why the seat was still open for Obama to fill was that Dems had blocked Bush's nominee, Peter Keisler. Without a hearing. What ? You though Mitch invented that trick ?
Fair enough. But as Jonathan Adler points out in this old post,
https://volokh.com/2013/11/21/time-go-nuclear/
The best description of the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees was "tit-for-tat-plus". Whatever 'trick' Democrats used against Republican nominees, Mitch certainly took it to the next level.
Yet the whole strategy of senate obstruction of qualified nominees was pioneered and robustly implemented by Democrats.
The first appellate court nominee that was ever filibustered was Miguel Estrada in 2003. 9 other Bush II appellate nominees were also filibustered.
Obama only had 2 appellate nominees successfully filibustered.
Now I am only counting filibusters because that is the only case where the nominee had a majority Senators but were blocked by a minority.
Failed nominations whether by vote or inaction have been happening since the birth of the Republic.
Prof. Blackman, don't tell us you've gone full Mary Rosh!
Reply to the wrong comment, obviously. I feel as embarrassed as a South Texas Law grad trying to practice law.
That's odd. I thought the first nominee to be filibustered was Abe Fortas when LBJ nominated him for Chief Justice.
my work consistently drives national conversations.
This would be even worse if it were true.
When the only chance a guy has to be touched by a woman involves a taser, some level of strangeness probably should be expected from all of that time spent alone with a wall of screens.
OK, but that doesn't explain why you're such a dickhead.
Hey, Josh's columns and public appearances have sparked all sorts of conversations across the country, such as:
"Is this guy seriously a law professor?"
"Is this really the best Trump supporters can come up with?"
"Why does the paper have this weird incel writing about abortion?"
"Why does he look like that? Why are you making me look at him??"
Many such cases.
You could say the same thang about the Transvestite Sleepy Joe appointed to be head of US Pubic Health Service, Richard (Dick) Levine,
"Is this guy seriously a Doctor?" No, not seriously a doctor, definitely a Clown Doctor,
"Is this really the best Sleepy Joe supporters can come up with?" Apparently
"Why does he look like that? Why are you making me look at him??" Umm, because Men cutting off their penises, wearing wigs, taking Estrogen shots, and having a gash gut in their nether regions is considered "Normal"
Frank
A question for Prof. Blackman, asked out of curiosity and not to score any sort of argumentive point: Are there any sorts of judgments that an originalist court might make in the next decade or so that would be unpalatable to conservatives (assuming that Blackman's definition of "conservative" isn't based principally on commitment to originalism)? For instance, are there areas where conservatives would be highly displeased by a pruning back of Commerce Clause authority?
Since neither progressivism nor conservatism seems to be based on a single underlying principle, it seems likely that court decisions based on such a principle might well prove unsatisfactory to either side, depending on the particulars of the case. So what's such a case that might disappoint and anger conservatives?
Oh sure.
If the SCOTUS suddenly discovered, for example, that the Federal Government couldn't prevent the sale of marijuana, that such regulations exceeded its granted powers, that would likely disappoint a number of conservatives.
I am not sure that is the case since the individual states could prohibit the sale of marijuana, kinda like Dobbs allows the states to prohibit the sale of abortions. For many years lots of current Schedule 1 drugs was ignored by the feds and states. Coke (the drink, not the drug) was a classic example.
Coca-Cola hasn't had Co-Cay-ane-a since 1929 (Story of my life, always late for the party)
Might want to at least do a cursory Wikipedia search before you pontificate on things you don't know about.
That's an interesting bit of history that's been obscured in the future about Coke....I've noticed more and more of these little hidden facts that we don't know about in 2037, and it's led me to question what else has happened in the past that has been removed. Technically I shouldn't really be talking like this but with so many posts on the internet and all the crazy conspiracy theories at this time I don't have much to worry about without revealing details I know I shouldn't... I came across this article looking for other travelers who may have left messages in the past because in the article you mentioned traveling back in time... Otherwise I probably never would have been here, just a random coincidence because unlike most of the people where I'm from I hate politics and was part of the reason I decided to volunteer and go back to do a job. But here I am, jokes. I'm currently 47 years old but 32 in 22'. I can't believe I remembered my old email, it's been years since we had to use traditional login methods but it was the same password I used on everything and my last address for emails on this internet back then. Anyway I kind of forgot the whole reason I was even posting here except I guess it's going to be fun to leave my mark and read it in the archives when I return, I wonder what kind of responses it will receive in the next fifteen years, guess I'll find out next week when I return! Jokes... I wouldn't worry too much about this ruling because you'll see soon enough in the coming years.
It is a pure clan war now, with no ideology. Philosophy can turn on a dime. Dems are hawkish and Repubs are increasingly isolationist. Libertarians are capitalists with a bong on the nightstand. The only thing the respective parties really know and stand for is that they hate each other.
Eh, ideology has always shifted within the parties. That's because party is not ideology, it is a coalition.
The level of ego and self regard in this post is perhaps unprecedented, even for Josh.
" I'm tenured "
At South Texas College of Law Houston, one of the worst law schools in America.
Your school's quality is determined to be better than that of a half-dozen other law schools. Six American law schools are ranked below South Texas College of Law Houston. Six. Among two hundred.
If this post makes you feel better about being mired at a shit-rate law school as you approach 40 -- and doing so on the wrong side of history and the losing end of the American culture war -- enjoy your "victory," much as plenty of conservatives are cheering a couple of ready-for-replacement court decisions that will be minor wrinkles in the medium to long term of modern America's liberal-libertarian progress.
But from the reasonable person's perspective?
Ouch. Very ouch.
Rev, Rev, Rev. Try to be more lawyerly.
Is it possible to be less lawyerly than South Texas College of Law Houston?
On a more pleasant note, have you listened to the Political Beats podcast episodes on The Rolling Stones? Would be interested in your take. (Bad name for the podcast, since they specifically avoid all things political; I guess the name is because the guests they have on to discuss their favorite bands are journalists and other people involved in DC politics, from all sides of the political spectrum.)
I really enjoyed the three Beatles episodes, although I must say the episodes I enjoy I do so despite the main host’s (Jeff) contributions. He’s a ridiculous contrarian in my view. In fact, the kids and I shut off the first Dylan episode within the first 20 minutes (and deleted the podcast) because he was poo-pooing Blowin in the Wind, etc. Ridiculous contrarianism. It really only works when the guest is strong and assertive in his or her opinions and will push back.
In any event, if you ever do listen to the Rolling Stones episodes, please post your thoughts. Thanks.
I have never heard of Political Beats. I will try to find it. I can predict I have probably enjoyed the several Stones shows I have seen this year more than I will enjoy some contrarian's rants, but I can try it.
Here are two pointers in return, to thank you for your courtesy:
Ted Gioia (with Rick Beatto) on music's condition and future.
Jeff Baxter on music, molecules, vibration, color, harmonics, humanity . . . ah, just watch it.
If you can only watch one . . . watch both.
If you liked the Baxter presentation . . . check this.
Sometimes, Skunk lets the guitar do the talking.
OK, I checked.
First, it appears I might need to subsidize National Review to arrange access.
Second, it appears one session (of two) is more than three hours long.
Given the length and the right-wingery . . . is Josh Blackman involved?
I'll try to arrange access without paying right-wingers for content. Thank you for the suggestion.
I've only listened to their episodes on The Who, but for what it's worth I don't remember the content touching on politics much if it all. Despite the length, it also didn't seem to have much insight or novelty for a serious fan, so I haven't felt the need to check out their takes on any other artists.
I use an iPhone, so in the Apple podcast app, it’s a standalone podcast. Nothing connected to national review needed (I don’t have a NR subscription or account).
They are long episodes, as they go through every album and then some in a decent amount of detail.
For what it’s worth, it’s entirely politics free (I wouldn’t send you to an NR political app). While the hosts may be center/right in their other lives, I think they make sure not to discuss any politics on the show (and I get the sense that they like music much more than politics anyway). If you look at the different guests who discuss the music, they are definitely a fair number of liberals and even some left wingers (like Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern as the guest for the Velvet Underground episodes).
Josh is very lawyerly.
whatever Federal Correctional "Facility" you're at
“Now, in June 2022, I am back in Louisville. I'm tenured, and my work consistently drives national conversations. We have Dobbs and NYSRPA, and I played some role in both decisions.”
I actually enjoy Blackmun’s writing, and think a lot of the hate he gets is unwarranted. But I wish he explained what role he believes he played in Dobbs and NYSRPA. I don’t recall any significant role.
Maybe he was the conduit of the leak aimed at cementing a majority for Alito's "back to the 1770s" perspective?
You quoted Professor Blackman.
You enjoyed Blackmun's writing; he is a different guy entirely (wrote that once-precedential decision, what was it again...?)
Just a typo; not sure if autocorrect or my fault, so I’ll assume it was my error. (Definitely don’t enjoy Justice Blackmun’s writings).
To put my mind at ease about Roberts what I do is think about all the innocent Muslims George W Bush slaughtered and all the jobs he was able to ship to China and while I’m thinking about it I rub my hard nips…totes worth it.
SC,
Give it a break. Concentrate on the Chinese genocide of Uighurs
Made possible by Bush’s War on Terror. So 2002 is when China got US approval to classify them as terrorists and some were even in Gitmo!! Check it out!
Block that crank, DN.
Love how it's pronounced "Wiggers" but has nothing to do with Amurica's "Wiggers" (You know, Eminem, Hunter Biden...) and the Talking Media Heads have to be careful to an-nunc-ee-ate it correctly or get "Cancelled""
Frank "Man, there were alot of Wiggers at the park today"
"Roberts had more red flags than a Soviet parade. "
This asshole, JB, rally thinks that he is clever with is gloating.
Donnie. Name calling is not persuasive.
On a more general level. The courts are generally designed to be "conservative" by design. And by "conservative" in this context, I mean upholding existing laws, traditions, rights, and customs. The founders, in their wisdom, understood that democracy may lead to temporary majorities which may pass unwise laws, which impede upon the rights of people. And designed the Constitution and the Court system as a check against that.
The courts are not designed to discover new rights, new legislations, and so on. That is the prerogative of the Legislature.
What occurred in this situation was an interesting one. The courts "discovered" a right to an abortion. One the national legislature never actually legislated on. And in doing so, it subverted the normal democratic process, This has occurred, on occasion, before. Also on occasion however, the "right" or "process" discovered has been of severe contention, for decades. In such a situation, such a "right" or "process" the Court has realized that the legislature and nation should, via democratic processes, grant themselves this right and or process.
For the last near 50 years, the national legislature has had the opportunity to pass legislation regarding abortion and right to that process. They have failed to do so. Continuously. And the debate has continued. Continuously. In such a situation...when such a right was never granted democratically, via the Constitution nor law, we have to question whether it really was the people's will.
No, this is not a small government decision. Nor is it particularly Burkean.
Right or wrong, it's conservative in terms of the GOP coalition only.
A way to see how this is true is the amount of work you're putting in to try and rationalize based on narratives you've made up without reading the associated cases.
Come back when you learn how to cite sources.
Until then, your word holds no weight.
You're cargo-culting when I ask for sources when you post unsupported factual claims.
When I ask you for sources that clearly bothers you, hence this reaction.
But unlike you, I am not bothered by your posts because you don't know what you're even asking for, just angrily making gestures similar to the last time you posted nonsense and got burned for it.
Hey,
I don't think why people do not https://www.perfumeplusoutlet.com/collections/all understand the situation of the world crisis and do not take responsibility for the sake of the state.
You know what would make all this less "crushing"? Respect for others. An attempt to understand instead of 24/7 rage overload against people who are not like you (often for clicks and fundraising dollars).
What would have been better than 50 years of division? If the court had stayed out of it and we had government by the people, slowly converging on compromise laws like Europe has. That’s been delayed 50 years, so we get to do that now.
If the US Congress passes national abortion restrictions, let’s all compromise on the court overturning federal rules and limiting interstate commerce to actual commerce.
This rationale also works for Jim Crow, or anything else that has impacts you don't care about because you suck.
People are mad, don't tell them their anger is invalid. Counseling calm as though you're above it all when you rage at least as much when the Court doesn't go your way is just another move of an asshole.
Sad you guys got addicted to illegitimate judge-invented laws.
Sad you guys use emotions to conclude things and then reason backwards to justify those conclusions. And then get mad when reality doesn’t match wishes.
Sad that so many of you guys think you should decide things for others instead of working together to agree on a mutually acceptable outcome. Or not taking any actions when no agreement can be reached.
It’s never too late to learn. Trying to maintain 24/7 rage until the 2024 election doesn’t seem like a great alternative.
You sure want a lot of judge-made policies these days.
You are emotional as all hell
You regularly rage when people don't agree with you and insist that the GOP not compromise with liberals. Your comments are often railing when something happens you don't like.
You are a massive hypocrite in asking for all these things.
Have you seen that while I think some commenters are bad, that I never say that about conservativism? Can your ideologue self say the same?
You also got a bunch of stuff wrong, in pretty emotionally unintelligent ways:
You should recognize that humans are never acting as much on their emotions as when they claim they're the rational ones in the room.
You should realize that the law is in dialogue with the rest of the branches of government, and don't pretend your side's use of the judiciary is some pure exercise of reason. Both sides have philosophies and procedures, and both sides have one eye on the impacts. Don't be so ridiculous as to claim otherewise.
You should become a fan of compromise as much as you claim to like working with outers, and lament that the GOP has turned that into a moral failing amongst many of their members.
An attempt to understand instead of 24/7 rage overload against people who are not like you
Wow. Not very self-aware, are you.
You want to make that suggestion to Carlson and the other RW screamers?
Because it’s not about me. It never is.
Got bad news about posting opinions on a political Internet forum...
Dear Professor "That-Should-Have-Been-Me" Blackman:
Still upset that no one on the Supreme Court wanted you as a clerk? Not even Justice "Ethics-What-Are-Ethics" Thomas?
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
Imagine what might be possible if decent, moral people had the confidence of Josh Blackman, writing from his perch at his fourth-tier toilet law school, that his "work consistently drives national conversations."
Is seventh-from-the-bottom actually fourth-tier, or is it "unranked" oir "others" these days?
(If you are attending South Texas College of Law Houston, you have bad judgment, lousy qualifications, foolish debt, and a bleak future.
Sorry to be the bearer of reality-based news, but that's the truth.)
You know what they call the last in his class at Med School?
"Doctor" ("Real Doctor" not whatever the fuck Jill Sleepy Biden's supposed to be)
and nobody (OK, maybe in residency) gives a fuck what your class rank was, where you went (OK maybe in residency),
that's why Dr. Red Duke, fantastic Surgeon went to North Texas Dumb-fuck School of Medicine,
Really, who gives a fucking shit where the fuck Clarence Thomas paid some Jewish guy to write his term papers?
and where the fuck did you go, you fucking piece of shit, other than Elementary School Playgrounds (so I've heard)
Frank "Effeth, your Self-eth"
" nobody (OK, maybe in residency) gives a fuck what your class rank was "
The people at the bottom of the class, and society's unaccomplished misfits in general, cling to that silliness.
"...decent, moral people..."
Cute name...
This explains so much.
RE: "Now, in June 2022, I am back in Louisville. I'm tenured, and my work consistently drives national conversations."
The sentence surprised me by ending as it did. I was expecting another clause: "... and I give really great blow-jobs."
"We have Dobbs and NYSRPA, and I played some role in both decisions."
There is something profoundly pathetic about a groupie who actually believes she is in the band.
This entire blog -- right-wing misfits carving out a safe space for bigots and hayseeds in which they can pretend they aren't getting crushed and disdained by their betters in the culture war and modern academia-- is profoundly pathetic.
What gets me is the number of times he answers himself. Hell, he sometimes answers himself answering himself answering himself.
That and the amazing frequency he's the first or second comment on any given post. The poor guy must lurk at the keyboard, fingers poised at the ready.....
This blog seems to attract mostly autistic faux libertarians and disaffected incels.
Any ideas why?
Not to mention, the Roberts Court has discovered all sorts of rights, usually purportedly under the First Amendment rather than the Fourteenth, that have absolutely no anchor in the text itself nor in the original understanding of the constitution (the "right" to buy off politicians, including by corporations, and the "right" to not pay public sector union dues, to name a few). I'm sure these issues will be returned to the normal democratic process any day now.
That...wasn't English. At least not with anything resembling sense. Try again.
How ableist = ...mostly autistic faux libertarians...
That's your defense of autistic, antisocial losers?