We’d thought we’d already written about the most desperate takes on President Trump’s selection of a Supreme Court nominee, but we’d missed this opinion piece in The Hill by law professor Ken Levy.
— The Hill (@thehill) July 8, 2018
Here’s how it all plays out in Levy’s imagination:
… Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has promised to schedule the nominee’s confirmation hearings for this fall, before the midterm elections.
If and when McConnell carries through on this promise, Senate Democrats should immediately file a federal lawsuit against him for violating the so-called McConnell Rule. (According to this rule, as McConnell himself stated on Feb. 13, 2016, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.”) The issue — whether the McConnell Rule is now binding precedent — would not be political (and therefore “nonjusticiable”) but rather fundamentally legal (and therefore “justiciable”).
First and foremost, the American people did have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice, and they expressed that voice in November of 2016. If you want to claim the McConnell Rule is law, then you’d better not leave out the part about the difference between a presidential election year and a midterm. Oh, and learn the difference between a rule and a law.
We’re not lawyers or law professors, but some people we follow are.
This is so completely ridiculous that it gave me a throbbing pain behind my right eye. This is YouTube-commenter-level legal analysis. https://t.co/FTQVCKkNWD
— WeaponizedHat (@Popehat) July 9, 2018
It's worse than that — the author is a law professor, and thus by definition cannot be ignorant about the subject he is writing on. This isn't just a ridiculous pile of piffle, it's active bad-faith argumentation, made by someone who knows it to be utterly spurious. https://t.co/E8BZgEDNTG
— Jeff B. (@EsotericCD) July 9, 2018
This is flat-out disinformation. #FakeNews
— Buck Clemons (@williamclemons) July 8, 2018
The desperation is burning my eyes
— Phoenix Con (@PhxCon) July 9, 2018
This is the absolute worst article I have ever read. The factual inaccuracies by this so-called law professor are astounding. The majority leader serves at the pleasure of the senate which makes its own rules by consent of its members. The Court has NO standing to do anything https://t.co/uZ2Tr4DZDt
— Chris Vito (@ChrisVito1) July 8, 2018
Do Senators have standing to sue over internal Senate procedural rules? Do the states they represent?
Why isn’t the question nonjusticiable? The author asserts that it is not, while citing no authority for that proposition.
— John Druva (@jdruva41) July 9, 2018
I'm pretty sure that's not how Schoolhouse Rock taught me laws come into being.
— christopher Jorgensen: suffers from TDS. (@cjorgensen) July 9, 2018
The guy who wrote this teaches law at LSU. https://t.co/8PilMZ3uNu
— James Silberman (@James_Silberman) July 9, 2018
The guy who wrote this is a law professor at a public university who was making $111k in 2013 (most recent record I could find). https://t.co/xC3QIbroDP
— Steve Robinson (@BigSteve207) July 9, 2018
Lol wow. This guy’s an actual law professor. Choose your school wisely kids. https://t.co/U8QvgXLvLF
— Sobes (@Sobes39) July 9, 2018
This is a particularly creative argument. One time in law school, I used a particularly creative argument on a first-year exam. It didn't turn out well https://t.co/ed27EuJRS0
— Bob Van Voris (@BobVanVoris) July 9, 2018
I am in disbelief this person is a law professor at what seems to be an accredited law school. Suggests the Senate can pass legislation with 40 votes. Claims vote scheduling is legal precedent (how about Reid never passing a budget — would that be a binding precedent?). https://t.co/sGiXVBEA8d
— Husband-Bot (@TomLynn7) July 9, 2018
This reminds me of that hardcore Democrat from New Mexico who sued McConnell and Grassley to get Merrick Garland confirmed.
— Cristian Farias (@cristianafarias) July 9, 2018
This is the most unhinged opinion I’ve ever seen. To suggest that such a complaint would be justiciable quite simply is evidence of an analysis swayed by partisan blinders and hysteria and complete devoid of common sense, rational thought, and intellectual honesty. https://t.co/WqzEE2Lkbt
— Alex Robbins (@awrobbins) July 9, 2018
Those words that you said? Well, I'm going to deliberately misunderstand them and then declare that they have the force of law, and then tie up the courts at taxpayer expense because I'm a law professor. https://t.co/P8uNcZSai9
— misinforminimalism (@jeff_techentin) July 9, 2018
Every word of this is wrong, including "and" and "the."
No, I take that back. It doesn't even rise to the level of "wrong." https://t.co/vaFWjuiEDn
— Russ Emerson ♿ (@RussEmerson) July 9, 2018
If I’d turned in a persuasive writing paper of this quality I might have not made it out of middle school.
— Sports and Law (@mercernole) July 9, 2018
The Obama Rule
"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
— Jacque Benson (@RealWomenVoters) July 9, 2018
You guys are insane. https://t.co/IIhKwtKEXG
— Evil Red Kid (@_SOURKIDZ_) July 9, 2018
I really can’t get over how pathetically funny it is to see these illogical arguments being made with zero hope.
Here’s an idea, Dems. Drop identity politics and socialism, move back towards the middle, and don’t nominate a hated candidate. Maybe you’ll win an election again.
— M0ser (@TM0s41) July 9, 2018
Pardon Matthew Dowd for a second while he fantasizes about Merrick Garland being nominated https://t.co/hfw6E83iml
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) July 5, 2018