Progressive panic wages on as the Left struggles to comprehend that SCOTUS has managed to slow the roll of their aggressive social agenda. Using carefully appointed Federal judges to form policy from the bench is very effective until it isn’t. When SCOTUS suddenly refuses to do your bidding or begins to review and overturn rulings of the past, you may start to feel out of control.
With an actively rogue Supreme Court, U.S. lawyers,
legal scholars, and law schools have to reckon with how to practice, teach, and understand law without falling into complicity with lawlessness. 1/— Heidi Li Feldman (@HeidiLiFeldman) July 10, 2022
Wait a minute. Are decisions that a self-proclaimed progressive law professor disagrees with a clear indication or “rogue” activity? Different interpretations of existing law and returning power to the states do not qualify as lawlessness according to anything in our Constitution, um, professor.
Look y’all – SCOTUS following 2A, overturning Roe which even left wing legal scholars said was not properly reasoned & telling the EPA it cannot exceed its Congressional mandate & upend an entire economic sector is LAWLESS according to this lawyerly lawyer 🙄 https://t.co/WvfneYnk8J
— Stacey – Radical Federalism & Move the Lines Now (@ScotsFyre) July 11, 2022
It’s hard to accept the new crew isn’t willing to rule by anything other than existing law. It’s almost like they’re not even partisan. Oh wait, that was the founding intention for the judiciaries.
Responding to lawless legal institutions and legal actors from within the practice and study of law means being honest about the battle lines and who is on which side. 13/
— Heidi Li Feldman (@HeidiLiFeldman) July 10, 2022
Recommended
This isn’t about sides. This is about the law and the procedure for updating existing law by working through the legislators – elected officials who act according to the will of the people. Somebody teach the teacher.
Serious legal philosophy question: doesn't the below tweet amount to a rejection of Critical Legal Studies? https://t.co/2pRXSHdQ6B
— Will (@Will_Redacted) July 11, 2022
If you’re a student at Georgetown Law, I strongly recommend you not listen to this person on this particular point.
When a court rules a way you disagree with it’s not lawless, it’s life. https://t.co/cQ15DIc2OJ
— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) July 11, 2022
Not liking the law isn’t justification for abandoning it… unless you’re an ‘outragey’ progressive.
Is it time to abandon the #RuleOfLaw and fight the hard right conservatives on their own turf … https://t.co/jJQH9Bu3tA
— blakandblack (@blakandblack) July 11, 2022
Save the fight for the ballot box and take a legal lesson, guys.
You will one day be called upon to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That means you respect the outcomes that the system produces even if you disagree with those outcomes, and work within the system to change those outcomes. https://t.co/AmDB1xGvnV
— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) July 11, 2022
If you disagree with Dobbs, you have a choice. Either do what this person wants you to do and regard the entire system as illegitimate; or, do what lawyers all around the country are doing by using state constitutions with express references to privacy rights to push back https://t.co/fV0NLGGOGr
— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) July 11, 2022
Throwing a tantrum and saying “burn it all down” is a great way to generate engagement on Twitter but it’s a terrible way to think about legal problems. You’re smarter and more creative than that, and your teachers should be helping you unlock that creativity.
— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) July 11, 2022
At least irrational responses provide a platform for communicating Constitutional intent educating the masses.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member