Georgetown law professor calls justices who disagree with her “lawless”
Feldman is emblematic of the decline of legal reasoning and of reasoning as a whole in academic life. Law schools have long been the bastion of the “critical” approach to scholarship and argument, beginning in the late 1970s with Critical Legal Studies. I’ve written at some length about the movement and its philosophy in this post.
Of course, Feldman (and it’s certainly not limited to her) believes that it is she who is the one defending the rule of law. She calls the present SCOTUS “actively rogue.” Ironic, since it was actually the Roe court that was rogue in terms of reaching way past anything that is in the Constitution, and even some liberal law professors used to recognize that. The Dobbs court was actually trying to reinstate the primacy of the Constitution, which isn’t the least bit “rogue” except in the sense that it overturns the Roe precedent. But I doubt the left would be at all perturbed at overturning precedent if the action was in a cause they supported.
Here’s Feldman:
Again: people can take whatever tone they like toward me…I will not be intimidated into accepting theocratic decrees as legitimate legal reasoning in a secular, pluralist democracy.
That argument – that Dobbs was based on religion – is false on the face of it. But I’ve heard other people I know state with great conviction that this is all about religion, and nothing can dissuade them because of course they are mind-readers – as is Feldman. This is part of the source of the great animus towards this decision.
I’ve written about this point of view in this previous post:
(4) Many women on the left have bought the “Handmaid’s Tale” sort of scenario which goes like this: rigid fundamentalist Christian men are trying to control the reproductive organs of women and will stop at nothing till they get total control. This fear has been drummed up incessantly for many years.
(5) Many also believe that the Catholics on the Supreme Court are intent on imposing Catholicism on everyone and the ruling in Dobbs originates in their Catholicism. There is no separation of church and state here (#5 relies on their not understanding that the ruling actually takes the Court out of the business of ruling on abortion at the federal level, but there are plenty of people who not only don’t understand that but who are not interested in even listening to that sort of assertion, much less crediting it).
Feldman is a law professor, and so she of course understands that Dobbs “actually takes the Court out of the business of ruling on abortion at the federal level,” but she feels free to ignore it here and pretend this is a theocratic decree masquerading as legal reasoning.
Looking at Feldman’s Wiki page, I see that – among other things – she’s a big champion and supporter of Christine Blasey Ford. In addition:
In 2020, Prof. Heidi Feldman of the Law Center tweeted that “law professors and law school deans” should “not support applications from our students to clerk for” judges appointed by President Trump. “To work for such a judge,” Ms. Feldman continued, marks a lawyer as lacking in the character and judgment necessary for the practice of law.”
So Feldman’s been on this crusade of delegitimizing the judges and justices duly appointed by the opposition for quite some time, and has even tried to deprive them of clerks by appealing to Georgetown and other law schools to not “support applications” from their students to clerk for these vile and evil judges. That this sort of recommendation from a professor is considered fine and dandy at an institution such as Georgetown Law School tells us a lot. It has become especially common post-Trump, because Trump is a lawless Hitlerian figure in their minds (or they pretend that he is; I actually think they really believe it, however) and any tools are appropriate to oppose him and anyone who might support him and who ever supported him. I have encountered this type of thinking over and over among ordinary people I know, as well.
And here is a clear expression of it by Feldman:
“In more ordinary times, we can study and teach U.S. law against a background that presidents, governors, state and federal legislators, and judges on all courts have a basic commitment and aspiration to rule of law and to justice,” Feldman wrote.
“With the rise of the Trump-Republican Party, this traction — the ability to argue within a shared expectation of commitment to rule of law and justice — has completely evaporated. Last term’s Supreme Court decisions are just the most recent high-profile evidence for this.”
It is intensely Orwellian, but Feldman fairly swells with righteousness.
Here’s another law professor who goes her one better (or worse):
St. John’s University law Professor John Barrett approvingly replied to the thread, tweeting that lawyers who fail to resist the Supreme Court are “Hitler’s butlers.”
“Lawyers are servants—butlers,” wrote Barrett. “But we get to choose whom and what we will serve. Rules of thumb: serve truth; assist people, not powers that hurt them; don’t do it for the money; don’t become Hitler’s butler.”
This isn’t merely about Dobbs, in case for some reason you thought it might be.
I cannot recommend highly enough the piece by Aaron Sibarium entitled “The Takeover of America’s Legal System” posted by Bari Weiss on her SubStack (Common Sense) several months ago. The rot has spread throughout all the important law schools and through our entire legal system, nor can one easily imagine any solution to a problem threatening the very foundations of this republic.
They almost had it, you see. Had Hillary lurched across for the win, they could have created the conditions to have the D party in total control, and this time they were not going to let go voluntarily.
“By any means necessary ” is not just just a phrase. It is a mandate.
She calls the present SCOTUS “actively rogue.” Ironic, since it was actually the Roe court that was rogue in terms of reaching way past anything that is in the Constitution, and even some liberal law professors used to recognize that. The Dobbs court was actually trying to reinstate the primacy of the Constitution, which isn’t the least bit “rogue” except in the sense that it overturns the Roe precedent.
Most Democrats Believe the Constitution Is Racist and Sexist
Actually, it’s worse than that.
How many have a passable knowledge of the content of the Constitution? We, as a nation, are so screwed.
So basically they are saying that protecting the unborn is merely a religious value thing? So does that mean that slaughtering the unborn is a secular value thing?
And they act as if opposing turning little boys into “ girls” , and vice versa, is a religious value thing. So does that mean that turning boys into girls is a secular value?
Some weeks ago some militant atheist type was prattling on about religious views needing to stay out of politics.
I reminded him we have the example of the French Revolution and most of the Communist history as examples of attempts at purely secular systems.
“…I will not be intimidated into accepting theocratic decrees” (stamps foot)
What a ridiculous spectacle, and a hopeless metaphorical muddle. The whole Supreme Court is Hitler! And it’s an evil Theocracy! And the Handmaid’s tale! And Everybody I don’t like is Hitler!
So, she’s encouraging schools like Georgetown not to support applications from their students to clerk for Supreme Court Justices? So, hidden like a gem is this muck is an elegant solution. Step back quietly, nod pleasantly. The problem is a self-correcting one.
I read that this is the one responsible for creating the GoFundMe for Christine Blasey Ford, so she’s more than just a supporter; she was an enabler, benefactor, and sponsor. Was she also present for Ford’s testimony at the Kavanaugh hearings?
“Many also believe that the Catholics on the Supreme Court are intent on imposing Catholicism on everyone and the ruling in Dobbs originates in their Catholicism.” [Neo]
A spurious argument which reveals the true nature of the left. I guess Pelosi and Biden et. al. don’t count as Catholics because they agree with and promulgate leftist policies.
For the 112th Congress (I could not find a later edition of this list) see:
https://www.ncregister.com/news/meet-the-catholics-in-congress
I know John Q. Barrett so this is amusing to me. He used to be on the moderate left; he sided more with justices like RBG but acknowledged that many of his students and colleagues thought differently. Since Covid hit his social media posts have became more extreme, unless it was just Trump who drove him off into the deep end. He’s not alone, of course. Not that political extremism hadn’t been building for several years before Trump, but people’s political positions became much more uncompromising in 2016-17 and then another exponential increase in 2020. 10-15 years ago it would have still been a little odd to hear professors say their students shouldn’t work for certain judges because of politics, now I don’t even blink when I read it.
Heidi Feldhure is a disgrace who criticized her father on a tweet after his obit. While Trump may be half German, he is a bad German for marrying racially inferior slavic women and having Jewish friends and children. Feldhure likely wishes she could have been a protege of Roland Freisler or Robert Mueller
Highlighted assertions by neo,
“Of course, Feldman (and it’s certainly not limited to her) believes that it is she who is the one defending the rule of law.
It has become especially common post-Trump, because Trump is a lawless Hitlerian figure in their minds (or they pretend that he is; I actually think they really believe it, however) and any tools are appropriate to oppose him and anyone who might support him and who ever supported him.
It is intensely Orwellian, but Feldman fairly swells with righteousness.”
I too think that Feldman believes that it is she who is the one defending the rule of law. She has to in order to see herself as the good guy.
Feldman, Barrett et al are the true believers, the Trotskyites.
Trotsky was an ideological fanatic, necessary to rationalize his monstrousness. Ideological fanaticism requires the demonization of those who oppose them because fanaticism demands its imposition upon the world. It’s essentially megalomaniacal.
Accusing those in opposition of what they would do is a necessary projection. That they would impose their ‘certainty’ upon the world has been both demonstrated throughout history and, is being demonstrated today with the Biden administration and Congressional compliance with the strangling of the coal, gas and oil industry and in Europe as well.
We will be forced to “go electric” no matter the cost.
It’s not a conspiracy when it’s actually happening.
“How Did We Miss This Video? The WEF Told Us in 2018 That They Are Bolshies and They Are Coming for the United States of America”
https://pjmedia.com/columns/kevindowneyjr/2022/07/12/how-did-we-miss-this-video-the-wef-told-us-in-2018-that-they-are-bolshies-and-they-are-coming-for-the-united-states-of-america-n1612254
“Innovafeed launches world’s largest insect factory, announces new US site…”
“New 60,000 tonnes-a-year facility, built on world’s largest corn processing site, will be first in the United States.”
https://salmonbusiness.com/innovafeed-launches-worlds-largest-insect-factory-announces-new-us-site-and-closes-e140-million-in-new-fundraising/
Could this be what Gates has in mind for all that farmland his company has been buying up? Innovafeed isn’t yet making any profits, so ‘visionary’ donors have to be funding it and its expansion.
Of course no one would willingly start eating bugs as a regular part of their diet. Even once is hard to contemplate. But they’ve got that figured out too… reduce the meat supply, make it financially out of reach for the masses and people are forced to make do with what’s ‘available’…
“Biden’s Climate Plan Limits Americans to 4lbs of Beef Per Year…”
https://montanadailygazette.com/2021/04/24/bidens-climate-plan-limits-americans-to-4lbs-of-beef-per-year-would-kill-montana-economy/
But you can bet that prime cuts will be available for the Elite’s homes and for their favored restaurants like The French Laundry…
Soylent Green is people?
Soylent Green is people?
om:
And good eatin’!
What would vegan do?
“It has become especially common post-Trump, because Trump is a lawless Hitlerian figure in their minds (or they pretend that he is; I actually think they really believe it, however) and any tools are appropriate to oppose him and anyone who might support him and who ever supported him. ”
I have a conservative liberal friend, who hates woke and is good at making fun of it – but really DOES believe Trump is a lawless Hitler.
Part of the problem of demonizing Hitler too much is the unspoken but implied – everything is OK to oppose Hitler, and the often spoken (insert Republican here) is Hitler!!! So with Trump, Palin, Bush … Reagan, Nixon.
The FBI got rid of Nixon, who was good in some ways and lousy in other ways, but letting the FBI get rid of him was as big a mistake as the lousy Roe decision.
The appeal of pissing on Snowball’s plans to better the animal’s lot is quite habilitation forming, not only for Napoleon but the animal kingdom extant.
Georgetown University was founded by the Jesuits. This was when the Pope abolished the Jesuits, but some escaped from Poland to Russia. It was these Jesuits who founded GT.
St. Ignatius Loyola founded the Jesuits. He wrote, “hire only the best teachers.”
This GT law prof should be FIRED.
Oh, GT is nominally Catholic. How is it that a GT law prof actively supports abortion?
Georgetown allows its radically pro-choice student group on campus so why not a law professor?
TommyJay….”How many have a passable knowledge of the content of the Constitution?”
It strikes me that the whole *idea* of a Constitution is only meaningful to highly literate people, those who are comfortable reading and understanding complicated documents. A society in which people think in memes, images, soundbites, and 100-character tweets is not likely to have much patience for having a document get in the way of whatever they want at any given moment.
Related thoughts at my post Screen Size and Depth of Dialogue:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/67994.html
Neo…”Many women on the left have bought the “Handmaid’s Tale” sort of scenario which goes like this: rigid fundamentalist Christian men are trying to control the reproductive organs of women and will stop at nothing till they get total control.”
There was a group in Handmaid’s Tale costumes at my local shopping center a couple of weeks ago. (I was surprised the see a couple of black guys among them)
It’s not well-known, but the author of the book got the idea from when she lived in Afghanistan and observed the treatment of women in that society. It would have been really nice if she had mentioned that fact in a foreword or afterword.
It is about religion, but not in the sense that Feldman believes. Rather it is about her religion, Progressivism. Dobbs strikes directly at one of the sacraments of Progressivism, abortion.
It really is a religion. It is faith-based, excluding reason and logic. It fills the place of religion for those too “sophisticated” to admit the need for religion.
I’m very confused when people on the left start, in all media, talking about Trump as “lawless” and “ripping up the Constitution”.
Where did he do that? When did he do this? I do have a very close Trump-hating friend, but early on we decided to stop talking politics. Not because I got upset-he did.
JFM–I read this almost every day, the casual statement that the Republican party has embraced authoritarianism and that Trump was a lawless dictator. There is never any explanation, just as there is none for the “everyone knows” assumption that Trump’s term was nonstop “chaos.” It’s amazing how many people will read assertions like this in the paper, or hear them on TV, and adopt them serenely and uncritically.
Geoffrey,
That insect factory, according to the article you linked to, is to raise insects to feed farm raised fish.
Fish food, not human food.
jon baker:
Are you inferring that people would have a choice in what they want to eat? Nope, it’s the WEF here already (under the bed or in the closet). 🙂
Not you, but Geoffrey.
Would a Vegan eat Soylent Green, since it’s people?
You get rid of nitrogen, you can’t grow food, people starve, that’s the point, that’s what paul ehrlich wanted, so he created the spectre of overpopulation, but you look at sri lanka, ghana, netherlands now germany, the uk next any country following esg is planning it’s own immolation,
if you’re trying to destroy the country, any obstacle would be considered chaos, now they considering this rolling dumpster fire, when men are women, where baby formula is a luxury, where air travel is near impossible the new normal,
Others have noticed that most famines result from politicians, not natural events.
“But I’ve heard other people I know state with great conviction that this is all about religion, and nothing can dissuade them because of course they are mind-readers – as is Feldman. ”
Feldman has a point. After all doesn’t religion say “Thou shall not kill”.
Thou shall not murder
Richard Nieporent:
Not only is Miguel cervantes correct – the commandment is about murder and not about killing – but you need to read the Dodds ruling and you will see it is not about religion. In fact it allows states to have abortion rules as they see fit, it merely takes the decision out of federal hands. It has to do with who has the power to make laws about abortion, not about what those laws will be.
Georgetown seems to unacquainted with the constitution or disdainful of same.
Michael cervantes:
It seems to be the specialty of some Georgetown law professors. See this for a previous example.
Thats who came to mind now a dozen?? Years ago sandra fluke came to town to subvert their ethics code.
neo,
Wow, this is a tough crowd. My comment was supposed to have been a joke. I was trying to make fun of Feldman for attacking religious people for being against murder.
Richard Nieporent:
Gotta put that little smiley face on there 🙂 .
Swelling with righteousness.
Self-righteousness. It sure is swell!