my read is he's never even considered the possibility that you shouldn't assume good faith and it's so earth shattering to him that the best he can muster is "maybe the student has a point but i'm not ready to concede that or even think too hard on it just yet" - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

fleerultra.bsky.social • 387 days ago

my read is he's never even considered the possibility that you shouldn't assume good faith and it's so earth shattering to him that the best he can muster is "maybe the student has a point but i'm not ready to concede that or even think too hard on it just yet"

Comments

pfish.zone•387 days ago

yeah, that sounds about right

teucrian.bsky.social•387 days ago

My read is that the interlocutor in the professors head is a colleague or a fellow student with whom you are having a spirited debate that has rules and etiquette. The interlocutor for the student is the Supreme Court actually making decisions of consequence for Americans.

pfish.zone•387 days ago

and more specifically that the latter is not actually following similar rules as the former

modernmulligan.bsky.social•387 days ago

He thinks we have to naively assume good faith by GOP judges to maintain civil society but we don’t. How to deal with judiciary tyranny is answered in federalist paper 81 and it’s that the legislature tells them to fuck off. Law professors don’t like that so they act like it doesn’t exist.

h00rayforstuff.bsky.social•387 days ago

It’s like people hearing about heliocentrism for the first time

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply