Let me be clear. Generally, law profs & PhD historians get along swimmingly. We fill in the puzzle together in the best ways. I love learning from legal scholarship. But originalist law profs? It's like you exist solely to insult our discipline and the work we do. Oh. And you're wrong. All the time. - ThreadSky

lmacthompson1.bsky.social • 47 days ago

Let me be clear. Generally, law profs & PhD historians get along swimmingly. We fill in the puzzle together in the best ways. I love learning from legal scholarship. But originalist law profs? It's like you exist solely to insult our discipline and the work we do. Oh. And you're wrong. All the time.

Reposted from Lauren MacIvor Thompson

An entire "literature?"

LOL.

Comments

thedeuce.bsky.social•47 days ago

Ilan Wurman sounds like one of those dipshit know-it-all's who is despised by everyone that is forced to associate with him.

samwang.bsky.social•47 days ago

"It was Gimli the dwarf who broke in suddenly. 'The words of this wizard stand on their heads,' he growled, gripping the handle of his axe."

samwang.bsky.social•47 days ago

Putting the "litter" back in literature.

hershovitz.bsky.social•47 days ago

The fact that such moron is on a law school faculty renders the competency of every one of that school’s graduates suspect. That he’s teaching is a disgrace.

slyprofessor.bsky.social•47 days ago

It took me longer than it should have to realize that the “original public meaning” rhetoric among originalists had nothing to do with how we actually study publicly possible meanings of language in history. 🤷‍♂️

oggie.bsky.social•46 days ago

I think it's funny to watch an originalist twist themselves into knots deciding that this time the words aren't what the words are.

Don't get me wrong, they are always strictly almond joy, but in this instance 'uphill battle' is the understatement.

carolmartinez.bsky.social•46 days ago

These people just pull shit out of their asses

brucewilson.bsky.social•46 days ago

I'm sure there are dozens of white supremacists pamphlets.

nickhare.bsky.social•47 days ago

History doesn't matter when you have your own original interpretation

melisa23.bsky.social•47 days ago

Omg and Wurman kept on whining about it that's always convincing

robtbell.bsky.social•47 days ago

Seems "originalist" really means "original ideas we dream up to fit our personal preferences."

jliedl.bsky.social•47 days ago

This "we get along with everyone except those ignorant originalists" is actually the opening point of my class introducing legal history to majors.

litigator53.bsky.social•47 days ago

The problems arise when the amateur historians on the Supreme Court get to work in search of a rationale (not credible, but 🤷🏼‍♂️) to support their chosen outcome.

scotgirl72.bsky.social•47 days ago

Aw lookit that little boy lol

bclelandgt.bsky.social•47 days ago

And let's not forget that some law reviews pass themselves off as peer-reviewed scholarship but contain what I'd characterize as crimes against history

emilysenefeld.bsky.social•47 days ago

what would the opposing literature be he's referencing, maybe...Stormfront? 😉

billygreg.bsky.social•47 days ago

Originalists are people who didn’t want to get a PhD in history, so they conflate their JD for a PhD in history.

leibovitz.bsky.social•47 days ago

They’re also usually wrong about the law part

iconoplasty.bsky.social•47 days ago

Any viewpoint on the Constitution that relies on the notion that Article V wasn't in the original document has some serious logical deficiencies.

mpanzitta.bsky.social•47 days ago

Speaking as a PhD, that kind of originalist point of view is a special kind of stupid

occamsspoon.bsky.social•47 days ago

What is the argument even?

katherinebrooks.bsky.social•29 days ago

Wow, if he was a professor at my law school, I’d demand a refund. How is there literature supporting a direct violation of 14th Amendment rights?

melissjpeltier.bsky.social•47 days ago

At SCOTUS, it seems that the Originalists are only originalists when it supports their desired outcome.

cleverhandles.bsky.social•47 days ago

Well yes, that's what happens when only oracles can divine meaning from ancient scripts that no one else can apparently read.

waterclosetl.bsky.social•47 days ago

You have textualism for when you want the clear original intent ignored. Also a good way to ignore what the text means

kristyrawson.bsky.social•47 days ago

They're also, inevitably, the faculty advisors for the Federalist Society student orgs. And T here's one of those in every law school in the country.

katherinebrooks.bsky.social•29 days ago

Every time the federalist society sends out event invites, I picture a villain roundtable over lunch.

jenniferawelch.bsky.social•47 days ago

One would think that literature would have been summarized in the filings, then. But it wasn’t.

markhax.bsky.social•47 days ago

I see Prof Wurman has a page on the Federalist Society website. https://fedsoc.org/contributors/ilan-wurman

celticdragon1.bsky.social•47 days ago

b-korb.bsky.social•47 days ago

One of the best things about Originalism is its flexibility

thomasfortenberry.bsky.social•46 days ago

An “entire literature” of articles that they have generated in Evangelical publications and think tanks. It’s what they do now to appear scientific and scholarly when trying to influence law and culture. Lessons learned from fighting dinosaurs on the Ark and losing.

coccinelle.bsky.social•46 days ago

Nah, they learned it from reading Ayn Rand. The technique is in their instruction manual.

thomasfortenberry.bsky.social•46 days ago

Plus, 1984.

toiletowner.men•47 days ago

When you say “let me be clear” are you doing Obama voice

alexanderwinn.bsky.social•45 days ago

Probably because academia is quite successfully gatekept via political discrimination and therefore self-selection that was always going to happen is heightened to a substantial degree. No, the existence of a small minority of scholars in the opposite direction does not disprove this.

nhaslam.bsky.social•47 days ago

We worked hard* to craft a bullshit interpretative method designed to be as conservative as possible while giving us the flexibility to pick any ruling in legal history that we do like, and it's very unfair of you not to treat it like it's...not that.

twilightmacaroni.bsky.social•47 days ago

SCOTUS: But did the Founders even INTEND for the constitution to be amended? *Alito shakes his head and mouths 'no'*

skilleahy.bsky.social•47 days ago

I remember being told that Robert Bork was a genius. Then I read something that he wrote about the War Powers Resolution. All I could think afterwards was what a hack.

skilleahy.bsky.social•47 days ago

Central to his argument was that Clement Zablocki was a secret opponent of the Vietnam War. Certainly Richard Nixon felt otherwise. And of course Bork had no evidence to support his argument.

lisadtrice.bsky.social•47 days ago

Oh, my! Watching this one from the sidelines ...

kevinmkruse.bsky.social•47 days ago

Amen

nathanielcgreen.bsky.social•47 days ago

On the plus side, though, this guy at least admits he's capable of feeling embarrassment.

billygreg.bsky.social•47 days ago

I blame Scalia and Bork for birthing an entire generation of right wing legal academics who can look at historians and say “Yeah, my Yale Law degree proves that I know more about history than you.“

jeevmon.bsky.social•46 days ago

Not just history. Also science - like what is an acceptable level of nitrous oxide emissions.

degolierthomas.bsky.social•47 days ago

I have my doubts he actually can feel that emotion rather than project what he feels the emotion might feel like

nathanielcgreen.bsky.social•47 days ago

Still better than Trump! (I'm trying to find a silver lining in this person's otherwise pitiful and reprehensible professional position). But your distinction is a worthy one: if he could feel shame for himself, he would never post something that ridiculous publicly

thecreweofthefancy.bsky.social•47 days ago

I had one as a PoliSci prof, caused me to drop the major and switch to history.

shotgunsawyer.bsky.social•47 days ago

Seems like a *super* cool dude, tho

toadescope.bsky.social•47 days ago

There is also "an entire literature" that rightly puts originalist nonsense in it's place: a dumpster

rebeccalove.bsky.social•47 days ago

And it was all written by John Eastman and his simps from the Claremont Institute.

pewtergod.bsky.social•47 days ago

Here's an article you might find interesting.
Or humorous, anyway.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4749322

pewtergod.bsky.social•47 days ago

That guy has a law degree???
Neither of Usha Vance's parents were US citizens at the time of her birth. Just saying.

jeevmon.bsky.social•46 days ago

And if she were to ever run for President or VO as a Democrat, they’d be saying she’s not eligible.

viperx83.bsky.social•47 days ago

This guy's bio at UMN is really something. I can't imaging proudly declaring that you'd used novel theories to mess with people who are so destitute that they live in tents.

jpheyrman.bsky.social•47 days ago

Especially after Trump v. US, I think it is important to put "originalist" in quotes when describing judges and "scholars."

daniellesw.bsky.social•47 days ago

SCOTUS in Dobbs: We searched Lexus-Nexus for the word “abortion” and it didn’t appear in the 17th or 18th centuries. Historians: Yes, it wasn’t called that.

lmacthompson1.bsky.social•46 days ago

Right! Ugh I have nightmares about this

noahgrand.bsky.social•47 days ago

I think every social science has that one group who gets enough members for a critical mass but embarrasses everyone else.

eruanion.bsky.social•47 days ago

Ilan is one of those who will decide that anyone who disagrees with him was a "birthright citizen" and thus isn't anymore

bcje.bsky.social•46 days ago

District court judges are not bound by "the literature," they are bound by precedent as Prof. Wurman knows. The supreme court settled this in 1898. The hypocrisy of the fed soc gang opining that lower courts should ignore precedent because it doesn't confirm with their preferred policy is something

alworiginal.bsky.social•47 days ago

The meaning of our Constitution shouldn’t be remade thru a different new legal “theory” by 3-5 men every 20 years.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply