this is probably the most “this is why we had to do a podcast” post we’ve ever seen - ThreadSky

fivefourpod.bsky.social • 47 days ago

this is probably the most “this is why we had to do a podcast” post we’ve ever seen

That's a good question. But I think my answer is yes. I wouldn't assume good faith if someone made argument that we should, as normative matter, go back to Dred Scott. But if argument were that case was wrongly decided as a legal matter, I would try to understand and respond as best I could....

Comments

lawyergeoff.bsky.social•47 days ago

As a Minnesota law alum I would like to know who to see about a refund?

zyla.top•47 days ago

EVERYTHING is abstract to these fuckin ghouls

aaaac.bsky.social•47 days ago

It’s kind of Kafkaesque, we can argue about it so we must argue about because arguing about it is inherently good. Arguing as a concept must always be legitimate. The rules are the rules and therefore must make sense.

pophouse.bsky.social•47 days ago

this is your brain on legal discourse 🍳

any questions?

schwappek.bsky.social•47 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/nytpitchbot.bsky.social/post/3lgj267dsdk2u

dingokayfabe.bsky.social•47 days ago

Definitely an idiot usefulness up for debate

tkgriffith.bsky.social•47 days ago

These law profs have lost sight between an assumption that can be overcome by evidence to the contrary and an *unrebuttable* presumption that requires us all to stick our heads in the sand

tkgriffith.bsky.social•47 days ago

Flashbacks to Trump v Hawaii pod

nirgalm25.bsky.social•47 days ago

Funny that he gets "good faith" backwards. Someone who argues Dred Scott was rightly decided (he got turned around and wrote "wrongly") as a normative matter is being honest about their beliefs. Someone who argues it was decided rightly as a legal matter but was normatively wrong is actually lying.

jaimes20.bsky.social•46 days ago

They’re going to chop away at the 14th A, aren’t they?

ch00-ch00.bsky.social•47 days ago

We went to war with the last group of people that demanded we go back to Dread-Scott.

taibhseban.bsky.social•47 days ago

lawyers, am I right?

photodave219.fightins.online•47 days ago

What evidence over the past 40 years do we have that the Republican Party negotiates in good faith?

patwachter.bsky.social•47 days ago

“My most racist colleague has put forth the argument that we should kick brown people out of the country. Let me begin by stating that I believe he is making this argument with no racial animus.”

alworiginal.bsky.social•46 days ago

I’ve been reading “Against Constitutional Originalism” by Gienapp (historian here) and I really don’t see where these lawyers get off thinking they can make law this way. The Constitution was made to be above the law, in a sense, & the meaning of it can only be debated thru amendment in Congress. 1/

alworiginal.bsky.social•46 days ago

If I can see this, why can’t they? Even I know the president or judiciary cannot unilaterally change our frame work of government. What is going on with lawyers? God complex?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply