Not a “good one,” but any one worth the term. The problem here is that they’re not worth that honorific. And it is one, that has expectations and duties, just like our profession as attorneys.
That is what a good one would do. But a great one---a brilliant scholar who has published important articles in the top l. revs. & groundbreaking books---he's not going to give in to the woke mob so easily. He will stand tall & tell them, "No fair! It was an op-ed! Respect our professional norms!" 🙃
There have been over a dozen law professors and more historians who have thoroughly debunked this new theory of birthright citizenship. Even if you decide that they’re all wrong and you’re right— you need to credential your work on paper before you take it to the streets to (mis)educate the public.
Disagree on this Mike. I think the Cornell law review article was very explicit that there is no controversy here because the history is entirely one sided. You’ve got to hammer that point home to stop courts from picking up the bs history.
When the NYTimes publishes an op-ed, I don’t think Anthony is the one whose giving the attention. He’s trying to combat a view that is already getting attention with or without him
I understand the instinct. But talk to people in biology. In climate science. This is standard playbook stuff, and it really does give it more legitimacy than walking away. We've seen it before, time after time.
I agree with this with regard to things like creationism, where they are trying to create a public controversy. I think the goal here is to give the Supreme Court something to hang on, and they don’t need public buy-in. If this is left unchallenged, you end up with a line in a majority opinion…
that there has not been a single legal scholar who has disputed Wurman and Barnett’s argument. If you beat the argument to pieces and crush its legitimacy in the eyes of the legal community and broader public, maybe Roberts’ institutionalism and Barrett’s rule of law-ism/capacity for shame prevail.
Strong disagree. This is plain language stuff. The only way there's cover for anyone (beyond Alitomas) to move is if they can point to divergent academic views.
Although engagement isn’t the goal, it’s to legitimize the controversy for purposes of SCOTUS, which is why forceful pushback and pointing out that it’s not a good faith argument.
So much this. I listened to the conversation w/Smiley but now I’m trying to figure out where Wurman learned the stuff he’s claiming in terms of what went down from roughly the time James VI/I assumed the throne through *at least* the beginning of the 18th century. Also, feudalism what???
It’s nuts. I kid you not, I was scanning my shelves looking at books covering the Stuarts, disputes between the absolutists and the constitutionalists, and the politics of the period(s) to see if, maybe, a book from, say, the 1950s or earlier might spark a memory of his interpretation, but no.
Comments
Every time you engage with him on academic terms you give him a win. He's a bad-faith actor playing a game. He doesn't need to persuade.
It's the creationist "teach the controversy" game applied to immigration. And it worked pretty well there.
Engagement is what he wants and you're giving it to him.