But Chemerinsky probably wrote it that way because (1) opening sentences in NYT essays are traditionally overwrought or stupid and (2) his life’s work is about the rule of law and (3) this fascist shit is making him extremely agitated. The REST of the essay is a perfectly reasonable discussion. - ThreadSky

kenwhite.bsky.social • 11 days ago

But Chemerinsky probably wrote it that way because (1) opening sentences in NYT essays are traditionally overwrought or stupid and (2) his life’s work is about the rule of law and (3) this fascist shit is making him extremely agitated. The REST of the essay is a perfectly reasonable discussion.

Comments

sumitapahwa.bsky.social•11 days ago

He probably also didn't write the lede himself. Or the headline.

kenwhite.bsky.social•11 days ago

The LA Times once changed my headline “Hate Speech Is Usually Protected Speech” to “ACTUALLY, Hate Speech is Protected Speech.”

My working theory is the editor thought I was a dick and deserved it.

sumitapahwa.bsky.social•11 days ago

There's a reason the writer-editor antipathy is as strong as the violin-viola one...

thebluemage.bsky.social•11 days ago

Nothing wrong with a viola that a saw can't fix.

ablativmeatshld.bsky.social•11 days ago

I mean...

kenwhite.bsky.social•11 days ago

I doubt it you pinned Chemerinsky down he would deny that democracy can also fail by packing the court with FedSoc people who issue rulings that anti-democratic fascists are perfectly happy to follow. But he’s upset, reasonably, writing it. We’re upset, reasonably, reading it.

netrootsradio.com•11 days ago

I don’t believe we understand what is in the realm of the possible.

We are only limited by our imagination.

possum-fossil.bsky.social•11 days ago

I don't read all of your posts but this feels like seeing late- series Alan Alda for the first time.

And that guy gets a lot of shit but I don't mean it in a negative way.

Fuck it. Fuck the Bastards. "Fuck You shall be the Whole of the Law." Their call, not ours. Nobody said they were smart. v0v

dbtacos88.bsky.social•11 days ago

Not that lawyers are special in despair, but utter destruction rule of law feels like the death of not only the oath we took, but also the entire vocation—nothing matters. Is that overwrought? Yes. But do I feel it, and do I see it in chemerinsky (who taught con law for how long?) Also yes.

tim-doin-tim-stuff.bsky.social•11 days ago

I'm upset, reasonably, living it

vryedni.bsky.social•11 days ago

I don't find that sentence excessive. "Democracy rests on a single question" doesn't mean it rests *exclusively* on that question. If I tell you your life depends on a single test for the progress of your chemo, it doesn't mean you can't be killed by a heart attack or by walking in front of a bus.

pizzmoe.bsky.social•11 days ago

It seemed perfectly reasonable.

talentedripley.bsky.social•11 days ago

This comment is typical
Pretending Dems have been tyrannical. Did I miss something?

mcnietzsche.bsky.social•11 days ago

He employs John Yoo though, no one made him do that

weedlawyer.bsky.social•11 days ago

You know what, that's a good point

susandespres.bsky.social•11 days ago

Screw that guy, he wouldn’t give grace to Jesus Christ on the cross.

roobooshmoo.bsky.social•11 days ago

Actually, John Yoo had tenure at Berkeley Law long before Chemerinsky became Dean. See, e.g. : https://www.law.berkeley.edu/article/the-torture-memos-and-academic-freedom/

mcnietzsche.bsky.social•11 days ago

Fair enough but also he should have fired Yoo for defending torture

sonofgor.bsky.social•10 days ago

Why? Is this the moralizer platform?

roobooshmoo.bsky.social•11 days ago

While I don't necessarily agree with the former Dean who wrote the statement I linked to, he makes the argument that it's basically not possible under the Academic Senate rules. (And Chemerinsky didn't become didn't become Dean until 2017, more than a decade after John Yoo's return to Berkeley Law.)

urban-achiever.bsky.social•11 days ago

The whole point of tenure is that one cannot be dismissed for that sort of transgression.

ricfouad.bsky.social•10 days ago

Says who? In what universe does *law school* not have every right/duty to break w jurist who trampled law to abet crimes against humanity? Think he’d be there if victims weren’t Muslim/Arab? Pls: Ex A in how libs paved Trump fascism path, normalized unspeakable: Nuremberg defeats any tenure claim.

thulcandrian.bsky.social•11 days ago

I’m realizing that many of the reactions I’m getting across my life right now are a product of this environment. I’ve started calling it out during work calls - just to acknowledge that everyone is feeling some shit right now and we all may not be thinking clearly either

heywoodjablowme420.bsky.social•11 days ago

I got annoyed because, unless I massively misunderstand something about how federal judges/courts work, him saying judges have "no power to enforce their orders" smacks of surrendering in advance.

auntmg.bsky.social•11 days ago

I agree.

0kultra.bsky.social•11 days ago

It's mostly mechanically true in the sense that justices ain't personally gonna go pop a cap in someone's ass for defying SCOTUS , they have to rely on broader system for that activity to take place.

heywoodjablowme420.bsky.social•11 days ago

Judges have the power to deputize law enforcement to carry out their orders. They have the power to appoint receiverships to freeze and seize assets. The US Marshals are a federal agency but are required under law to enforce the decisions of courts. That's an open question, not a given.

mushuweasel.bsky.social•11 days ago

The rule of law is only a thing so long as those who hold power (financial, social, physical) defer to it.

stkeppler.bsky.social•11 days ago

And living through it.

As lawyers we've dedicated our professional lives to the rule of law. Right now, I feel rudderless

stanzanarotti.bsky.social•11 days ago

I did learn some interesting facts from the piece, like the mythology surrounding Ex Parte Merryman.

talentedripley.bsky.social•11 days ago

Thanks. It’s definitely journalists at major orgs I’m feeling the least patience with… but they r struggling too :)

arielglenn.bsky.social•11 days ago

OK, I read the piece, and I don't really have an issue with the opening sentence, as long as we understand that the writer is (I think) afraid that we will confront this issue imminently and then all bets are off. We have to get through that first (how?) and then the next crisis, and the next...

latrellburwell.bsky.social•11 days ago

Chemerinsky is not a perfect person, but I do give him the benefit of the doubt on stuff because his hornbook on federal courts got me through my clerkship and his BARBRI lectures were amusing.