Jesus Christ, you wanna see an octogenarian get glazed by the masses, type in “Clarence Thomas” on the search bar on X some Saturday night.

Basically very little by way of challenges. None taken very seriously. The answer, of course, is that the line between law and politics is historically contingent. It is itself constructed in law, politics, and the clash of institutions.

So generally in the USA when someone talks SOP they’re doing horizontal. Yes, vertical federalism work came in, but your reply is mostly a dodge. The Q is about horizontal.

Okay. For most of American history federal courts did not entertain SOP challenges to federal statutes. Did we just screw this up in a solid line for over a hundred years or what?

I think that’s bananas. What is or is not political doesn’t come from a constitutional baseline.

Mode of governing authority where political questions are subsumed by courts over time, yeah. I admit, people struggle with this idea for reasons that aren’t clear to me

Sorry, responding to quickly

If true, wouldn’t change my answers. This is the quicksand problem.

Mhmm. And then the question is, does juristocracy have distributional consequences. Ie, even if the political system is weakening, does juristocracy worsen the underlying dynamics in the long run. My bet is yes.

Sometimes I’m am juxtaposed with people who “like” law and courts. I don’t think that’s entirely right. We undermine both when we assign judges tasks that are beyond their competences. I believe in the majesty of, eg, the criminal jury. But you can’t let that slip into a juristocratic orientation.

Probably true. So we should just keep courts doing what they do in crim? That seems easy enough!

The anti-juristocracy guy does not play favorites! 🙌🏻

Bingo. Terrible for structuring the wielding of state power. Also corrupts the legal academy.

a woman in a pink dress is saying i said what i said ALT: a woman in a pink dress is saying i said what i said

🤷🏻‍♂️

I just wish that were her full-time job.

But see

This looms over the “is the presidential records act unconstitutional” question. It’s going to occur to one of these people, “oh shit if Congress can make the presidency accountable to the public, what’s that means for us?”

You’re brining to mind the “banality of evil”

Just saying. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I am genuinely against all Supreme Court podcasts—they are bad for our souls. But there’s a difference between her and the ladies of Strict Scrutiny. Isgur is just not very smart.

The first sentence below is just one of the most important facts today about the SCOTUS chattering class.

Just don’t want to critique in a way that reifies law as anything else than purposive public policy

. . .

I mean you know this. Your fav, most beloved American legal doctrine has been recast and beat to submission if it has any pedigree at all. But we all need to pretend these things are sacred. It’s all just make believe.

See eg, the court’s commerce clause jurisprudence, taxing and spending, executive power, etc.

I just think any too sanctified discussion of doctrine just ends up taking it all just a tad too seriously.

This is not a dig at Dan. It’s like, the relationship between newest MQD and what came before is open textured and subject to different interpretations. Not much hinges on it.

Doctrine are invented and reinvented, refound and subverted all the time. Why is this hard?

More than anything else this reveals just how impulsive the major questions doctrine revamp is. It all ultimately stemmed from Roberts's personal antipathy to a regulation, and everything since has been a dishonest attempt to dress it up so that he doesn't look like he's just shooting from the hip.

Opinion | This Is Not a Man in Control of Himself

Gift to good summary by @jamellebouie.net about how DJT policies are ineffective, unsustainable, and will be reversed. Not minimizing the damage they have already inflicted on the country and the world.
www.nytimes.com/2026/04/15/o...