The @NoahRFeldman op-ed is deeply disingenuous.
You cannot use the sentence “elections have consequences” in a post-2016 op-ed supporting a SCOTUS nominee and spend all of one sentence discussing Merrick Garland.
You cannot use the sentence “elections have consequences” in a post-2016 op-ed supporting a SCOTUS nominee and spend all of one sentence discussing Merrick Garland.
For a constitutional scholar to fail to appreciate that we’re in the middle of a republic-defining authoritarian power grab - Trump this very week said he would not accept the results of this election! - to blithely support your friend for the highest court in the land is bizarre
The essence of the op-ed is “my friend is very very smart, and therefore deserves to be on the court.”
As Bharat notes, this is endemic of a much broader problem in elite academia where raw intellect is more important than any other attribute.
As Bharat notes, this is endemic of a much broader problem in elite academia where raw intellect is more important than any other attribute.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BharatRamamurti/status/1309867700311805952
The Supreme Court decides who lives and who dies, who is a person, who stays in this country and who we exclude, who is President, who gets to marry and who cannot, etc.
To frame this as a question of who has the highest IQ is laughable.
To frame this as a question of who has the highest IQ is laughable.
I’ll say it: it is also very, very dumb. The whole thing.
Sad day.
Sad day.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
