Don't wanna be grumpy old guy but: ACB's views on climate change really don't matter. Her legal opinion is that the vast bulk of the administrative state is unconstitutional, including the parts devoted to mitigating climate change. That's what matters.
If she "believed" climate change but still held that view, it wouldn't be any better. Conversely, if she was a hardcore skeptic but viewed the administrative state as legitimate, it would be a vast improvement. We need to start judging public figures based on their roles/powers.
I guess I just wish Dems -- both commenters & legislators -- spent more time explicitly defending a progressive view of LAW. They should be bashing originalism & defending a more sane approach. That's what is bad about ACB; that's the disagreement that functionally matters.
I mean, any R commentator or legislator can deliver absurd Federalist Society cliches at the drop of a hat. Cons have a deranged view of law, but they *have a view*. What is Dems' view? Why is it better? That's what I want to hear about.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
