NEW: Students at Yale Law School are responding to Alito’s leaked opinion with calls to accost their conservative classmates through "unrelenting daily confrontation" and toss the Constitution by the wayside.
Members of the law school’s conservative Federalist Society, first year law student Shyamala Ramakrishna said in an Instagram post, are "conspirators in the Christo-fascist political takeover we all seem to be posting frantically about."
Why, she asked, are they still "coming to our parties" and "laughing in the library" without "unrelenting daily confrontation?"
Some of her classmates were less moderate.
"It’s not time for ‘reform,’" first-year law student Leah Fessler, a onetime New York Times freelancer, wrote on Instagram. "Democratic Institutions won’t save us."
It is unclear how Fessler will apply that view as a legal intern this summer for federal judge Lewis Liman.
Fessler isn’t alone. "Neither the constitution nor the courts—nor the fucking illusion of ‘democracy’—are going to save us," first-year student Melisa Olgun posted.
"How can we possibly expect a document, drafted by wealthy, white, landowning men, to protect those who face marginalization that is the direct result of the very actions of the founders?"
Contacted for comment, the students decried "leaks" of their social media posts and said the Washington Free Beacon was not "authorized" to publish them.
"This was posted PRIVATELY, on a private story, and was clearly leaked to you," Fessler said in an email, adding that the Free Beacon was "in no way authorized" to use the message.
“The post was on a private account on a private story that was sent to you without my knowledge," Olgun said. "You are in no way authorized to use it or my name in your story."
The replies may have been a tacit invocation of copyright laws that ban the dissemination of photos without their owner’s consent. Publishing private Instagram posts, a lawyer might argue, violates intellectual property rights.
But Adam Candeub, an intellectual property expert at Michigan State University College of Law, called that argument "bullshit.
It’s not clear copyright would even apply," Candeub said. "I wonder what they’re teaching at Yale Law School."
Eugene Volokh, a professor of First Amendment law at UCLA School of Law, said the copyright argument was a stretch. Jack Balkin, a First Amendment professor at Yale Law School, did not respond to a request for comment.
The reactions at Yale Law School, long ranked the top school in the country, reflect the radicalism of a younger generation of law students—and, some have speculated, of the leaker himself—who believe that long-standing legal norms perpetuate oppression.
Olgun, for one, lamented that the "‘liberal’ legal discipline will continue to bend over backwards to uphold the decorum, norms, and the sanctity of an institution that serves only those who benefit from originalism."
Such sentiments are widespread at Yale Law School. In March, nearly two-thirds of the student body signed an open letter condemning the Federalist Society for hosting a bipartisan panel on free speech. freebeacon.com/wp-content/upl…
The letter—which Fessler, Olgun, and Ramakrishna signed—also condemned the law school for calling "armed police" on "peaceful student protesters," who caused so much chaos at the panel that the speakers had to be escorted to a squad car outside. freebeacon.com/campus/hundred…
Similar scenes have unfolded outside the homes of Supreme Court justices in the wake of the leak. Though it is illegal to picket a judge’s home "with the intent of influencing" a case, 100s of protesters did just that to Roberts and Kavanaugh, raising concerns about their safety.
The Biden Administration does not appear to share those concerns: then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday that "we certainly continue to encourage [peaceful protests] outside of judges' homes."
Congress has likewise taken a page from the Yale Law playbook. Days after a pro-life advocacy office was firebombed in Madison, Wis., House Democrats tried to kill a bipartisan bill that would beef up security for Supreme Court justices. freebeacon.com/courts/house-d…
Nearly half those justices are graduates of Yale Law School, which churns out hundreds of law clerks each year. The school has an outsized effect on the legal system, producing a shocking volume of judges, academics, and government officials.
Since 1789, more than 4 percent of all federal judges have graduated from Yale Law. Alumni of the top-ranked school account for 17 percent of new law professors and three of the Federal Trade Commission’s five commissioners, including agency chair Lina Khan.
As the law school’s student body has radicalized, some judges are hoping to hem in its prestige. In March, D.C. Circuit judge Laurence Silberman warned his colleagues against hiring Yale students. freebeacon.com/latest-news/fe…
"The latest events at Yale Law School," Silberman wrote, "prompt me to suggest that students who are identified as those willing to disrupt any such panel discussion should be noted.”
“All federal judges—and all federal judges are presumably committed to free speech—should carefully consider whether any student so identified should be disqualified from potential clerkships."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The naive Bayesian argument for the leaker being a conservative is that 2/3rds of the Court (and the clerks) are conservative.
But delegitimizing the court would make that majority less valuable. So conservatives had a strong incentive NOT to leak the opinion.
By contrast, damaging the court's legitimacy could serve the near-term interests of liberals, since they won't dominate it for the foreseeable future.
Then again, the court used its legitimacy to constrain Trump's "stop the steal" antics in 2020.
As @jawillick points out, "one reason partisans work so hard to control the court’s membership is their belief that rulings will be widely respected and difficult to defy."
In October 2021, the Washington Post published an article about a law clerk who allegedly sent racist texts. The post named the clerk and contacted her judge, William H. Pryor of the 11th circuit, for comment.
"Allegedly" is an important qualifier because, while there is a fair bit of evidence that the clerk sent the texts, there are no actual screenshots of them. And the clerk's former employer claimed the messages were fake.
Why did the Post publish the story? Ruth Marcus thought it was important that "a sitting federal judge is credentialing someone with this kind of hateful statement in her background, and perhaps grooming her for a post that’s even more important, a Supreme Court clerkship."
SCOOP: Utah public health officials were warned that allocating COVID drugs based on race violated federal law—but did so anyway with the backing of the Biden administration.
Utah’s points-based system for prioritizing COVID patients, which allocated more points for being non-white than for having congestive heart failure, troubled two Utah law professors. In September 2021, they informed the doctors who designed the system that it was likely illegal.
"The use of non-white race really set off alarm bells," Teneille Brown, a professor at University of Utah's law school, said in an email.
The "consensus among legal academics," Brown's colleague Leslie Francis added, is that a system like Utah's would "violate federal law."
Start in NYC, where Bill de Blasio signed a bill banning natural gas hookups in newly constructed buildings. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the law would "eliminate emissions" by requiring electric heat.
There was just one problem: Almost all of New York City's electricity comes from natural gas. That means electrifying buildings will increase emissions rather than reduce them, energy experts told the Washington Free Beacon.
It’s just too offensive to the average American’s moral intuitions. It’s one thing to argue that you can’t kill one person to save another (the life of the mother exception). It’s another to argue that it’s better to let two people die than to kill one of them.
(Technically, the second argument is that it’s impermissible to kill one person to save another EVEN IF the alternative is that both people die. It’s a deontological claim about what’s permitted, not a value-theory claim about what’s better.)
If they backpedal because of the media outcry—which has been deliberately engineered by a clerk for the US Supreme Court—they will effectively be giving in to PR terrorism, and destroying what little legitimacy the court has left.
Upholding Roe now is institutional suicide.
If they don't backpedal, it may be in part because they recognize the institutional injury that would do to the court.
In which case the liberal clerk will have actually helped bring about the very outcome they sought to prevent. A deserved punishment.