In your piece for the symposium you address “the perception that there is something different, something more challenging, about teaching constitutional law today because the Supreme Court has been doing so many things, so quickly, that are so hard to justify.” You then move to claim that perception is wrong. From what I understand your evidence for that claim is that Dobbs, Bruen, and Bush v. Gore are not “power grabs” to the degree of the cases lauded by liberals that you listed. I don’t think I understand this point. Does a greater “power grab” necessarily imply that the cases are just as hard (or harder) to justify? I think the entire point is that in those cases concerning fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, the Court should be engaging in a “power grab”, rather than abdicating authority to States to infringe on those rights. The major point being that those “power grabs” are actually easier to justify than it would be to justify the relinquishing of power in Dobbs, Bruen, and Bush v. Gore. Am I misunderstanding your argument?
As a quick clarification, the Court didn't relinquish power in Bruen or Bush v. Gore -- in both cases it vindicated individual rights claims that other people thought it shouldn't.
So as you suggest, we have to think about what the Constitution actually says. The assumption in the essay is that Dobbs, Bruen, and Bush v. Gore are at least as justifiable under the Constitution as Cooper, Miranda, Baker, Reynolds, Gideon, etc....
Ah okay. Excuse my misunderstanding of the cases, especially Bush v. Gore- I wasn’t even alive for that and I’m not in law school yet.
Your background assumption that Bruen, Dobbs, and Bush v. Gore are at least as constitutionally sound as other cases makes more sense; it was just the phrasing of “power grab” that threw me off.
I appreciated the legal (academy) realist bent to your piece even though I fundamentally disagree with your approach to constitutional interpretation. Your conclusion section was very compelling despite all my qualms.
In your piece for the symposium you address “the perception that there is something different, something more challenging, about teaching constitutional law today because the Supreme Court has been doing so many things, so quickly, that are so hard to justify.” You then move to claim that perception is wrong. From what I understand your evidence for that claim is that Dobbs, Bruen, and Bush v. Gore are not “power grabs” to the degree of the cases lauded by liberals that you listed. I don’t think I understand this point. Does a greater “power grab” necessarily imply that the cases are just as hard (or harder) to justify? I think the entire point is that in those cases concerning fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, the Court should be engaging in a “power grab”, rather than abdicating authority to States to infringe on those rights. The major point being that those “power grabs” are actually easier to justify than it would be to justify the relinquishing of power in Dobbs, Bruen, and Bush v. Gore. Am I misunderstanding your argument?
As a quick clarification, the Court didn't relinquish power in Bruen or Bush v. Gore -- in both cases it vindicated individual rights claims that other people thought it shouldn't.
So as you suggest, we have to think about what the Constitution actually says. The assumption in the essay is that Dobbs, Bruen, and Bush v. Gore are at least as justifiable under the Constitution as Cooper, Miranda, Baker, Reynolds, Gideon, etc....
Ah okay. Excuse my misunderstanding of the cases, especially Bush v. Gore- I wasn’t even alive for that and I’m not in law school yet.
Your background assumption that Bruen, Dobbs, and Bush v. Gore are at least as constitutionally sound as other cases makes more sense; it was just the phrasing of “power grab” that threw me off.
I appreciated the legal (academy) realist bent to your piece even though I fundamentally disagree with your approach to constitutional interpretation. Your conclusion section was very compelling despite all my qualms.
Is "need I say more?" the new "self-recommending"?
Yes, I was going for the same idea but slightly less cryptic vibe. Does it work?