5 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
joe alter's avatar

So obey in advance?

Ben, there ARE linguistic ambiguities in their opinion, particularly in THAT portion of their opinion. I think those ambiguities are intentional, because if they mean what you think they mean, then they have gone outside their Article III powers. However if alternatively, the lower court (and their colleagues) are interpreting them overly broad, then they have plausible deniability, they did made the same claim that people interpret Bruen wrong, quite recently. If you don't confront them. as a lawyer about the ambiguities, and contradictions, then you let the broadest interpretation prevail. As officers of the court, you have a responsibility to represent your clients and use EVERY TOOL IN THE BOX.

The entire legal profession makes an enormous mistake, by not confronting them wherever they are simply wrong, or ambiguous. and by treating the ruling that way on a test, as a teacher you are complicit.

Expand full comment
joe alter's avatar

It's your responsibility as a lawyer, and your student's responsibility as future lawyers, to MAKE THEM SAY THE QUIET PART OUTLOUD, and not just mumble nonsense to support their arguments

Expand full comment
joe alter's avatar

so, as your student, I would deduct points from my esteem for making such a question "wrong"

Expand full comment
joe alter's avatar

you have to make them actually say "because we can do anything we want", if you presume that to be the case, you give them that power by default

Expand full comment
joe alter's avatar

I say that with the deepest affection and esteem, but law schools have to teach lawyers to check the supreme court or nobody will do it. It's more important than being right about how they'll rule on a given case, it's (particularly now) the most important part of their job, particularly when they do pro-bono work.

Expand full comment