Image 01 Image 03

Georgetown Law Prof Slammed for Calling Supreme Court ‘Actively Rogue’

Georgetown Law Prof Slammed for Calling Supreme Court ‘Actively Rogue’

“This is a breathtaking thread from a law professor”

The meltdown of the left over recent Supreme Court decisions continues apace.

FOX News reports:

Critics hit Georgetown law professor for calling Supreme Court ‘actively rogue’: ‘The rot in legal academia’

Judicial experts and general observers hit a Georgetown Law professor for calling the Supreme Court “actively rogue” in a sharp Twitter thread Sunday.

“With an actively rogue Supreme Court, U.S. lawyers, legal scholars, and law schools have to reckon with how to practice, teach, and understand law without falling into complicity with lawlessness,” Professor Heidi Li Feldman began the thread.

The Supreme Court has recently issued several opinions unpopular with progressives, including voting to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion, and reversing a New York law that restricted people’s ability to carry concealed firearms in public.

Feldman, without naming the specific reasons she considered the court “rogue,” instructed law schools on how not to descend into “complicity with lawlessness,” while also blaming former President Trump for much of the current state of affairs.

“Ordinarily, there is strength and purpose in teaching, thinking about, and, in legal practice, arguing the failures of judges, legislators, and executives to fulfill requirements of rule of law and justice,” she said. “We expect an understanding of the failures to have *traction*.”

“With the rise of the Trump-Republican Party, this traction – the ability to argue within a shared expectation of commitment to rule of law and justice – has completely evaporated. Last term’s Supreme Court decisions are just the most recent high-profile evidence for this,” she continued…

Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley reacted, telling Fox News Digital that “denouncing opposing views as ‘lawless’ is merely a way to declaring your view of the law as the only acceptable view.”..

Gregg Nunziata, an attorney and the president of Rock Spring Public Policy, was another of the several judicial experts or observers to reject Feldman’s take on the Supreme Court and how law schools should be responding to recent rulings.

“This is a breathtaking thread from a law professor,” Nunziata said. “The inability to accept the legitimacy of an institution that’s not captured by one’s faction somehow couched as principled, rule of law based, heroics. This is welcome in elite law schools, but only if from the Left.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


JackinSilverSpring | July 12, 2022 at 2:05 pm

In fact, in the 2A case and in the Dobbs case, the Court most manifestly interpreted the Constitution as it was meant to be interpreted. The 14th Amendment extended the first 8 Amendments to the states. That included the 2nd Amendment. From the 14th Amendment on, states did not have the right to infinge on the right to keep and bear arms, yet some did with impunity. That now seems to have ended except for New York state which is trying a number of last minute end runs, which will eventually be anulled by the federal courts. On Dobbs, the Court’s decision was based on the simple fact that the Constitution has no penumbra, and that the Roe decision was wrongly decided. At some point I would hope the Court annulls substantive due process as well.

henrybowman | July 12, 2022 at 2:16 pm

She will be cancelled by her peers for this apostasy in 2, 3, 4, 5…

ahad haamoratsim | July 12, 2022 at 3:19 pm

I’m old enough to remember the early LBJ years when southern Democrats complained the Court had gone rogue and wanted to withdraw its jurisdiction over school desegregation cases.