by
ERIN
SCHAFF/POOL/AFP
via
Getty
Images)
“Every
time
I
listen
to
a
lawyer-trained
representative
saying
we
should
criminalize
free
speech
in
some
way,”
Justice
Sotomayor
told
a
New
York
Law
School
audience
this
morning,
“I
think
to
myself,
that
law
school
failed.”
Supreme
Court
justices…
they’re
just
like
us!
If
you’ve
followed
the
news
this
week,
you’ve
probably
muttered
the
same
thing.
The
most
dangerous
place
in
Washington
right
now
is
between
a
news
camera
and
some
grandstanding
hack
demanding
prosecutions
for
anyone
who
hasn’t
yet
tattooed
Charlie
Kirk
high-fiving
Jesus
on
their
chest.
The
justice
has
had
no
shortage
of
opportunities
to
mutter
this
lament
under
her
breath
this
week,
as
the
most
dangerous
place
in
Washington,
D.C.
is
now
between
a
news
camera
and
any
Republican
official
demanding
criminal
prosecutions
for
anyone
who
hasn’t
yet
gotten
a
tattoo
of
Charlie
Kirk
high-fiving
Jesus.
Some
outlets
interpreted
Sotomayor’s
remarks
as
directly
aimed
at
Pam
Bondi,
Stetson
Law’s
most
regrettable
export,
who
declared
the
administration
would
use
the
Kirk
killing
as
a
pretext
to
crack
down
on
“hate
speech.”
But
since
Sotomayor
said,
“representative,”
she
likely
intended
to
cast
a
broader
net
in
the
direction
of
Capitol
Hill.
That
said,
the
former
Florida
attorney
general
has
made
a
career
out
of
proving
that
a
J.D.
is
not
an
inoculation
against
constitutional
illiteracy,
so
the
shoe
fits.
The
New
York
Law
School
event
follows
her
Stephen
Colbert
appearance,
where
the
justice
tried
to
extend
charity
to
her
colleagues
over
the
shadow
docket
order
authorizing
the
administration
to
use
racial
profiling
to
target
people
for
looking
Latino,
speaking
Spanish,
and
having
a
low-wage
job.
The
cursed
waltz
of
the
Supreme
Court
is
that
you
can
call
your
colleagues
democracy-shredding
maniacs
in
an
opinion,
but
in
public,
they’re
all
expected
to
insist
everyone’s
just
doing
their
best.
It’s
a
relic
of
a
bygone
era
where
people
think
the
public
will
have
more
faith
in
institutions
—
especially
the
critical
institutions
that
uphold
constitutional
order
—
if
they
think
everyone
involved
means
well.
At
this
moment
in
history,
however,
it
hits
most
people
as
apathy.
If
the
officials
fighting
over
these
profoundly
consequential
questions
—
whether
in
the
judiciary
or
Congress
—
can
go
pal
around
afterward,
most
Americans
just
take
that
as
proof
that
it’s
all
empty
theater.
That’s
why
Colbert’s
interjection
as
something
of
an
anger
translator,
keeping
the
audience
grounded
in
the
stakes,
made
that
interview
click.
Speaking
to
this
morning’s
law
school
audience,
Sotomayor’s
comments
keyed
into
a
broader
lament
about
civics
education
circling
the
drain.
Rhetorically,
but
also
hauntingly,
she
asked,
“Do
we
understand
what
the
difference
is
between
a
king
and
a
president?”
Great
question,
but
Sonia…
the
call
is
coming
from
inside
your
office.
She
sits
on
a
bench
with
colleagues
who
hear
that
question
and
respond
with
80-page
love
letters
to
Henry
VIII.
After
the
Supreme
Court
decided
that
presidents
can
order
SEAL
Team
6
to
kill
a
political
rival
without
judicial
review,
and
the
administration
took
that
as
a
greenlight
to
start
blowing
up
fishing
boats,
while
saying,
“um,
they
maybe
had
drugs.”
Imagine
spending
all
day
spinning
how
100%
confident
the
government
is
that
they’ve
hit
only
drug
shipments
only
to
have
this
mentally
hazy
dingbat
go
in
front
of
the
cameras
and
tell
commercial
fishers
that
they
probably
should
be
afraid
they’ll
get
accidentally
blown
up.
I’d
imagine
it’s
a
special
kind
of
Sisyphean
hell,
watching
your
work
constantly
undermined
day
after
day
until
a
teenaged
intern
named
HugeNuts
decides
to
fire
you
over
Slack.
Some
critics
might
quip
that
the
law
schools
haven’t
failed
because
these
officials
are
all
fully
aware
that
none
of
their
cheap
politicking
is
constitutional…
they
just
don’t
care.
Yet,
that’s
actually
a
deeper
layer
of
failure.
Law
schools
aren’t
exclusively
about
doctrinal
knowledge,
they’re
supposed
to
impress
on
their
students
some
sort
of
free-floating
respect
for
the
law.
Knowing
the
law
and
choosing
to
lie
to
the
public
about
it
is
far
worse
than
graduating
someone
who
might
not
know
every
part
of
the
First
Amendment
(not
that
something
like
that
would
describe,
say,
a
Supreme
Court
justice).
Or
maybe
these
people
really
didn’t
learn
how
the
law
works.
Either
way,
if
you
still
believe
law
schools
exist
to
churn
out
an
intellectual
priesthood
bound
by
ethics,
animated
by
civic
duty,
and
committed
to
the
rule
of
law,
then,
yes,
those
law
schools
failed.
On
the
other
hand,
the
law
school
still
cashed
the
tuition
check,
so
did
it
really
fail?
Earlier:
Kristi
Noem
Thinks
Habeas
Corpus
Is
A
Deportation
Spell
SCOTUS
Greenlights
SEAL
Team
6
Solution
Justice
Sotomayor
Lets
Stephen
Colbert
Say
What
She
Can’t
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.