by
Drew
Angerer/Getty
Images)
Prepare
the
world’s
tiniest
violin,
my
friends.
At
a
recent
Catholic
University
Law
School
event,
while
sharing
his
thoughts
on
life,
the
universe,
and
everything
with
his
former
clerk
Jenn
Mascott
(currently
nominated
to
the
Third
Circuit
despite
a
complete
lack
of
connections
to
the
state
of
Delaware),
Justice
Clarence
Thomas
explained
that
he
put
the
brakes
on
his
George
Washington
Law
teaching
gig
after
Dobbs
because
of
“unpleasantness.”
Oh
no!
The
horror.
Unpleasantness,
you
say?
What
an
absolute
snowflake.
He
didn’t
want
to
keep
teaching
a
class…
where
he
had
all
the
power,
controlled
the
syllabus,
the
grading,
and
the
air
conditioning.
A
class
populated
by
students
who,
almost
certainly,
skewed
mostly
his
way
(who
else
is
taking
a
Thomas
class?).
Come
on,
man!
I
know
you
prefer
hanging
out
with
fawning
admirers
willing
to
pay
for
your
luxury
vacations,
but
if
you’re
going
to
do
this
job,
you’ve
got
to
be
able
to
handle
a
couple
side-eyes
in
a
seminar
room.
You
know
what’s
unpleasant?
People
having
forced
births
because
a
witchhunter
from
the
1600s
said
so.
It’s
the
same
thing
with
Amy
Coney
Barrett’s
recent
lament
that
her
family
forced
her
to
make
some
coherent
legal
justification
for
her
superlegislature
cosplay
to
overturn
longstanding
Constitutional
rights.
Sorry
gang,
you
don’t
get
to
run
away
because
someone
points
out
that
your
“deeply
rooted
in
history
and
tradition”
arguments
are
about
as
historical
as
the
History
Channel.
And
even
Ancient
Aliens
is
better
sourced
than
these
Second
Amendment
opinions.
Honestly,
the
Ancient
Aliens
comparison
is
more
apropos
than
it
might
seem
at
first
blush.
You
know
how
every
episode
involves
the
same
rotating
panel
of
talking
heads
whether
they’re
explaining
how
Egyptians
and
Mesoamericans
couldn’t
possibly
have
independently
come
up
with
the
idea
for
a
pyramid
despite
being
the
most
intuitive
design
imaginable
or
how
angels
look
like
astronauts?
That’s
because
the
conspiracy
theory
world
is
a
big
circle
jerk
of
pseudo-academics.
Now,
for
a
fun
experiment,
check
out
the
“history”
the
conservative
legal
movement
cites
in
their
opinions.
Notice
how
it’s
mostly
secondary
law
review
articles
published
by
former
clerks
turned
academics
slapping
together
shoddy,
cherry-picked
research
to
paper
up
the
thesis
that
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
was
a
scrivener’s
error?
Idea
laundering
in
action,
all
to
prevent
the
judges
from
having
to
stand
behind
the
history
directly…
it’s
been
vetted
(by
3L
law
review
editors,
anyway)!
But
that’s
the
thing.
These
people
are
just
too
chickenshit
to
stand
behind
their
principles
in
the
face
of
vague
disdain.
During
the
civil
rights
era,
judges
faced
actual
terroristic
threats
—
the
Chief
Justice
highlighted
this
in
his
annual
report,
before
comparing
those
threats
to
being
criticized
by
law
bloggers
—
but
stood
by
their
decisions.
That’s
not
where
this
movement
is.
They’ve
got
two
modes:
shocked
pearl-clutching
that
anyone
would
be
so
impolitic
to
question
their
delicate
genius
and
active
troll.
And
both
flavors
rest
on
the
cloistered,
unaccountable
perch
they’ve
fashioned
for
themselves
to
enact
policy
from
the
bench
well
beyond
anything
imagined
by
the
Framers.
The
throughline
of
the
conservative
legal
movement
is
taking
reckless,
unaccountable
fiat
and
equating
it
with
jurisprudential
bravery.
If
it’s
unpleasant
to
hear
a
few
students
question
your
historical
fan
fiction,
maybe
don’t
reshape
the
lives
of
millions
based
on
it.
Earlier:
Clarence
Thomas
Quits
Law
School
Class,
Depriving
Students
Of
BOTH
Sides
Of
The
‘Do
Gay
People
Have
Human
Rights?’
Debate
Amy
Coney
Barrett’s
Fetish
For
Phony
Reluctance
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
Thinks
You’re
Stupid
And
He’s
Probably
Right
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.