The U.S. Supreme Court (Photo by David Lat).
Below are two op-eds. The first defends SCOTUS Nominee “Serial Killer.” The other attacks liberal candidate and former President “Jed Bartlet” from the left. Neither of these op-eds is about the current Supreme Court nominee. This column is about the op-eds I read and can’t unsee. They all sound like this. So, if you write one, understand this is what you sound like to me.
Liberals Do Not Need To Fear Serial Killer
I’ve known Serial Killer for 15 years. Serial Killer and I clerked together for Justice Hannibal. By all accounts, Serial Killer is charming and engaging.
Serial Killer is a guy you’d want to have a beer with. He’s loved by everyone. And he’s got a very keen mind. Especially about criminal law. Really, about criminal law, he’s a genius.
Sure, some people claimed he killed puppies, but I spent a lot of time with him, and I’ve never seen any such behavior. I’m offended that 16 people would insinuate that without any proof. Just because their dogs are missing.
In fact, one time he pet my dog for what seemed like hours. Even offered to take the dog for a walk! I can only conclude that Serial Killer is a very decent man. He has been nothing but kind to me in the 15 years I’ve known him.
We don’t agree on everything. For example, Serial Killer is opposed to the death penalty. He says it is unfairly applied, and sometimes people who deserve it aren’t punished enough.
I think this demonstrates that liberals have nothing to worry about.
Also, for reasons that I don’t understand, Serial Killer is opposed to “Stand your Ground” laws. He said, “no one should die merely because they sneak into a home, even if the intent was to kill people or their pets because they might deserve it.”
I hope that Serial Killer will get a fair confirmation hearing before the Senate. He will serve the country fairly and equitably. Liberals have nothing to fear.
And, wow, the SSRN downloads! Amazing. Scholarly impact! No one can dispute the greatly placed journal articles!
Now if you’ll excuse me, my pet is missing. Did I mention I am a former Supreme Court clerk? Also, any chance any one of my offspring lands a Supreme Court clerkship due to this op-ed is purely coincidental. It’s based solely on merit.
Jed Bartlet Is A LINO (Liberal In Name Only)
I’ve known former President Bartlet for 20 years now. I considered him a friend. I considered him a liberal. But his presidency demonstrates how he would be as a justice sitting on the bench. I think his appointment to the Supreme Court would be calamitous to our Constitution and democracy. I am disappointed that President Biden nominated him. I say this as a former clerk for Justice Lefty.
President Bartlet is against abortion (“Pilot”). He believes himself to be a moral leader on this issue. While he has shown himself to be hostile to extreme anti-abortion groups, I think it is clear how he’d rule on Roe v. Wade. There was a pattern in his White House of ignoring the views of women (“The Women of Qumar.”)
Former President Bartlet does not follow the law. He is in favor of extra-judicial killing, in violation of International Law (“We Killed Yamamoto,” “Posse Comitatus”). As a former clerk for Justice Lefty, this bothers me tremendously. And part of me writing this is to remind you that I clerked for Justice Lefty.
He is emotional and angry. He has trouble keeping his temper. As an example, he sought vengeance for the death of his doctor, against targets in Syria (“The Proportional Response”). All reports suggest he was hot-headed and angry. In addition, this isn’t the only time he has engaged in angry outbursts, including against his head chef (“Indians in the Lobby”) as well as anyone who questions him.
His stances against women are questionable. He once called his deputy counsel “sex kitten,” and also, along with other members of the staff, spoke of “these women” in our lives. (“The Crackpots and These Women,” “And It’s Surely to Their Credit.” See also “Arctic Radar.”)
While I do not wish to engage in religious bona fides, he has. He failed to believe religious refugees were true Christians, until one uttered a magic word (“Shibboleth”).
He is also not likely to be sympathetic about drug offenses, as was demonstrated by his outrage about his surgeon general pointing out mere facts about marijuana (“Ellie”). While he does show opposition to mandatory minimums (“Mandatory Minimums”) he was not nearly as engaged in that issue as his staff was. I think that is telling.
I also worry about his views on race. His cabinet was predominantly white males (“Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”). While the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the national security advisor are Black (and his “body man”), there was very little in the way of diversity in his administration. I have great concern about how he might vote regarding civil rights and voter suppression.
He is also not trained in law, as a Nobel-prize winning economist. A quick perusal of Nobel econ laureates suggests they tend not to be liberal since the 1990s. He’s not a liberal economist. I mean, do you see him writing post-Keynesian stuff?
I just want to be clear, here. This will end our democracy. He has proven multiple times that he has disregard for the law. And he lacks judicial temperament. And I was a Supreme Court clerk.
Conclusion
Perhaps I’m jaded. President Donald Trump has nominated roughly 218 judges who have been confirmed by the Senate. I can see being worried about one judicial nomination to the Supreme Court. But if you are opposed to Trump, the thing you are experiencing is death by a thousand cuts, not just one. I’m not going to be impressed by suggestions that democracy is dying because of one judicial nominee. We aren’t about to cross that line. Look behind you.
And if you’re totally thrilled with the way things are going, don’t worry. The thing that one learns from history is that the pendulum swings. Two decades ago we spoke of Sen. Orrin Hatch holding up President Bill Clinton’s judicial nominations. Today we might speak of Sen. Mitch McConnell doing the same to President Barack Obama. Tomorrow, it will be a different president and a different senator.
Regardless, there appear to be no ground rules but winner takes all. No referees questioning fair play of the game, calling fouls. No one standing up for the rules of the sport. If everyone is a player, there are no refs. Eventually, we all lose the game.
Go team! And I look forward to your op-ed explaining that you clerked for a Supreme Court justice.
LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg) or Facebook. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.