Harmeet
Dhillon
ascended
to
head
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Rights
Division
off
a
career
backing
election
denialism
and
fronting
Trump’s
most
nonsensical
defamation
suits.
Ed
Whelan
is
a
conservative
legal
movement
darling
who
spent
the
Brett
Kavanaugh
confirmation
hearings
peddling
a
bizarre
conspiracy
theory
to
discredit
Kavanaugh’s
accuser
and
pin
the
attempted
sexual
assault
on
someone
else
based
on
real
estate
floorplans,
earning
the
moniker
“Zillow
Ed.”
Last
night,
these
two
leading
lights
of
the
conservative
legal
movement
launched
into
a
bitchy
slapfight
on
Twitter.
Or
X,
if
Dhillon’s
former
client
Elon
insists.
Yesterday,
Chief
Judge
Patrick
Schlitz
of
the
District
of
Minnesota
issued
an
order
demanding
that
Acting
ICE
Director
Todd
Lyons
appear
personally
to
answer
for
the
government’s
delays
and
non-compliance
with
the
court-ordered
releases.
As
the
judge
forcefully
wrote,
“The
Court’s
patience
is
at
an
end,”
and
he
wanted
the
head
of
the
agency
to
show
up
to
face
possible
contempt
charges.
So
ICE
just
went
ahead
and
released
Juan
Tobay
Robles,
the
subject
of
the
specific
caption
in
front
of
Schlitz,
all
to
avoid
having
to
bring
Lyons
to
court.
On
cue,
right-wing
media
began
smearing
Chief
Judge
Schlitz
—
who
had
already
earned
the
ire
of
conservatives
for
refusing
to
take
the
extraordinary
step
of
overturning
a
magistrate
judge’s
denial
of
an
arrest
warrant
for
Don
Lemon
—
trying
to
dig
up
proof
of
the
judge’s
wild-eyed
pinko
lefty
impulses.
It
proved
an
uphill
battle,
given
that
Schlitz
is
a
George
W.
Bush
appointee
who
clerked
for
Antonin
Scalia…
twice.
But
then
Fox
News
had
a
breakthrough,
noting
that
the
Chief
Judge
has
donated
to
organizations
providing
legal
services
for
poor
people,
including
the
Immigrant
Law
Center
of
Minnesota!
Responding
to
the
report,
a
no
doubt
annoyed
Chief
Judge
told
Fox
News,
“I
have
donated
for
many
years
to
the
Immigrant
Law
Center
of
Minnesota.
I
have
also
donated
for
many
years
to
Mid-Minnesota
Legal
Aid. I
believe
that
poor
people
should
be
able
to
get
legal
representation.”
That
should
be
the
end
of
it,
but
it’s
2026
so
it
definitely
wouldn’t
be.
Conservatives
continued
sounding
off
that
Schlitz
was
presumptively
unfit
because
he
donates
to
charities.
Whelan,
a
fellow
Scalia
clerk,
jumped
in
to
explain
to
the
masses
that
his
insider
sources
tell
him
that
the
federal
judiciary’s
own
rules
would
consider
Schlitz’s
donations
ethically
irrelevant:
Putting
aside
that
federal
judges
probably
shouldn’t
have
a
secret
ethics
code,
Whelan’s
response
missed
the
point.
The
mob
of
right-wing
media
consumers
—
a
mob
that
Whelan
has
gleefully
thrown
red
meat
as
a
long-time
National
Review
blogger
—
doesn’t
care
if
these
donations
were
up
to
ethical
snuff.
The
mob
doesn’t
even
care
if
Schlitz
could
have
or
should
have
recused
himself.
They
think
donating
to
immigrants
is
presumptively
disqualifying
for
a
federal
judge.
Responding
“well,
actually,
all
judges
can
do
this”
only
feeds
their
wingnut
belief
that
the
whole
system
is
corrupt.
So,
yes,
in
a
sane
world,
Whelan’s
post
should
end
the
argument.
But
sanity
packed
up
and
moved
away
a
long
time
ago.
Check
Zillow.
This
is
not,
in
any
obvious
way,
“related
to
this
post.”
But
it
is
a
common
refrain
from
insecure
lawyers
on
social
media.
Whenever
they
disagree
with
a
law
professor,
or
a
legal
journalist,
or,
as
the
case
may
be,
the
voice
of
a
right-wing
think
tank,
they
puff
their
chests
and
declare
“do
you
even
go
to
court,
bro?”
as
though
waiting
through
a
cattle
call
is
the
only
authentic
qualification
to
have
a
legal
opinion.
Whelan
does
not
spend
his
days
in
trial
courts,
but
he
does
have
close
personal
friendships
with
copies
of
the
federal
judge
rulebook
on
their
shelves.
Yes,
her
response
has
no
bearing
on
the
ethical
rule.
That
should
be
the
end
of
the
post.
Having
apparently
never
heard
the
old
saw,
“better
to
remain
silent
and
be
thought
a
fool
than
to
speak
and
remove
all
doubt,”
Whelan
continued.
“I
have
spent
the
last
two
decades
promoting
originalism
and
textualism,
working
to
transform
the
courts,
and
promoting
conservative
legal
causes.”
Defying
all
odds,
he
managed
to
make
himself
sound
less
credible.
Dude,
you
worked
for
the
Justice
Department
too.
Just
say
that!
“Well,
I
have
spent
20
years
attending
parties
and
peddling
disingenuous
readings
of
obscure
19th
century
pamphlets”
is
not
getting
the
job
done.
In
any
event,
Whelan
had
asked
a
rhetorical
question.
Does
Dhillon
know
what
a
rhetorical
question
is?
[Rimshot]
Tween
girls
everywhere
are
saying,
“damn,
you
two
need
to
dial
down
the
drama.”
Do
you
need
a
client
to
understand
the
appearance
of
impropriety?
Seems
pretty
straightforward.
Like,
if
you
bring
a
ludicrous
lawsuit
in
a
jurisdiction
for
the
sole
purpose
of
drawing
a
judge
who
owns
a
sizable
chunk
of
a
stock
directly
tied
to
your
client…
that
would
be
an
appearance
of
impropriety.
Context-free?!?
He
included
a
citation!
It
is
not
very
strange.
It
is
very
predictable.
And
successful
too…
at
least
with
the
conservative
audience
for
this
conversation.
The
replies
just
mindlessly
parrot
Dhillon.
“You’re
acting
like
a
grown
up
‘lawyer’
without
actually
having
been
one
in
practice,”
one
writes,
apparently
without
investing
the
10
seconds
required
to
look
Ed
up
on
Wikipedia.
“Ed
failed
Ethics
Class
in
his
on
line
law
school,”
writes
another.
Presumably
a
Yalie.
Whenever
someone
suggests
that
generative
AI
will
replace
writers,
realize
that
a
million
digital
monkeys
at
a
million
digital
typewriters
could
never
string
together
“I
majored
in
two
dead
languages
at
Dartmouth”
and
then
accuse
someone
else
of
being
pretentious.
The
spark
of
human
creativity
cannot
be
dimmed.
I
assume
that’s
a
crack
about
Dartmouth.
Dhillon
does
not
reply
to
this.
Uninterested
in
leaving
well
enough
alone,
Whelan
double
dips:
That’s
argumentative
checkmate
right
there!
If
you
accidentally
press
the
heart
icon,
it
forever
bars
all
disagreement.
That’s
from
the
nonpublic
Compendium
of
Twitter
Rules
§4.2-3(g).
Honestly,
starting
to
wonder
if
either
of
them
know
what
a
non
sequitur
is.
This
is
all
very
stupid,
but
I
implore
you
to
note
that
she
disses
him
for
not
understanding
how
Twitter
works
and
then
screencaps
THE
WRONG
TWEET.
You
cannot
make
this
stuff
up.
Yes.
You
cannot
say,
“there
are
various
ethical
canons”
and
then
not
cite
any
that
contradict.
But
to
play
devil’s
advocate
for
Dhillon
—
who
finally
stopped
posting
after
this…
or
maybe
passed
out
—
the
official
advice
that
Whelan
cited
only
says
a
judge
need
not
recuse
“merely”
by
virtue
of
making
a
donation.
So,
not
to
get
all
“textualist,”
but
it
is
not
dispositive.
If
a
donation
that
would
otherwise
be
acceptable
reasonably
creates
an
appearance
of
bias,
then
a
judge
may
find
it
more
prudent
to
recuse
themselves
anyway.
Nothing
about
the
quoted
text
directly
contradicts
that.
The
Fox
News
drums
and
the
bleating
in
the
replies
signals
that
there’s
a
sizable
population
out
there
who
think
this
at
least
creates
an
appearance
of
bias.
But
there’s
nothing
reasonable
about
it!
It’s
just
the
dimmest
bulbs
in
law
grasping
at
straws
because
much
smarter
conservative
judges
aren’t
letting
the
administration
perform
an
end
run
around
the
rule
of
law.
The
term
heckler’s
veto
is
consistently
misapplied,
but
the
accurate
definition
of
the
phrase
has
some
similarities
to
this
situation.
You
can’t
silence
free
speech
just
by
claiming
you’re
“protecting”
the
speaker
from
hypothetical
violence,
and
you
can’t
manufacture
an
appearance
of
impropriety
by
ginning
up
a
mob
to
call
it
“improper.”
Giving
money
to
groups
that
provide
legal
counsel
to
poor
people
does
not
bias
a
judge.
If
it
did,
there
would
be
a
lot
more
Legal
Aid
victories
in
this
world.
Making
sure
people
have
counsel
is
not
the
same
as
endorsing
those
clients.
No
reasonable,
objective
observer
thinks
believing
3-year-olds
shouldn’t
represent
themselves
in
court
is
the
same
as
endorsing
open
borders.
Unfortunately,
this
is
another
instance
of
this
administration
actively
promoting
conspiracy
theories
against
federal
judges.
It’s
one
thing
to
flag
a
judge
for
specific
bias,
and
it’s
quite
another
to
recklessly,
without
any
support,
blast
judges
to
an
audience
that
you
are
fully
aware
can
and
has
lashed
out
violently
after
being
baited
with
right-wing
conspiracy
theories.
It’s
a
pretty
good
argument
for
disbarring
a
government
attorney
trafficking
in
such
nonsense.
But
kudos
to
Dhillon
and
Whelan
for
providing
some
late-night
entertainment.
It
was
one
of
those
sporting
matchups
where
you
legitimately
hope
both
teams
lose.
And
they
did
not
disappoint.
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.