Postmodern
analysis
has
gotten
a
really
bad
rap.
Understandably,
there’s
only
so
much
vagueposting
that
passes
itself
off
as
cutting-edge
commentary
one
can
stomach
before
you
want
to
get
rid
of
the
whole
genre.
But
there
are
some
concepts
that
remain
useful.
When
Nietzsche
heralded
the
death
of
God
in
the
The
Gay
Science,
it
wasn’t
some
giddy
realization.
It
was
the
somber
recognition
that
the
traditions
and
value
systems
that
gave
our
individual
lives
and
social
order
guiding
principles
became
passé
—
that
we
couldn’t
believe
in
them
anymore
even
if
we
wanted
to
—
but
also
that
the
iOS
update
had
a
staggered
rollout.
A
little
later,
other
sociologically
minded
thinkers
would
catch
on
and
theorize
the
effects
of
people
coming
to
terms
with
meaning
not
meaning
much
anymore:
Baudrillard
in
Forget
Foucault
remarks
that
the
process
of
disenchantment
can
occasion
a
playful
response
to
signs
of
collapse:
yes,
the
“Leader
of
the
Free
World”
may
have
dementia
and
sundown
about
SCOTUS
decisons
on
his
personal
social
media
and
causes
so
many
fires
that
DOJ
employees
are
requesting
sanctions
so
they
can
sleep,
but
it
is
kind
of
fun
to
read
about,
no?
The
judging
style
of
Lawrence
VanDyke
is
another
one
of
those
“fun”
occasions.
We’ve
drawn
attention
to
his
breaks
from
convention
before.
I
rather
liked
his
gun
breakdown
dissent,
but
his
“swinging
dicks”
opinion
—
thank
God,
dead
or
not,
that
there
was
no
accompanying
video
—
got
the
amount
of
ridicule
it
deserved.
But
it
is
getting
praised
elsewhere.
National
Review’s
The
Postmodern
Jurispridence
of
Lawrence
VanDyke
is
an
attempt
at
framing
VanDyke’s
dicking
around
as
“postmodern
judging”:
That’s
where
Lawrence
VanDyke
of
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Ninth
Circuit
comes
in.
Through
a
series
of
separate
writings
VanDyke
has
adopted
a
postmodern
approach
to
the
circuit-court
opinion
genre
that
ironically
turns
the
text
against
itself.
He
has
embraced
the
fact
that
an
opinion
as
opinion
can
have
meaning
beyond
the
arguments
it
presents.
His
is
an
ironical
approach
to
the
practice
of
judging
deployed
in
support
of
deeply
sincere
normative
legal
views.
It’s
an
approach
that
can
be
disturbing
to
those
with
a
traditional
view
of
the
judicial
enterprise
and
that
is
truly
unique
in
the
federal
judiciary.
Cool
story,
but
there’s
only
so
much
lipstick
you
can
put
on
a
pig.
First,
author
Michael
Fragoso
does
a
poor
job
of
defining
his
terms.
Sure,
there’s
a
litany
of
decorum-breaking
things
VanDyke
did
that
get
passed
off
as
ironic,
facially
cogent
arguments
taking
on
additional
meaning
when
you
look
at
them
from
a
distance,
but
unless
we’re
about
to
retcon
Johnathan
Swift’s
A
Modest
Proposal
as
postmodern
policy
making,
there’s
no
need
to
ring
the
postmodern
bell.
We
should
just
call
things
what
they
are:
stupid.
Take
this
for
example:
In
it
he
observed
that,
having
issued
a
pro-Second
Amendment
opinion,
he
knew
it
would
be
taken
en
banc,
so
he
would
save
the
eventual
en
banc
court
the
trouble
of
writing
an
opinion
and
just
write
it
himself.
Van
Dyke
proceeded
to
lay
out
a
perfectly
passible
anti-gun
opinion
overruling
what
he
just
wrote.
He
plays
the
opinion
straight,
so
it
doesn’t
fight
the
joke,
because—as
with
Olympus
Spa—it’s
not
about
the
legal
arguments
but
about
the
absurdity
of
their
use.
It
was
the
existence
of
his
draft
future
opinion,
not
its
arguments,
that
exposed
the
court’s
real
power
structure.One
of
the
smartest
lawyers
I
know
called
me
after
reading
his
concurrence
and
called
it
brilliant.
“It’s
checkmate,”
he
explained.
“How
are
they
going
to
write
the
en
banc
opinion
now?
It’s
going
to
look
just
like
his
and
prove
his
point.”
Get
to
know
smarter
lawyers,
dude.
This
is
not
the
“9TH
CIRCUIT
GETS
OPINIONMOGGED
BY
VANDYKE!”
moment
you
think
it
is.
This
might
come
as
a
surprise,
considering
the
recent
uptick
in
weird
decisions
that
are
covert
auditions
for
the
next
empty
Supreme
Court
seat,
but
judicial
opinions
are
supposed
to
be
boring
and
fungible
things.
For
example,
most
Supreme
Court
decisions
in
recent
history
have
been
9-0s,
it’s
just
that
the
splits
tend
to
get
more
media
coverage
because
the
stakes
are
highest.
And
if
you
want
to
look
for
someone
to
“expose
the
court’s
real
power
structure,”
why
would
you
go
to
a
judge
who
couldn’t
even
get
a
qualified
rating
from
the
ABA
when
you
can
go
to
a
political
scientist?
Not
all
modern
problems
require
postmodern
solutions.
I
mean,
come
on:
All
of
these
separate
writings
are
not
about
particular
laws
but
about
the
law.
It’s
not
about
using
the
text
of
his
opinions
to
argue
doctrinal
points
but
about
using
the
opinions
as
text
to
critique
—
one
is
tempted
to
say
problematize
—
the
Ninth
Circuit’s
judicial
enterprise.
…
VanDyke
uses
the
concept
of
opinion-writing
to
push
the
boundaries
of
what
judging
will
allow.
Is
the
guy
a
circuit
judge
or
a
comparative
literature
student
working
on
his
MA?
Judges
shouldn’t
get
points
for
dramatic
outbursts
that
amount
to
“Look
what
I
can
do!”
Fragoso
goes
on
to
say
that
“certainly
no
one
on
the
left
is
playing
at
VanDyke’s
level.”
No
shit,
friendo.
It’s
a
job,
not
performance
art,
and
there’s
less
of
an
incentive
to
play
when
the
Executive’s
response
to
being
asked
to
speak
out
against
violence
toward
judges
was
to
double
down
by
calling
left-leaning
judges
dangerous
lunatics
and
declaring
war
on
“rogue”
judges.
Are
you
interested
in
the
court
and
power
structures
or
not?
What’s
the
ultimate
point
of
framing
VanDyke
as
a
postmodern
judge
rather
than
some
unqualified
hack
doing
Stuart
impersonations
from
the
bench?
I
don’t
know,
and
Fragoso
doesn’t
appear
to
either:
What
effect
all
this
will
have
on
the
law
is
hard
to
say.
VanDyke’s
approach
is
relatively
limited
in
its
aims
and
therefore
probably
harmless,
at
least
structurally.
…
But
something
like
HLA
Hart’s
rules
of
recognition
undergird
the
ability
of
the
courts
to
maintain
their
authority,
and
there
is
danger
in
chipping
away
at
that
conceptual
scaffolding.
So
at
best
nothing
and
at
worse
contributes
to
a
collapse
in
judicial
legitimacy.
Some
game
to
be
playing!
If
this
is
the
cost
of
owning
the
libs,
maybe
he
should
just
do
his
damned
job.
This
article
may
have
been
too
serious
of
a
response
when
laughter
would
have
sufficed:
While
it
is
undoubtedly
funny
to
see
right-wingers
so
desperate
to
justify
shitty
judging
that
they’re
treating
Pierre
Schlag
like
he
wrote
Of
Grammatology,
it
is
worth
noting
that
there
is
a
growing
number
of
right-wingers
who
advocate
for
right-wing
positions
(traditional
left/right
distinctions
get
harder
as
metanarratives
crumble)
in
postmodernese.
That
is
to
say
a
right-wing
postmodern
endorsement
of
VanDyke
could
have
been
better
than
this
—
or
are
you
reactives
too
lazy
to
break
out
the
Nick
Land?
Be
on
the
lookout
for
stupidity
in
postmodern
clothing.
And
VanDyke,
if
you’re
reading
this,
you’d
probably
be
a
lot
more
convincing
if
you
relied
on
well-crafted
arguments
rather
than
jazz
hand
opinions.
The
Postmodern
Jurisprudence
of
Lawrence
VanDyke
[National
Review]
Earlier:
We
Need
To
Talk
About
What
The
VanDyke
Video
Dissent
Gets
Right
‘We
Are
Better
Than
This,’
Say
Ninth
Circuit
Judges
Despite
All
Evidence
To
The
Contrary
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.