Can you point to specific examples where the courts interpretation and reasoning wasn't rooted in the law and the arguments from the lawyers in the court specificall? Because I can't. I might disagree with some of the opinions but I can't point to anything where they were clearly not basing it on the law and the various lawyer's argumentation.
Good catch. That whole pipeline is very robust too - I remember mocking the Burke society folks in college, not realizing at all that they were figuring out who was headed to work with federal judges/think tanks for the next generation.
Can you point to specific examples where the courts interpretation and reasoning wasn't rooted in the law and the arguments from the lawyers in the court specificall? Because I can't. I might disagree with some of the opinions but I can't point to anything where they were clearly not basing it on the law and the various lawyer's argumentation.
That request is a trap and can’t be satisfied. Any answer can be hand waved away with ease. It’s vague yet restrictive.
If that request is a trap then you have basically made my point for me I guess.
5 replies →
More important than the Heritage Foundation is the Federalist Society in the case of getting more conservative judges.
Good catch. That whole pipeline is very robust too - I remember mocking the Burke society folks in college, not realizing at all that they were figuring out who was headed to work with federal judges/think tanks for the next generation.