Today on Conlawprof, Professor AAA wrote:
This should have been a winning argument if text mattered or if Thomas wasn’t an unconscionable hypocrite.
Professor BBB responded with:
I did notice that Professor AAA called Justice Thomas an “unconscionable hypocrite.” Please stop with the name-calling.
Professor AAA replied:
I will call public figures what I want, when I want. . . .
[P]oliticians are called out all the time, [as well as] governors, Senators, Presidents. On this list, the Clintons have been called much worse than unconscionable hypocrites. There is no earthly reason the same standard shouldn’t be applied to those politicians we call judges.
Professor CCC chimed in with
Silly nicknames are silly and unworthy of anyone, including public figures talking about other pub[l]ic figures, but reasonably well considered characterizations are within the realm of polite discussion about robed public figures.
My contribution was as follows:
Professor AAA wrote: “This should have been a winning argument if text mattered or if Thomas wasn’t an unconscionable hypocrite.” (emphasis added) Somehow, I am not all that confident that that was what AAA meant to write. I could be wrong, but I think AAA meant to write (or, perhaps, should have written): “This should have been a winning argument if text mattered or if Thomas weren’t an unconscionable hypocrite.” Let me put it another way: if AAA actually meant what he wrote, then what he wrote is not all that much of an insult, and Professor BBB has little cause to complain about name-calling. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong about this, but I think Justice Thomas (for one) would know the difference between the indicative and subjunctive moods.
Seth Barrett Tillman, Conlawprof, the Sandbox, and Orangeman Bad, New Reform Club (May 13, 2019, 3:40 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/conlawprof-sandbox-and-orangeman-bad.html>.
Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers.
Have a look around New Reform Club—my co-bloggers do good work!