Rick Garnett
@RickGarnett
Followers
6,402
Following
556
Media
42
Statuses
800
Law professor, University of Notre Dame. Failed alpinist, brewer, & guitarist. Tweets delete.
Notre Dame, IN
Joined August 2013
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
Chester
• 116579 Tweets
Merchan
• 112462 Tweets
Milli
• 88588 Tweets
Eagles
• 71220 Tweets
#CristinaMostraElTitulo
• 50512 Tweets
Mbappé
• 49603 Tweets
Franco Escamilla
• 44705 Tweets
Dick Cheney
• 39492 Tweets
Barcola
• 37833 Tweets
Packers
• 32347 Tweets
#FRAITA
• 22618 Tweets
Barış Alper
• 21947 Tweets
Galler - Türkiye
• 20667 Tweets
#BizimÇocuklar
• 15551 Tweets
Kenan
• 14827 Tweets
Go Birds
• 13843 Tweets
Sergio Mendes
• 13347 Tweets
ايطاليا
• 13082 Tweets
Olise
• 11758 Tweets
Deschamps
• 11361 Tweets
Montella
• 10750 Tweets
Another approach would be not to assume she “wants” to be a “swing vote” or “carve a place” but instead to reflect on the fact that her methodology and conception of the judicial role has implications that don’t map onto simplistic categorizations.
“[W]e see her wanting to be the swing vote, wanting to carve out a place for herself… We should expect to see Supreme Court advocates and lawyers think about how to argue to get Justice Barrett's vote,” Prof. Alison LaCroix told
@Newsweek
.
0
0
3
11
20
115
@sfmcguire79
When I first read your post, I thought it said (but, I guess, I was right) "sociopaths."
3
0
92
@MarkJacob16
An easy way to identify an unserious person is to look for whether he calls Tim Scott a “fascist.”
2
3
69
@mjs_DC
Of course, the opinion was not “venenous”, just powerful, and the author’s work was used accurately and appropriately, even if the weird sociology of the academy requires the scholar to performatively wince.
5
2
31
@ncguy1420
This is, of course, complete and utter nonsense, and those who wrote and who are pushing the “story” know it. She moved to DC, and sold her house, to a law-firm partner.
2
4
32
@EsotericCD
@smod4real
Trips with rich friends = selling state secrets to foreign states, I guess.
2
0
22
@jadler1969
It is *protected*, true, but some non-state schools’ that purport to regulate “hurtful”, “offensive”, “discriminatory” seem to treating this genocide-endorsement more generously than they would, say, a criticism of abortion.
4
0
22
@MichaelSWinters
@USCCB
@FranciscanU
To paint, e.g., Bishop Barron and Fr. Schmitz as “culture warriors” is to drain the term of whatever tiny bit of meaning it had.
0
0
22
@maryrziegler
@YaleLJournal
@AaronTangLaw
@ProfMMurray
I can think of a few outstanding scholars the journal might have invited to make the conversation more interesting.
0
0
18
@maryrziegler
@MichaelMcGough3
@RevaSiegel1
@latimes
It is strange, in my view, to cast a ruling that reversed one of the most anti-democratic decisions in history, and that returned a contested question to democratic politics, as a “threat to democracy.” (Unless one thinks “democracy means I win”.)
3
1
17
@ProfDBernstein
This ranking exposes/demonstrates the complete moral and intellectual corruption of those who did the ranking.
3
0
15
@lawrencehurley
No, she said that the correct (in her view) “originalist” position is that some aspects of the Constitution were understood to contain potential change. Certainly, she rejected the “judges should do justice, according to their own, and their friends’, lights.”
1
0
14
@DavidAFrench
@michaelbd
Every corporation is a “creature of state statutes” - not sure you want to declare them all state actors. Government contractors - I imagine you agree - are not state actors.
2
0
14
@NoahRFeldman
It is not clear why it would be “radical” to endorse a position held by most Americans and that has been adopted via referendum in several large states.
0
0
13
@wjdereuil
Wow . . . I wonder if Prof. Kay's online donors can get refunds for the malpractice of whoever drafted those sentences.
1
0
11
@mjschwartzman
@kateashaw1
The Establishment Clause has not been demolished; although the Court has corrected several earlier errors in its Establishment Clause doctrine.
1
0
12
@johnmilbank3
@PatrickDeneen
@SohrabAhmari
“Unfettered” capitalism has never existed and was never advocated for by Bush or by Fr. Neuhaus. Both were, however, lettered enough to not confuse CST with (e.g.) public-employee unionism.
3
2
12
@OrinKerr
It reminds me of when law professors report that they have “shown” or “demonstrated” this or that in prior work. =-)
2
0
12
@jennfrey
It seems to me that it is not just a communications problem; the discipline itself has been distorted/deformed in ways that make it less worthy of defending / proposing to students.
2
0
11
@ctrlamb
I’m sure he believes that the People of God who were carefully selected for their views have much to contribute. The other People of God … not so much.
1
1
11
@RichardMRe
Groff, right? The Court expanded the reach of the Civil Rights Act, in the setting of private businesses, to protect vulnerable minorities.
3
0
11
@KGOMEZAMDG
Justice Barrett (who is, of course, awesome) was here last year. And the year before that. Time to outgrow the reflexive anti-ND instinct.
1
0
11
The History of Religious Hiring at American Catholic Law Schools by John M. Breen, Lee J. Strang :: SSRN
0
4
9
@MichaelSWinters
Such confusion would, I agree, not be smart - but he’s not confused. A meaningful, substantive (which doesn’t mean “academic”), more-than-felt-banners proposal is essential for evangelization.
0
0
10