Mathew Pelham

Myles Jack wasn't down.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@easton_3k https://t.co/IjBvi2H9Iw

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@matthewstoller Just say you don't mind a US Senator having a Nazi tattoo. It's faster.

[Clarence Maximus @ClarenceMaximus]

This is a good hypo, and it shows how warped the common good view of the courts’ role is.

What if for, say, a thirty-year period, a supermajority in Congress passed and the President signed exclusively harmful laws. Nothing unconstitutional, but each one bad enough that the next generation would look back and say it’s a terrible era of government. If the Court applies each law faithfully, thereby ruling exclusively in ways that will harm the United States, have they lost their legitimacy?

No! They have not! Judging a court by the harm caused by their rulings is an absurd notion to begin with, and even if it were not, the question becomes: who decides what is harmful and what isn’t?

First of all, we simply do not have courts just to be a backstop when the other two branches make policy decisions that are stupid. That is the quintessence of “judgment, not will.” When a court’s ruling gives effect to the decisions of the other two branches, it was the will of the political branches, not the court which was simply exercising judgment, that is responsible. It is THEIR legitimacy, not the court’s, that would be called into question if the effects are harmful.

But EVEN IF we were to try to implement this vision of the courts’ role, Professor Christiansen smuggles his personal moral beliefs into the picture by acting as though we all agree on an answer to an extraordinarily contested question: what are the interests of the people of the United States as a matter of policy?

But that is not something everyone agrees on. If a court gets its legitimacy from how well it promotes the interests of the American people, we need an actual standard to evaluate them on. And in comes… *checks notes* all of MY views about morality! How convenient! The legitimacy of the Court depends on whether their decisions lead to outcomes that favorably accord with how *I* see good and bad.

All this amounts to saying is that the purpose of the courts is to do what I think is good, and that if they don’t do that they aren’t legitimate. And this is the second problem with this view. Not only is this just not what the courts are for, there is no way to find any standard other than the laughable “what I believe is right” standard.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@NathanJRobinson This guy thinks Reagan was talking about the people stuck in burning buildings lmao

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@nikicaga Just say you like the Nazi Tattoo Guy. It saves time.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@TradVat2 It's not illegitimate to uphold bad policy. It's the legislature's job to create good policy. If the Court consistently made rulings that aligned with the law but led to bad outcomes, then the law should change. You advocate for the Court to act as a super legislature.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@thepondering_ What your describing is not court packing though?

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@RoKhanna

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@JTAlexander Just so there's no confusion, when this individual says men are forbidden from "exercising any of his power," he means beating your wife. When he says deriving any benefit unless his wife agrees, he means raping your wife. Just so we're all on the same page.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@CarterElliottIV This guy is playing dumb and pretending that a simple majority vote is all that is required to pass whatever you want, irrespective of procedural safeguards.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@briantylercohen This is demagoguery btw. Virginia voters passed a constitutional amendment. Dems violated that amendment trying to gerrymander the state by not following the proper procedure. That is it. End of story.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@DavidAstinWalsh Not a big constitutionalist huh?

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

You find the Nazi Tattoo Guy compelling. Take a seat pal.

[Jon Favreau @jonfavs]

Well that’s one of the most compelling answers to that question I’ve ever heard.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@micah_erfan They discussed the reason in the opinion. I know 1L is hard but maybe take the time to read the material first?

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@micah_erfan It's Virginia's constitution they tried to violate? This is how federalism works. Other states can have rules you don't like but your state gets to do it's own thing. Texas, Tennessee, and Florida have no bearing on what Virginians do in their own state.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@grahamformaine The Nazi Tattoo Guy prefers the power grab. This is the first time this has happened.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@AOC AOC plays these semantic games where she says "earns" and then just explains that she doesn't like you and therefore you couldn't have earned your money. It's a neat trick.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@mattyglesias Is the ruling legally unsound?

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@RBReich This guy, not unlike Candace Owens or her ilk, just pushes conspiracy theories online and hopes his audience doesn't have the time to actually consider his arguments.

[Mathew Pelham @MathewPelham]

@flatland_sports This is a bad take. You do not have to listen to it. Replaying the 2013 Iron Bowl in a playoff round would not be cool.