Twitter | Search | |
Jonathan H. Adler
Father, Husband, Professor, Writer, guy with opinions; founding member of (aka 'human scum'); Law before policy before politics; Philly sports always
76,433
Tweets
1,135
Following
16,465
Followers
Tweets
Jonathan H. Adler 45m
The vast majority in which the government lost.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 46m
Lucas, Lopez, Morrison, Michigan v EPA, Free Enterprise Fund, Mead,
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 2h
I thought the current approach was Pass/No Entry. He can try again next semester.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 2h
IT's not satire. It's what you might get if (some) conservatives actually believed that text and original meaning are not much of a constraint. (IOW, be careful waht you wish for.)
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 2h
1. law is real <--3----> law is a fiction 2. judicial modesty <--6--> aggressive review 3. federalism <-3------> consolidation 4. executive-centricity <----8-> legi-centricity 5. protect the market <-3----->distrust the market
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 2h
I reviewed that book for NR. (Review was originally much longer. If I still have original, I'll post it on Volokh.)
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler retweeted
Walter Olson 😷 3h
He's saying a school of thought he never bought into in the first place has now been refuted by events. Very much fits the already familiar genre of "this outbreak proves my long-held views were right all along."
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
His disagreement with folks like me is far deeper than that.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
The latest Vermeule essay incorporates some of his longstanding views of administrative law. In light of that, here's my review of his book, Law's Abnegation.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
Funny thing, though, is that the third item on your list sounds to many like the modern administrative state. Indeed, Adrian intends it to sound that way, as it's of a piece of his prolific admin law work (much of which is generally celebrated on the Left).
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
I get that. I don't mean to suggest bad faith or anything like that. Rather I'm suggesting that it's sometimes hard to really follow the tune if it's not one you've much heard before and its in an alien key.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
Adrian was never much of a proponent of originalism, and he's never been much of a fan of the Rehnquist or Roberts courts.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
Some folks have wondered what a robustly conservative analog to Mark Tushnet's (in)famous "Ending Defensive Crouch Liberalism" post might look like. Adrian Vermeule has provided the answer. (For the record: I disagree strongly with both pieces-and for similar reasons.)
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
"I know it when I see it" is the sort of analysis that is most vulnerable to epstemic closure - which explains why much of legal academia, say, thought the claims in FAIR v. Rumsfeld were serious, and those in NFIB were not.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
It's not all that great a departure for him. There's a continuity between this work and his stuff on administrative law, executive power, judicial review, etc.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
Agreed. Context matters too (e.g. whether the reasoning is used to invalidate legislative acts, second-guess delegations of power, etc.). But not clear he's stretching document all that much more than our fellow academics do regularly (and courts do occasionally)
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
I'm most interested in the reactions to Adrian Vermeule's latest essay from those who largely embrace his approach to administrative law.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
Replying to @deepakguptalaw
But do we have the same objection when we read something else "into the majestic generalities and ambiguities of the written Constitution." IOW, is it the method or the end result that we object to?
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler retweeted
Michael Brendan Dougherty 4h
I have my objections to integralism as presented here. But it's weird that an argument that is banal when coming from the left - government is what we do together, conservatives undermined confidence in government - is seen as pure fascism when rephrased in a right wing key.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan H. Adler 3h
Legally?
Reply Retweet Like