because legal academia failed to prepare todays lawyers adequately by telling us in Theories of Justice classes that the notion that the law is what the judge s

because legal academia failed to prepare todays lawyers adequately by telling us in Theories of Justice classes that the notion that the law is what the judge says it is was a primitive notion and believing in made up notions like “originalism” to explain purely political events, as if judges are oracles in communion with the transcendent Platonic ideal of The Law. So the people who knew all along that convincing the 5 correct people that the law is a thing makes it the law can run rampant while everyone else waits for the Magic Holy law correct itself. Then they believed that the Warren courts liberal radicalism was the norm and there could never be a conservative radicalism except that’s what the Court was between Marbury and the switch in time and from the Abe Fortas scandal to the present. Historians know all of this. Political Science Ph.D.s probably know this. But the vast majority of lawyers trained in the U.S. would not because that’s not what we were taught. So, it was never a “fringe” theory. It’s a political initiative taking place in the Courts, just like “commerce clause” scope reducing or “10th amendment” jurisprudence, wholly absent when Scalia wants to keep drugs illegal or install a president, but a sure explanation the test of the time? This goes both ways. Activism is bad in the Supreme Court because anyone can play. But we’re also taugh John Marshall is one of the founding fathers in essence, even though no other country except Iran has a council that has a final say on the Constitution. Roe itself and reversing it were both fringe ideas in jurisprudence at one point. But here we are. And the geniuses at the New Yorker are shocked. These are the same people who cheered RBG for not resigning but are now mad abortion is banned.