Critics Call It Theocratic and Authoritarian. Young Conservatives Call It an Exciting New Legal Theo

[Nevilledog]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/09/revolutionary-conservative-legal-philosophy-courts-00069201


CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — It was half past two in the Revolution Room when Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett stepped up to the podium to introduce the final panel of the day. By that point in the afternoon, the symposium’s audience — composed of about 100 legal scholars, law students and a smattering of federal judges — had sat through six consecutive hours of abstract legal theorizing, and more than a few pairs of eyes were beginning to glaze over. Sensing, perhaps, the room’s flagging energy, Barnett impressed upon the crowd the momentous nature of what they were witnessing.

“For those of you who are students, you might think that this is what all academic conferences are like,” Barnett said. “But let me just tell you: This is not what they’re like. You will tell your students or your progeny someday that you were at this conference, and that you got to see what was happening here.”

Barnett was right that the gathering taking place at the Sheraton Commander Hotel on the Saturday before Halloween wasn’t your average law school symposium. The event was serving as a much-anticipated referendum on one of the most contentious ideas to emerge from the legal academy in recent years, and many of the biggest names in American constitutional law had come to Cambridge to join the debate.

At the center of this debate was Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, whose latest book served as the ostensible subject of the symposium. In conservative legal circles, Vermeule has become the most prominent proponent of “common good constitutionalism,” a controversial new theory that challenges many of the fundamental premises and principles of the conservative legal movement. The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them. In practice, Vermeule’s theory lends support to an idiosyncratic but far-reaching set of far-right objectives: outright bans on abortion and same-sex marriage, sweeping limits on freedom of expression and expanded authorities for the government to do everything from protecting the natural environment to prohibiting the sale of porn.

*snip*

[Walleye]

1. What a crock of shit!

[onetexan]

14. Ditto, and dangerous

[GenThePerservering]

2. People are always publishing rubbish

and rent-a-pundits are always declaring it 'groundbreaking.'

[DetlefK]

3. And who gets to define what "good rule" is?

For example, a brutal, murderous dictator who declares himself to be benevolent can be "good rule".

[ck4829]

4. "Whoever has the most money" may play a a part

[TheRealNorth]

5. Their annointed God Emperor King gets to decide....

And frankly, George III would have been better than that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. If it comes from Vermeule, it's theocratic

He has stated publicly his aim is to use democracy to overthrow itself and install a permanent Catholic state (and by 'Catholic' he means pre-Vatican II stuff, not Pope Francis - his wing of the Catholic church would like to overthrow Francis too, for being too humane). That does mean it should be relatively easy to stop Evangelicals supporting him, by pointing to his fanatical devotion to (a conservative) Pope.

As an example of his extremism, he's a law professor, but he says atheists should not be allowed to hold public office or serve on juries, because they "can’t be trusted to keep an oath". His only interest in law is using it to bring in his promised land of Ultramontanist Catholic supremacy.

[Midnight Writer]

7. The danger lies in some American Oligarch(s) latching on to this "new legal theory"

and paying think tanks, lobbyists, media, and law schools (through grants) to promote and propagate it.

It would only take a billion or two (chump change for many) to enshrine this nonsense into our system.

[Solly Mack]

8. K&R

[SpankMe]

9. DON'T DISCOUNT THIS

The earlier comment criticizing the author as an attention-seeking pundit is way off the mark.

The reporting is good. The substance of the article is important. This "common good constitutionalism" is nothing more than a Christian version of Iran-style Islamic theocracy. But, it's gaining currency in conservative circles.

Conservatives win with their slow and steady approach. They patiently worked for 50 years to overturn Roe. This "common good constitutionalism" will be a reality in 50 years if we don't drown it in the tub now.

Take this seriously and don't dismiss it.

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

10. scary stuff

[Dawson Leery]

11. Vermeule is disloyal to America.

I just said that. America was never Roman Catholic.

[Renew Deal]

12. Wouldn't it also mean a ban in guns?

[pecosbob]

13. Common good equals tyranny of the majority

[Slammer]

15. Their "common good constitutionalism"

is basically arguing that the US Constitution is a living, breathing document. And all of these religious right people are fundamentally no different than than what they accuse liberals of being: people who have their own vision of what the country should be and who aren't about to let a scrap of paper like the Constitution stand in their way of getting what they want.

I could at least respect the (very few) people who were legitimately originalists before Trump came along and warped the Republican party. "This is what the contract says, this is what we agreed to do when we signed the contract, so this is what we are going to do" is at least is a principle that we follow as a society when it comes to contracts.

So envisioning the Constitution as a picture frame and essentially telling people they can paint their ideal country anywhere within the boundaries of framework makes a certain amount of sense. And I can argue, rationally, when they aren't understanding what the founders meant in the text of the Constitution.

But I can't argue rationally with people whose stance is "I want what I want and I don't care whether it is rational or not even according to my own sides' understanding of the Constitution".