Every
so
often,
someone
pings
the
tipster
line
and
asks
some
variant
of,
“Why
aren’t
you
more
bipartisan?”
Many
times
this
is
couched
in
a
stream
of
expletives.
Often
it’s
technically
addressed
to
a
guy
that
hasn’t
worked
here
since
before
the
pandemic.
I
don’t
know
if
these
people
just
don’t
know
that
Elie
Mystal
left
or
if
they
find
addressing
their
remarks
to
him
provides
a
better
hook
for
the
racial
slurs
they
want
to
drop.
In
any
event,
even
the
comparably
polite
versions
of
this
query
are
always
delivered
from
anonymous
burner
accounts
so
there’s
not
even
an
opportunity
to
engage
in
an
honest
dialogue.
Assuming
that’s
something
they
would
welcome
anyway.
So
let’s
deal
with
this
criticism
here:
why
does
Above
the
Law
in
2025
mostly
render
scorn
on
the
Trump
administration
and
its
Federalist
Society
minions?
There’s
a
lot
to
be
said,
but
the
short
version
is
that
—
as
writers
and
lawyers
—
we
have
dual
ethical
hangups
about
stopping
mid-article
to
say,
“But
on
the
other
hand,
consider
the
upsides
of
disappearing
citizens
into
foreign
slave
camps….”
The
Onion,
as
usual,
best
captures
the
“debate”
these
people
want
—
Historians:
Quibbling
Over
Exact
Definition
Of
Concentration
Camp
Sign
Of
Healthy
Society.
As
I
often
quote,
Hunter
S.
Thompson
said
everything
that
needed
to
be
said
on
the
subject
of
objective
journalism:
“Don’t
bother
to
look
for
it
here—not
under
any
byline
of
mine.”
It’s
not
“neutrality,”
it’s
an
invitation
for
bad
actors
to
launder
talking
points
under
the
guise
of
“balance.”
Our
job
is
to
tell
it
as
it
is
based
on
what
we’ve
learned,
not
give
audiences
competing
press
releases
about
what
reality
might
be.
And
as
lawyers
we
have
obligations
not
to
facilitate
or
effectuate
efforts
to
undermine
the
rule
of
law.
If
a
law
school
professor
wouldn’t
have
entertained
this
shit
on
a
final
exam,
why
should
we
platform
it
in
a
news
cycle?
That
might
be
a
lot
of
high-minded
principled
talk
for
an
author
who
also
writes
about
lawyers
streaming
porn
in
their
offices,
but
I’d
rather
be
making
fun
of
lawyers
going
to
hearings
naked
while
grounded
in
these
principles
than
being
so
adrift
from
any
core
value
that
I’d
turn
my
pro
bono
practice
over
to
the
ever-one-upping
whims
of
a
tinpot
dictator.
Look,
when
I
started
writing
for
Above
the
Law,
there’s
an
argument
that
the
two
most
thoroughly
and
reliably
right-wing
judges
in
the
federal
judiciary
were
the
Fourth
Circuit’s
J.
Harvie
Wilkinson
III
and
J.
Michael
Luttig.
Yesterday,
Wilkinson
threw
a
Molotov
cocktail
on
the
Trump
administration’s
deportation
regime,
not
even
waiting
for
the
plaintiff
to
file
papers
before
dropping
a
withering
broadside
against
the
head
of
the
party
that
appointed
him.
The
government
is
asserting
a
right
to
stash
away
residents
of
this
country
in
foreign
prisons
without
the
semblance
of
due
process
that
is
the
foundation
of
our
constitutional
order.
Further,
it
claims
in
essence
that
because
it
has
rid
itself
of
custody
that
there
is
nothing
that
can
be
done.
This
should
be
shocking
not
only
to
judges,
but
to
the
intuitive
sense
of
liberty
that
Americans
far
removed
from
courthouses
still
hold
dear.
Judge
Wilkinson
was
the
judge
who
saw
no
problem
holding
enemy
combatants
indefinitely
without
access
to
lawyers
or
judicial
review
—
a
ruling
that
Scalia
and
Rehnquist
both
considered
wild
executive
overreach.
The
same
guy
wants
to
make
it
very
clear
that
Trump’s
policy
shocks
“the
intuitive
sense
of
liberty
that
Americans
far
removed
from
courthouses
still
hold
dear.”
Luttig
has
gone
even
further!
A
judge
who
mentored
a
generation
of
hardline
conservative
clerks
—
including
Solicitors
General
in
both
Trump
administrations
and
coup-coup-ca-choo
lawyer
John
Eastman
—
is
now
a
go-to
expert
for
the
#resistance.
He
said
this
week:
“The
President
of
the
United
States
of
America
is
at
war
with
the
Constitution
and
the
rule
of
law.”
Those
were
the
furthest
right-wing
judges
I
could
think
of
back
in
the
day!
And
it’s
not
just
the
judiciary.
David
Brooks
is
out
here
citing
the
Communist
Manifesto
and
floating
a
mass
uprising!
Paul
Clement
is
defending
law
firms
against
Trump’s
authoritarian
demands.
The
National
Review
—
THE
NATIONAL
FRIGGIN’
REVIEW
—
is
writing
“A
test
of
the
rule
of
law
is
coming.
It
is
not
enough
to
write
about
this
phenomenon
with
clinical
detachment;
it
must
be
opposed.”
George
W.
Bush’s
strongest
warriors
are
talking
tougher
about
stopping
Trump
than
Chuck
Schumer.
The
same
folks
who
gave
us
Gitmo
and
WMD
scavenger
hunts
are
now
the
last
line
of
defense
for
habeas
corpus.
That’s
your
bipartisanship.
That’s
the
“both
sides”
right
now.
They
just
happen
to
be
all
lined
up
against
the
same
guy.
If
you’re
still
out
here
asking
me
to
present
“the
other
side,”
you’re
not
interested
in
hearing
from
the
intellectual
opposition,
you
just
want
a
platform
for
a
paranoid,
extralegal
clown
show
careening
toward
despotism.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.