Who
is
supposed
to
have
a
say
on
the
interpretive
models
students
learn
in
law
schools?
Judges
apparently!
Right
wingers
used
to
attack
lefties
for
boycotts
and
cancel
culture,
but
those
are
core
right-wing
policing
strategies
these
days,
with
Republican
judges
wearing
their
politics
on
their
sleeves
when
it
comes
to
bullying
law
schools
into
doing
what
they
want.
First
it
was
boycotting
the
students
from
law
schools
deemed
too
liberal,
now
they’re
trying
to
get
school
funding
cut
if
professors
don’t
teach
the
way
the
judges
prefer.
Bloomberg
Law
has
coverage:
Conservative
appeals
court
Judge
Amul
Thapar
called
on
donors
to
withhold
support
from
law
schools
that
don’t
hire
an
ideologically
diverse
faculty
and
teach
originalist
theory.Thapar,
a
Trump
appointee
to
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Sixth
Circuit
and
Supreme
Court
short
lister,
criticized
what
he
said
is
an
absence
in
originalist
teaching
at
top
law
schools
during
remarks
Wednesday
at
the
Heritage
Foundation.
Thapar
went
on
to
lament
that
the
failure
to
teach
law
students
an
Originalist
approach
to
the
text
ultimately
hurts
them
because
judges
may
be
more
amenable
to
matters
if
they
hear
history
based
analysis.
Nice
theory,
but
we
regularly
see
judges
craft
opinions
getting
the
history
wildly
wrong.
At
least
according
to
the
actual
historians.
Here
are
just
a
few
times
that
judges
opted
to
ignore
historical
context
to
arrive
at
the
policy
outcomes
they
preferred:ignoring
the
history
of
the
14th
Amendment
to
read
it
as
colorblind,
ignoring
the
history
of
gun
regulation
to
get
their
desired
policy
outcome
in
Bruen,
not
to
mention
making
ahistorical
arguments
about
the
role
of
special
counsel
if
it
helps
Trump
avoid
trouble.
Oh,
and
just
for
shiggles,
because
those
are
some
heavy
cases,
no
one
even
tried
to
invoke
history
to
potentially
correct
the
flawed
textualism
of
simple
words
like
“boneless.”
Promoting
Originalism
and
“diversity
of
thought”
are
the
bits
of
velvet
on
the
glove.
“Do
what
we
say
or
we
attack
your
bottom
line.”
Read
his
own
words:
“Make
no
mistake:
money
talks.
Only
when
the
taxpayers
and
donors
alike
demand
it
will
law
schools
start
to
change,”
Thapar
said.
“When
law
schools
do
change,
the
hefty
price
paid
for
a
law
degree
might
actually
be
worth
it,
because
lawyers
will
leave
law
school
equipped
to
practice
in
today’s
courts.”
If
you
really
want
to
prepare
law
students
for
today’s
courts,
originalism
is
the
least
of
their
concerns.
You
need
to
teach
them
how
to
bankroll
judges,
romance
them,
have
ex-parte
chats
with
the
prosecution,
or
find
a
way
to
get
all
of
their
colleagues
to
agree
they
aren’t
mentally
fit
if
they
write
too
many
dissenting
opinions.
In
a
word,
you’ve
gotta
teach
students
how
to
politic.
Because
the
judiciary
stopped
being
focused
on
historical
meaning
a
long
time
ago.
Judge
Urges
Law
School
Donation
Halt
Until
Originalism
Taught
[Bloomberg
Law]
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.