Maybe he shouldn't have gotten the extent of the heckling he did, but I do recommend you read what the legal profession has been saying about the 5th circuit for a while now. Professor Stephen Vladeck has been good about this. But yes, the 5th circuit has spent the past however many years acting like a troll circuit. In their rulings the…
Maybe he shouldn't have gotten the extent of the heckling he did, but I do recommend you read what the legal profession has been saying about the 5th circuit for a while now. Professor Stephen Vladeck has been good about this.
But yes, the 5th circuit has spent the past however many years acting like a troll circuit. In their rulings they act as if they are not bound by Supreme Court precedent because they don't care about being bound by precedent. They issue decisions going out of their way to grant Republican litigants everything they ask for, even if it's contrary to law and precedent. It's a very bad, very lawless circuit.
Also, I'm not sure it's worth it to spend the time/effort to schedule all of this to respond? While I agree that by unilaterally shutting down outside perspectives, we lose out, I don't agree that we should uncritically accept trolls and troll arguments for the sake of "understanding other perspectives." There's a reason we don't sit down and have a formal debate with every flat earther we meet. And I'd argue that that's an important thing for our next leaders to learn, though. Not just how to listen and engage with ideas presented, but also the wisdom to know when other ideas are presented in good faith (and should be engaged with) and when ideas are presented in bad faith only to get a rise out of the listener.
To bring back the example, our future leaders need to know that flat earth theory is wrong, but also that they don't need to approach with and engage every flat earth theory as if it were legitimate solely because it is a different perspective
Maybe he shouldn't have gotten the extent of the heckling he did, but I do recommend you read what the legal profession has been saying about the 5th circuit for a while now. Professor Stephen Vladeck has been good about this.
But yes, the 5th circuit has spent the past however many years acting like a troll circuit. In their rulings they act as if they are not bound by Supreme Court precedent because they don't care about being bound by precedent. They issue decisions going out of their way to grant Republican litigants everything they ask for, even if it's contrary to law and precedent. It's a very bad, very lawless circuit.
Also, I'm not sure it's worth it to spend the time/effort to schedule all of this to respond? While I agree that by unilaterally shutting down outside perspectives, we lose out, I don't agree that we should uncritically accept trolls and troll arguments for the sake of "understanding other perspectives." There's a reason we don't sit down and have a formal debate with every flat earther we meet. And I'd argue that that's an important thing for our next leaders to learn, though. Not just how to listen and engage with ideas presented, but also the wisdom to know when other ideas are presented in good faith (and should be engaged with) and when ideas are presented in bad faith only to get a rise out of the listener.
To bring back the example, our future leaders need to know that flat earth theory is wrong, but also that they don't need to approach with and engage every flat earth theory as if it were legitimate solely because it is a different perspective