The Mystical ‘Revenue-Neutral’ Romney Tax Cuts »« Wingnuts Suddenly Love Sweden

Ellis Washington Doesn’t Understand Why He’s Ignored

Our old pal Ellis Washington finally found a prominent legal scholar willing to engage his presumptuous and bizarre objections to their work. That scholar is Erwin Chemerinsky. And he thanks him for that, while being seemingly unaware of why others would ignore him.

First, exceeding gratitude to you for your prompt reply to my letter commenting on your interesting article, “Juvenile Life-without-parole,” published last August in the ABA Law Journal. Honestly, I thought you would be like most of your other colleagues that I’ve written to over the past 30 years – that you would read my letter, deduce that it was written by a conservative – a black conservative at that – and ipso facto dismiss my comments (and the need for any response) out of hand. But you didn’t take that course; therefore, allow me to extend my sincerest gratitude to you, professor Chemerinsky, for accepting my invitation to dialogue.

And then he demonstrates exactly why other scholars have blown him off in the past:

Second, to answer your question: Is it that you disagree with my statement of the holding of the case or that you disagree with the Court’s opinion? It is both, because your ABA article essentially agrees with the Supreme Court holding in the Miller case, correct? I also know from reading your writings and casebook on Constitutional Law that you are a doctrinaire liberal/progressive jurist, ergo, since you are a consensus legal academic you would also embrace the primary tenants of Positive Law, i.e., legality and morality are separate, or that man-created law is the center of all things. Therefore, I deduced (but read your ABA article to be sure) that you, the majority of our academic colleagues in America’s law schools and universities and, most tragically, the majority of the members of the Supreme Court (including the so-called “conservative wing”) would not even entertain the obvious questions…

Gee, now why wouldn’t legal scholars just jump at the chance to answer someone who would write such a convoluted and presumptuous screed? We’ve already established in previous posts that Washington is completely devoid of anything remotely like intellectual honesty (note his utterly dishonest use of quotes). And note here how he phrases things — “that man-created law is the center of all things.” How about “that man-created law is the only thing we have”?

Washington is a buffoon pretending to be a serious intellectual.

Comments

  1. StevoR says

    Funny I always thought Washington was the USA’s capitol / capital.

    Plus some historical general leader president-y dude.

    Meh must be a different one.

  2. Chiroptera says

    And then he demonstrates exactly why other scholars have blown him off in the past….

    Actually, he demonstrates this in the previous passage as well.

    I mean, if I was reading a letter that started with something like

    Honestly, I thought you would be like most of your other colleagues that I’ve written to over the past 30 years – that you would read my letter, deduce that it was written by a conservative – a black conservative at that – and ipso facto dismiss my comments (and the need for any response) out of hand.

    my reaction would, “Oh Jesus, here we go.”

  3. jaxkayaker says

    Did Ellis Washington really write tenants instead of tenets?

    I like the assumption that he’s ignored because he’s a black conservative, rather than because he’s a whackaloon.

  4. says

    I’m glad he explained things; otherwise I’d have thought they were ignoring him because he’s too stupid to realize how stupid he is.
    Also, I would almost swear he’s playing “the race card.”

  5. Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Writing tenants is nothing to Washington. He has a personal relationship with someone who spoke the sun and moon. To Washington, words are magic!

    Wow do I wish I was joking about that.

  6. dingojack says

    RE: Writing tenants. Oh that he were:

    “From the illustrious bureau plat of Mr. Ellis Washington, Esq.
    Dear Tenant,
    I will be coming to pick up the rent you owe my employer, Mr P. Rachmann, next Thursday between 9:00am and noon. Please have exactly the full amount owed in bills, coins will not be accepted. You will be issued with a receipt.
    Late payment will incur further charges and fees.
    Your humble and obedient servant,

    Mr Ellis Washington, Esq.”

    :) Dingo

  7. scienceavenger says

    I’ve met/read a lot of progressives/liberals, and I’ve never known one to think anything is “the center of all things”, except perhaps projection re conservative criticisms of progressives/liberals.

  8. DaveL says

    I actually went and read the article. The substance, if you can call it that, of his legal argument is that two cases in the 1960s (Kent in 1966 and Gault in 1967) were supposed to have brought the juvenile justice system into perfect harmony with the constitution, and therefore any subsequent decision that finds any provision in any branch of that system to be unconstitutional must necessarily be in error. It’s an exceptional piece of stupidity, in keeping with Mr. Washington’s highest traditions of stupidity.

  9. Chiroptera says

    DaveL, #11: It’s an exceptional piece of stupidity, in keeping with Mr. Washington’s highest traditions of stupidity.

    Washington uses words like ipso facto and ergo. That sounds like some fine lawyerly talkin’ to me!

  10. slc1 says

    I am rather surprised that such a distinguished legal scholar like Prof. Chemerinsky would give the time of day to a nincompoop like Ellis Washington.

  11. Uncle Glenny says

    I didn’t read the case like DaveL but read enough of the WND piece to see Chereminsky’s reply, which Ed did not quote. In part, emphasis added:

    I think it is very important to separate descriptive statements from normative arguments. My ABA Journal piece was meant simply to describe what the Court said and identify some of the implications. I was not arguing in favor or against in that piece. Thus, I was surprised by your statement that you disagreed with my statement that the Court held that there cannot be mandatory sentences of life without parole for homicides committed by juveniles. That is what the Court held.

    That’s Ellis’ problem, apparently. Reading comprehension.

  12. says

    “That’s Ellis’ problem, apparently. Reading comprehension.”

    Well, that and remembering to take another breath before he turns blue and passes out again.

  13. Chiroptera says

    Uncle Glenny, #14: That’s Ellis’ problem, apparently. Reading comprehension.

    His problem is that he interprets what he sees, hears, and reads according to his strict Manichean world view. If something isn’t a screed in favor of his preferred position, then it must be a screed against his preferred position. That there can be such a thing as a dispassionate analysis of a court ruling is incomprehensible to him.

Leave a Reply