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.