One simple question.I think you’re looking through a prism too. There is no evidence strong enough yo change your mind. I’m suspect there is no evidence strong enough to change SD4L’s either.
You must have a different definition of “good education“ than I do…I would bet they valued a good education.
Tom Nichols is one of my favorite turncoats. I think he genuinely cares about nothing.Amazon product ASIN 0190865970
New Post Covid ediition coming out soon. Probably pick that one up.
Well several of them went to Ivy League schools.You must have a different definition of “good education“ than I do…
A track record of legal work that stands the test of time coupled with adherence to the constitution. Whether that is drawing up wills that do what the client wanted or deeds the country will accept, all the way to constitutional law argued in front of SCOTUS.What? How do you judge the merit of a lawyer?
Tom Nichols is one of my favorite turncoats. I think he genuinely cares about nothing.
The point made was that he didn’t have any credentials to speak of.A track record of legal work that stands the test of time coupled with adherence to the constitution. Whether that is drawing up wills that do what the client wanted or deeds the country will accept, all the way to constitutional law argued in front of SCOTUS.
Judge the mans work, it is a cheap copout to dismiss anyone because they did not attend a snob elite school. Then couple that with what is now being exposed about the educational indoctrination these schools are providing and the fact employers are beginning to avoid them.
Yep, it is elitist to knock a guy for not having a snob degree, and especially unseemly for salt of the earth folks on INGO…
Eastman was once thought of as a constitutional scholar. Trump trusted his counsel.
I'll revisit this... thought of by who? He was a professor at Chapman University (Fowler) Law School... ranked 109th among law schools by US News and World Report, and for what it's worth, I had never even heard of prior to this.
I do not know anything about the man. No one said he didn’t have ”any credentials to speak of”. But it is elitist to claim he is not a constitutional scholar based solely on the institution he works for. So stop with the BS and read the quotes…The point made was that he didn’t have any credentials to speak of.
If you use an appeal to authority to make a claim about the validity of a legal theory, which you kinda did, then it’s fair to use criteria that asserts a lack of credentials as a counterpoint. And to your standards, what did he do that you can point to that makes him an authority?
You’re just throwing the term “elitist” around As an argument. It doesn’t work. That’s not a rebuttal.
Okay. You didn’t like the way I worded it. I’ll ask differently. What establishes Eastman as a constitutional scholar? But maybe the better question. Is your belief in the validity of the legal theory that they tried to get Pence to go along with, influenced by the credibility of Eastman as a legal scholar? Do you believe he knows his ****? If so, what is your evidence he does?I do not know anything about the man. No one said he didn’t have ”any credentials to speak of”. But it is elitist to claim he is not a constitutional scholar based solely on the institution he works for. So stop with the BS and read the quotes…
Stop changing the meaning of my post because you feel the need to run on.Seems to me if he’s a preeminent constitutional scholar, they’re appealing to authority. Which Mike insists is elitist.
Can you not read? It is in the post you quote. Repeat, I do not know anything about the man that was denigrated solely based on the school he works with. I said that is elitist.Okay. You didn’t like the way I worded it. I’ll ask differently. Shat establishes Eastman as a constitutional scholar? But maybe the better question. Is your belief in the validity of the legal theory that they tried to get Pence to go along with, influenced by the credibility of Eastman as a legal scholar? Do you believe he knows his ****? If so, what is your evidence he does?
Some people are saying it...There. Works both ways. Now what? Divorce?
Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton were all "learned"... William and Mary (times 2) and Kings College (now Columbia).I wonder what the LSAT scores were for the founding fathers?
IU and Iowa law schools (not putting them down, they're solid) are "elite"? I think Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Stanford would be surprised to hear that.You just doubled down on elitism.
Chapman does not attract the "best and brightest"... no two ways about it.In your mind woke companies hiring those indoctrinated woke elite grads equates to their constitutional competence. I reject that elitism…
My claims were twofold:This seems more like a bait and switch. This isn’t what you claimed. The point was in support of your claim that Trump knew he lost the election fairly. So help me get there. I don’t see any evidence here that proves this.
Merit is the antithesis of elitism.Is judging on merit really “elitism”?
Stop changing the meaning of my post because you feel the need to run on.
The man was denigrated solely based on the school he works with. I said that is elitist.
You miss my point... with a whole nation of law schools, a whole department of working constitutional attorneys in the Solicitor General's office, with a seasoned AG in William Barr... Trump CHOSE a professor from Chapman as HIS "Constitutional Scholar" because in that whole universe of choices, Eastman was the only one who gave him what he wanted.I do not know anything about the man. No one said he didn’t have ”any credentials to speak of”. But it is elitist to claim he is not a constitutional scholar based solely on the institution he works for. So stop with the BS and read the quotes…