Title : "My rule is that if I disagree with anything that Alan Dershowitz says, I immediately change my opinion to his... I'm going to bet against Alan Dershowitz on a constitutional question. It's on, Alan!"
link : "My rule is that if I disagree with anything that Alan Dershowitz says, I immediately change my opinion to his... I'm going to bet against Alan Dershowitz on a constitutional question. It's on, Alan!"
"My rule is that if I disagree with anything that Alan Dershowitz says, I immediately change my opinion to his... I'm going to bet against Alan Dershowitz on a constitutional question. It's on, Alan!"
Adams is confronted with this Dershowitz tweet:
Any child born to undocumented immigrants who remains in the country is a constitutional citizen. Only question is whether a child born to a tourist who is then removed and never returns is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.What's interesting to me about Adams is that he gropes at legal answers from the position of a person with no knowledge of constitutional law. I don't believe his knowledges is as low as he claims, because he claims the lowest level of knowledge. So he's doing theater — look at those theater hands in the freeze frame — the theater of where Everyman believes the answer should be. And that's what Trump is doing too.
Notice that Everyman defers to authority most of the time, and you see Everyman Scott Adams taking the strong position, in comic form. He sets up Alan Dershowitz as the authority, and he asserts that whatever he thinks, if Alan Dershowitz says something else he immediately change his opinion to whatever Dershowitz says.
That's hilarious hyperbole, and I think it lampoons the notion that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, a notion one often sees pushed, but that gets kicked to the curb on those occasions when the outcome feels terribly wrong. For Adams, Alan Dershowitz is the Supreme Court. Hilarious. I get it.
In The Theater of Everyman Scott Adams, sometimes The Supreme Court of Alan Dershowitz gets it wrong. It's a Bowers v. Hardwick or whatever — Citizens United, Roe v. Wade. It feels so wrong, Everyman intuits that it is wrong. He doesn't even know the legal argument, doesn't need to know. Just feels. There's got to be something in there that makes it go where he needs it to go. And isn't that how we do constitutional law in the United States? There's that thing fancy lawyers do. This seems to be one of those times when the fancy thing needs to be done. I'm not giving a lawprof opinion on the subject under discussion. I'm just saying that's how I understand this performance in The Theater of Everyman Scott Adams.
Thus articles "My rule is that if I disagree with anything that Alan Dershowitz says, I immediately change my opinion to his... I'm going to bet against Alan Dershowitz on a constitutional question. It's on, Alan!"
that is all articles "My rule is that if I disagree with anything that Alan Dershowitz says, I immediately change my opinion to his... I'm going to bet against Alan Dershowitz on a constitutional question. It's on, Alan!" This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "My rule is that if I disagree with anything that Alan Dershowitz says, I immediately change my opinion to his... I'm going to bet against Alan Dershowitz on a constitutional question. It's on, Alan!" with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2018/11/my-rule-is-that-if-i-disagree-with.html
0 Response to ""My rule is that if I disagree with anything that Alan Dershowitz says, I immediately change my opinion to his... I'm going to bet against Alan Dershowitz on a constitutional question. It's on, Alan!""
Post a Comment