I highlight a comment in Ken Kersch's post: "If Amy Coney Barrett had been appointed instead of Brett Kavanaugh, the
relevance of the ostensibly irrelevant and ostensibly superseded stuff
I’m talking about in this book would be even more obvious (I would
venture that it may very well loom larger for Kavanaugh himself twenty
years hence)." And he observes that "Neil Gorsuch literally has a Ph.D. in the ostensibly irrelevant and ostensibly superseded stuff I’m talking about in this book."
There's a difference between Judge Barrett and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, though: She's a serious Catholic intellectual; they are Republican party hacks.
(I think that Kersch has himself misunderstood the point of my post, but that's not worth going into: The book is terrific and everyone interested in contemporary conservatism and the Constitution should read it.)
There's a difference between Judge Barrett and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, though: She's a serious Catholic intellectual; they are Republican party hacks.
(I think that Kersch has himself misunderstood the point of my post, but that's not worth going into: The book is terrific and everyone interested in contemporary conservatism and the Constitution should read it.)