新未名空间

Nelson是高院保守派引用最多的法学家。这哥们这次把几个不要脸的马屁精的底裤扒了：舔狗不要假装自己是originalist。

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in December about whether President Trump can fire government officials for any reason, or no reason, despite laws meant to shield them from politics.

There is little question that the court will side with the president. Its conservative majority has repeatedly signaled that it plans to adopt the “unitary executive theory,” which says the original understanding of the Constitution demands letting the president remove executive branch officials as he sees fit.

But a new article, from a leading originalist law professor, has complicated and perhaps upended the conventional wisdom. The legal academy treated the development like breaking news.

“Bombshell!” William Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago who himself is a prominent originalist, wrote on social media. “Caleb Nelson, one of the most respected originalist scholars in the country, comes out against the unitary executive interpretation” of the Constitution.

Professor Nelson, who teaches at the University of Virginia and is a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the text of the Constitution and the historical evidence surrounding it grants Congress broad authority to shape the executive branch, including by putting limits on the president’s power to fire people.

Professor Nelson’s article was published Sept. 29 by the Democracy Project, an initiative at the New York University School of Law that plans to release 100 essays in 100 days by an ideologically mixed group.

The article is particularly notable, said Richard H. Pildes, who is a law professor at N.Y.U. and one of the project’s founders.

“If a highly respected originalist scholar like Professor Nelson, on whom the court relies frequently, denies that originalism supports the unitary executive theory,” Professor Pildes said, “that inevitably raises serious questions about an originalist justification for the court’s looming approach.”

Professor Nelson’s scholarship has been exceptionally influential. It has been cited in more than a dozen Supreme Court opinions, including ones by every member of the six-justice conservative majority.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion last year, listed him among “respected scholars” who are “continuing to undertake careful analysis” about the role tradition plays in determining the Constitution’s original meaning. Justice Thomas cited one of his articles six times in a single concurring opinion in 2023 and two of his articles in another concurring opinion that year.

你个屁都不懂的家伙，一天到晚就知道瞎喷。这教授的文章你读过没有，能读的懂不？

这本来就是法学界不同学派的学术争论，和床铺没有任何关系。睁大你的眼睛看清楚了：

The Supreme Court, however, has interpreted Article II of the Constitution to address the topic of removal itself. Although the case law is still in flux, the Court appears to be moving toward a sweepingly pro-President position: most officers who participate in the exercise of executive power must be removable at will by the President or his direct subordinates. Over the past two decades, the charge has been led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who has written an extraordinary series of majority opinions concentrating ever more power in the President

20年前就开始的学术之争，你也能扯到床铺身上，LOL。。。你个啥都不懂的玩意儿只会瞎喷。

你别难为普金老师，普金老师得阅读水平介于pre-k和k之间，他不靠baidu翻译连标题都都不明白

jhe123 写了： 2025年 10月 13日 14:18

你个屁都不懂的家伙，一天到晚就知道瞎喷。这教授的文章你读过没有，能读的懂不？

这本来就是法学界不同学派的学术争论，和床铺没有任何关系。睁大你的眼睛看清楚了：

The Supreme Court, however, has interpreted Article II of the Constitution to address the topic of removal itself. Although the case law is still in flux, the Court appears to be moving toward a sweepingly pro-President position: most officers who participate in the exercise of executive power must be removable at will by the President or his direct subordinates. Over the past two decades, the charge has been led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who has written an extraordinary series of majority opinions concentrating ever more power in the President

20年前就开始的学术之争，你也能扯到床铺身上，LOL。。。你个啥都不懂的玩意儿只会瞎喷。

roberts最糟糕就是5：4 keep aca alive哪一个 majority opinions, 简直就是一泡狗屎，把美国宪法得底裤都拔下来了。

jhe123 写了： 2025年 10月 13日 14:18

你个屁都不懂的家伙，一天到晚就知道瞎喷。这教授的文章你读过没有，能读的懂不？

这本来就是法学界不同学派的学术争论，和床铺没有任何关系。睁大你的眼睛看清楚了：

The Supreme Court, however, has interpreted Article II of the Constitution to address the topic of removal itself. Although the case law is still in flux, the Court appears to be moving toward a sweepingly pro-President position: most officers who participate in the exercise of executive power must be removable at will by the President or his direct subordinates. Over the past two decades, the charge has been led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who has written an extraordinary series of majority opinions concentrating ever more power in the President

20年前就开始的学术之争，你也能扯到床铺身上，LOL。。。你个啥都不懂的玩意儿只会瞎喷。

赖美豪中 写了： 2025年 10月 13日 15:10

你别难为普金老师，普金老师得阅读水平介于pre-k和k之间，他不靠baidu翻译连标题都都不明白

赖书记是post-K，妈的妥妥的Eb1E，为啥被移民局打出精神病的？

赖美豪中 写了： 2025年 10月 13日 15:12

roberts最糟糕就是5：4 keep aca alive哪一个 majority opinions, 简直就是一泡狗屎，把美国宪法得底裤都拔下来了。

狗党黑白强奸犯s法官的意见仅次于赖书记。

我们这些eb1哪有你这个eb0牛b

VladPutin 写了： 2025年 10月 13日 15:58

赖书记是post-K，妈的妥妥的Eb1E，为啥被移民局打出精神病的？