[catiopatio]

> Volokh is a conservative attorney who is intellectually aligned with the 5th circuit judges who wrote this opinion.

Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA, uniquely qualified to weigh in on first amendment law, wrote a column on first amendment and speech issues for the Washington Post for years, and frankly, I imagine would be pretty disappointed (but not surprised, in these illiberal times), to be written off as a “conservative attorney” when he’s consistently espoused libertarian views over the decades.

On top of which, he hasn’t actually weighed in on this ruling yet, and may very well take umbrage with the decision!

His blog at reason did, in fact, post a guest article arguing that the ruling falls afoul of the takings clause.

> Orin Kerr, a conservative attorney and notable Federalist Society backer

You just disqualified Volokh for being a “conservative attorney”.

Now you’re citing a conservative attorney whose opinion suits your argument?

That’s not arguing logically or in good faith, even putting aside the fact that your claims regarding Volokh are a fabrication.

[haswell]

The way I read the parent comment, they dismissed Volokh for stated reasons, but then provided three other sources to bolster the idea that early analysis is generally all against this ruling.

They mentioned they cited sources across the ideological spectrum. In theory, that's good.

It sounds like the primary issue here is mischaracterization of Volokh, but that doesn't necessarily change or invalidate the other sources mentioned.

[catiopatio]

My primary issue is that (1) these replies are rebutting imagined arguments that neither I (nor Volokh, for that matter) have actually made, and (2) in the fervor to rebut these strawmen, Volokh was grossly mischaracterized.

[Steko]

Speaking of 'grossly mischaracterizing' Volokh, why do you think he is "uniquely qualified" to weigh in here? Is it because your views usually align with his? He seems no more qualified than the sources mhneu provided. This decision has been soundly roasted across the spectrum.

[catiopatio]

> Speaking of 'grossly mischaracterizing' Volokh, why do you think he is "uniquely qualified" to weigh in here?

Volokh is a highly-credentialed subject matter expert whose work has been cited by the Supreme Court, and who has been working in first amendment and related law for decades.

His first book, in 2001, was "The First Amendment: Problems, Cases and Policy Arguments. New York: Foundation Press."

He published a 100+ page, peer-reviewed article covering this subject area in 2021:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3913792

> He seems no more qualified than the sources mhneu provided.

He's a great deal more qualified, but that's not the point. He hasn't weighed in on this decision at all yet, other than to note that it was released.

I swear, the amount of "motivated reading" by emotionally invested commenters has me seriously suspicious of anyone that holds a particularly strong legal position on this just-released decision. People do not appear to be thinking. At all.

> This decision has been soundly roasted across the spectrum.

It may very well be rebutted by Volokh, but if so, it won't be a "roasting", and his position will certainly be a great deal more erudite than "this judge is an idiot!"

I brought up Volokh in contrast with the random tech blogger's review of the decision that was cited by the (now great-great-great...-grant-parent post), because if a subject matter expert like Volokh has not yet had time to read and properly analyze the decision, there's simply no way "Mike Masnick" of "Techdirt" has.