Will Baude

Do you do the Kagan thing, play the inside game, try to, you know, produce narrow decisions, limit the damage, try to find consensus?

Or do you do the Justice Jackson thing of, you know, kind of declaring that the house is burning down and directing your efforts kind of outside?

I think that's a hard question.

I think maybe it's better if some people do one and some people do the other.

I've chosen one path on that.

I'm a firefighter in this metaphor.

But you are also, in one sense, like one of these people that's like, okay, forget about all this textualism and judicial restraint stuff, right?

Uh, like in some ways, like you are a, you know, you have this first generation of kind of early originalism that is about these kind of, you know, judicial discretion, limiting doctrine and rhetoric along those lines too.

And then you have this new breed, uh, folks like you, you know, who are saying, you know, forget about all this tech stuff.

But, yeah.

So related to that, I think you've read this article that Jack Goldsmith, co-blogger, and your colleague, Kurt Bradley, put up on SSRN earlier this week, General Law Revivalism and the Problem of 1938.

Yeah.

Super, super interesting.

Sort of taking aim at...

And you and Steve Sachs and Judd Campbell and sort of the larger group of people trying to resurrect general law.

I'm sort of in there indirectly, although the work that, you know, I've done about general law is kind of a little bit.

It's not really originalist.

It's more sort of instrumental and maybe talking about something slightly different than what you guys are talking about.

But basically, Bradley and Goldsmith's, you know, point is that.

I think it's more of a pragmatic point, right?