So how do you join that conversation?<\/p>\n
For example, if I were to turn this blog post into something legal elites read<\/a>, what phrases, ideas and individuals do I need to cite? I accept that what counts as knowledge is decided by a tiny number of people who have conversations over time. I want to cite those people and use their language and respond to their claims.<\/p>\n Gemini says: To gain a hearing from the legal elite, you must adopt the “academic habitus” and use the specific intellectual currencies they currently trade. Your essay should frame its critique as a participation in ongoing debates about the legitimacy of the administrative state, the future of pluralism, and the epistemological boundaries of law.<\/p>\n Here are the specific phrases, ideas, and individuals you should cite to signal that you belong to the conversation.<\/p>\n Phrases and “Terms of Art”<\/strong><\/p>\n Avoid using common-sense language. Instead, use these conceptual placeholders:<\/p>\n Democratic Backsliding: Frame the alienation of the underclass not as “anger,” but as a symptom of global democratic backsliding caused by a failure of institutional legitimacy.<\/p>\n Epistemic Authority: Instead of saying “professors think they know everything,” discuss the crisis of epistemic authority and the contestation of expert knowledge.<\/p>\n Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty: When discussing judges making laws, reference the counter-majoritarian difficulty. This signals you understand the fundamental tension in constitutional theory.<\/p>\n Legitimacy Deficit: Use this to describe the gap between the “national class” and the “benighted.”<\/p>\n Expressive Function of Law: Use this to describe how laws (like those Caldwell discusses) act as moral signals rather than just rules.<\/p>\n Key Individuals to Cite<\/strong><\/p>\n Citing these specific scholars provides an “intellectual credential” that legal elites respect:<\/p>\n Ronald Dworkin: Cite his concept of Law\u2019s Empire and the Moral Reading of the Constitution. You can then use Guldmann\u2019s or Carrington\u2019s ideas to critique the “Herculean judge.”<\/p>\n Alexander Bickel: Reference him regarding judicial restraint. He is the “safe” conservative-leaning scholar whom elites still take seriously.<\/p>\n Adrian Vermeule: Cite his work on Common Good Constitutionalism. Even if elites disagree with him, he is currently the most discussed “anti-liberal” legal scholar in the academy.<\/p>\n Jeremy Waldron: Use him to discuss The Dignity of Legislation. He provides the sophisticated academic argument for why legislatures (elective politics) are morally superior to courts for resolving disagreements.<\/p>\n Kimberl\u00e9 Crenshaw: Even if critiquing the “Diversity!” movement, you must acknowledge intersectionality as the dominant framework for modern institutional design.<\/p>\n Essential “Elite” Ideas<\/strong><\/p>\n The Internal Point of View: Reference H.L.A. Hart\u2019s idea that for a legal system to work, people must accept the rules from an internal point of view\u2014not just out of fear. Use this to explain why Carrington\u2019s “common thoughts of men” are essential for systemic stability.<\/p>\n Pluralism vs. Perfectionism: Frame the conflict as a struggle between liberal pluralism (leaving people alone) and liberal perfectionism (the “anointed” vision that seeks to perfect the social order).<\/p>\n Institutional Competence: Discuss whether courts have the institutional competence to manage social change, as opposed to the “messy moral compromises” of local government.<\/p>\n Formatting and Tone<\/strong><\/p>\n Eschew Clarity for Complexity: Use turgid, abstract prose. Instead of “people are mad about busing,” write: “The forced integration of public education created a spatial-temporal disruption of the traditional family-state nexus.”<\/p>\n The “Nuanced” Opening: Always begin by acknowledging the “high purpose” or “moral weight” of the elite vision before gently introducing the “complications” or “unintended distributive consequences.”<\/p>\n Cite Law Reviews: Your footnotes should prioritize the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, and Stanford Law Review. If a thought isn’t footnoted with a “See, e.g.,” it does not exist.<\/p>\n By framing your essay as a study of “The Epistemic Boundaries of Constitutional Adjudication in an Age of Democratic Backsliding,” you move from being a “critic” to a “participant” in the conversation of the national class.<\/p>\n Here we go!<\/p>\n The legal landscape today represents an intensification<\/a>, not a departure, from the trends Paul Carrington diagnosed in 1999. The central fault line he identified between a national professional class and the local citizenry remains the dominant source of tension in American law. Although the Supreme Court has shifted ideologically since 2020, the underlying mechanism Carrington warned about persists. Law continues to function as a tool of social engineering wielded by an academically credentialed elite rather than as an expression of democratic self-rule. See, e.g., Patrick J. Deneen, Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future (2023) (analyzing the emergence of a managerial class that bypasses democratic self-rule); Rony Guldmann, Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression (2022) (describing the psychological and social insulation of the legal elite); Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Law and Leviathan: Redeeming the Administrative State (2020) (discussing the internal morality of administrative governance). Compare Adrian Vermeule, Common Good Constitutionalism (2022) (advocating for a top-down moral ordering of law by an expert class), with Samuel Moyn, Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War (2021) (critiquing the legal elite\u2019s role in managing and sanitizing social outcomes). See also Michael J. Sandel, The Tyranny of Merit: What\u2019s Become of the Common Good? (2020) (identifying credentialism as a source of civic alienation); Christopher Caldwell, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties (2020) (describing the rise of a second, administrative constitution that empowers a permanent bureaucratic class)…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" So how do you join that conversation? For example, if I were to turn this blog post into something legal elites read, what phrases, ideas and individuals do I need to cite? I accept that what counts as knowledge is … Continue reading