I finally had a chance to digest this thread and I actually agree with much it … up to the point that it accuses me of refusing to engage with differing views and trying to “burn it all down!” I think Amicus listeners know that’s untrue; we actually get flak for being too soft on the court.
Staunch partisans like Mark take a different path. They make no effort to engage with people with different views—even people left-of-center who but aren't trying to burn it all down!
Jan 14, 2026 20:07💯! My struggle with Mr. Epps is his undifferentiation between him feeling able to speak to “all sides” and expecting that we, people whom modern Christian conservatives don’t think should exist in public (or at all) are in the wrong for not doing so. You can’t win an argument that’s faith based!
To be clear- I understand the legal community discussion idea and why that makes sense in some forums, but I read his thread as criticizing law folks who have left spaces actively hostile to their existence addressing why that is other than, how did he put it, “moving to BlueSky”.
Also it is incredibly disingenuous when an argument about law fully isolates itself from science and sociology. So I guess that my legal ideological bubble is science/pluralism vs religion/sectarian underpinning reasoning structures. Oh well.
