I'd never heard of 35 year-old Yale Law School graduate and Arizona lawyer-bro Kory Langhofer until today, but I def recognize him.
The self-proclaimed "not-a-fan-of-government"-slash-expert-in-government is clearly a mad scientist's test tube DNA-hybrid of George Washington, Ted Cruz, Martin Shkreli, and the half dozen frat bros fresh out of SUNY Binghamton who brown-nosed our Civil Procedure professor back in law school and hit up women for their notes.
Today this fine representative of the legal profession has publicly asserted--without irony but with his eyebrow game on fleek--that Antonin Scalia should be permitted to vote from the grave on cases pending at the time of his death. Because "we know exactly what he thought" and "it's not unprincipled to say we should give effect to that." Because also, it's "incredibly speculative" to suggest Scalia could have changed his mind as that "almost never happens."
Know what else almost never happens? Dead peeps voting on American Idol, much less on American Supreme Court cases.
But this is some truly revolutionary thinking, and it makes me wish I'd gone to Yale instead of crappy, scrappy Brooklyn Law School, the former more vaunted institution having turned out a creative interpreter of the U.S. Constitution's effective lifetime appointment clause under Article III.
Because for reals: Do we really know what the founding fathers meant by one's lifetime, since the actual words of the constitution give justices their tenure "during good behavior?" In addition to effectuating a dying man's wishes (the least we as a nation owe Justice Scalia), certainly a fellow strict constructionist and constitutional originalist could argue that dying is not "bad behavior" sufficient to strip a justice of his seat and vote?
I anticipate a new law review article: "Spending the Weekend at Bernie's: Good Behavior, Antonin Scalia, and a Vote from the Great Beyond," by Kory Langhofer, Esq.
I cannot WAIT to read it.