Anyone who has read Ekin’s views on law will understand his *sensitivity* about deserved comparisons to Schmitt… poor petal. Happily Schmitt is a household name anywhere the law is discussed seriously - Ekin will just have to learn to accept the comparison or become less of a lickspittle to the far right.
Thank you — though I expect a certain level of courtesy from those leaving comments even when they disagree with the views of others.
Several readers have pointed out that Schmitt is better known to others than he was to me.
Readers write:
JD Vance has cited Vermule the Harvard professor and Carl Schmitt as the authors most influential on his constitutional thinking.
Vermeule made much use of Carl Schmitt in his writing including in the influential 'The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic' by Adrian Vermeule and Eric Posner.
More background: 'The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic:
Schmitt is so much at the core of the argument for expanding the power of the executive and also its emergency powers, and on the international rule of law. The lawyers from the South/Third World cite him for his challenge to international law, and already Imperial Germany was a proponent of this, and Weimar/Nazi Germany even more so with challenges to the Versailles Treaty and also the loss of German territory and colonies. The left Schmittians have their own reasons, I remember disparaging asides by Habermas from a Rome conference about these postmodernists' need to look closer at the provenance of their authorities.
Ekins is well aware of this. He is also close to Vermeule and in effect uses many of the arguments of Adrian Vermeule and Eric Posner and the Federalist Society lawyers. Neither they nor JD Vance use Schmitt to denigrate anyone but draw on his reasoning and do so as a model.
His side in the argument for strengthening the executive and undermining the legitimacy of judicial review or international law/international rules based order often rely on Carl Schmitt.
It's not Ekin... it's the whole raison of Judicial Powers Project. I will spend an hour watching Phillip Sales's speech - (tyvm for link) because I admire his thinking in Bermuda dissent. I'll also view other links asap... because *that's what I do*
Anyone who has read Ekin’s views on law will understand his *sensitivity* about deserved comparisons to Schmitt… poor petal. Happily Schmitt is a household name anywhere the law is discussed seriously - Ekin will just have to learn to accept the comparison or become less of a lickspittle to the far right.
Thank you — though I expect a certain level of courtesy from those leaving comments even when they disagree with the views of others.
Several readers have pointed out that Schmitt is better known to others than he was to me.
Readers write:
JD Vance has cited Vermule the Harvard professor and Carl Schmitt as the authors most influential on his constitutional thinking.
Vermeule made much use of Carl Schmitt in his writing including in the influential 'The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic' by Adrian Vermeule and Eric Posner.
More background: 'The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic:
Donald Trump is taking presidential power to alarming places, writes Jack Goldsmith' https://economist.com/by-invitation/2025/02/20/donald-trump-is-taking-presidential-power-to-alarming-places-writes-jack-goldsmith from The Economist
Lord Sales referred to Carl Schmitt in his Clarendon lectures earlier this year, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCCpeV8qS7E.
Schmitt is so much at the core of the argument for expanding the power of the executive and also its emergency powers, and on the international rule of law. The lawyers from the South/Third World cite him for his challenge to international law, and already Imperial Germany was a proponent of this, and Weimar/Nazi Germany even more so with challenges to the Versailles Treaty and also the loss of German territory and colonies. The left Schmittians have their own reasons, I remember disparaging asides by Habermas from a Rome conference about these postmodernists' need to look closer at the provenance of their authorities.
Ekins is well aware of this. He is also close to Vermeule and in effect uses many of the arguments of Adrian Vermeule and Eric Posner and the Federalist Society lawyers. Neither they nor JD Vance use Schmitt to denigrate anyone but draw on his reasoning and do so as a model.
His side in the argument for strengthening the executive and undermining the legitimacy of judicial review or international law/international rules based order often rely on Carl Schmitt.
Hermer may not know this.
It's not Ekin... it's the whole raison of Judicial Powers Project. I will spend an hour watching Phillip Sales's speech - (tyvm for link) because I admire his thinking in Bermuda dissent. I'll also view other links asap... because *that's what I do*
Thank you.
Phillip Sales’s full 3 lecture series can be found here:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwj4-Geqxth-tzVpfBiwTQa3_q0cvfP0q&feature=shared
*I need multiple listens (it matters).
I fear the Spectator is not amongst my battery of on-line reading material (to which the Observer has recently been added). Any chance of a summary?
It's not long but it's quite closely argued; best to read the whole thing.