Dude was always weird, but he also kinda looked like an aged-out chad (see https://media.bizj.us/view/img/2562091/josh-blackman-attorney*1024xx2873-1620-0-326.jpg and https://heinonline.org/HeinDocs/author_images/Blackman.jpg ; you can just imagine this dude playing college baseball for texas tech or some shit, spittin' dip into a gatorade bottle and bitchin' about muslims before stepping out into the on-deck circle).

I ran into him the other week and he looks like he's transitioning into howard stern or some shit: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_rxJkQWUAQxpoa.jpg and https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/optimized/public/brightcove/videos/images/posters/image_27457.jpg?itok=-RDwbh43 . I literally almost made a joke about it, and then I thought "oh shit, he's probably not joking at all; why would he be?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5219917&forum_id=2#45390114)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5219917&forum_id=2#45392666)

I mean good for him for hustling, but he's one of the presenters I've heard from a handful of times who I'm least convinced will say something unique, interesting, or incisive when I sit down to hear him talk. Also that hair must be disgusting in south texas heat and humidity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5219917&forum_id=2#45396947)

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2025/01/11-Walker.pdf

Take, for example, a conservative law professor who describes himself as “a national thought leader on constitutional law and the United States Supreme Court.”9 In 2020, he called the Amy Barrett nomination “unsettling,” in part because he “didn’t know who she was” when he met her at a conference.10 Take a minute, and think about that. Amy Barrett was one of the nation’s leading scholars on textualism and originalism, on one of the best faculties anywhere.11 But this fellow didn’t know anything about her scholarship,12 and he blamed her for not attending enough conferences with him.13 There is indeed something “unsettling” about that, and it isn’t Justice Barrett’s nomination.

Two years later, our same friend tried his hand at psychoanalysis—because, I guess, why not? On the internet, anyone can say anything. Referring to a Kavanaugh line in Bruen endorsing the validity of a mental-health records check for gun licenses, he wrote: “I have to think that Kavanaugh’s dicta here was affected by the assassination a8empt, in which a person with apparent mental health problems tried to kill” him.14 Really? Is that also why Justice Scalia called mental-health requirements “presumptively lawful” in Heller?15 And is it why Justice Alito did the same in McDonald?16 And is it what made Kavanaugh quote Scalia and Alito with approval in a 2011 opinion—11 years before someone tried to shoot him?17

To give this guy his due, he stays busy: He’s written more than 10,000 blog posts, often thousands of words long,18 and over the past 10 years, he has spoken at more than 300 Federalist Society events.19 So he is a remarkably fast writer, and he’s happy to share an opinion about everything, everywhere; and that turns out to be a winning recipe for ge8ing clicks and ge8ing quoted. For example, the New York Times quoted him saying that “Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett have and will continue to disappoint conservatives”20—which struck me as odd, because I know a few legal conservatives, and they’re not exactly disappointed by Dobbs; or West Virginia; or Harvard. Or by Roman Catholic Diocese, Alabama Realtors, Collins, Bruen, Kennedy, Carson, 303 Creative, and Biden v. Nebraska. From an originalist perspective, this is the best Supreme Court since John Marshall’s. But our friend the “national thought leader” told the Times, “I don’t know that future [Supreme Court] ‘short lists’ are worth much if they are made by the same people who generated the last batch of lists.”21

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5219917&forum_id=2#49027686)