My current algorithmically-fed guilty pleasure is watching clips of "Sovereign Citizens" losing in court.
"Sovereign Citizen", for those who don't know, is an umbrella term capturing believers in an array of pseudo-legal gibberish that they think provide, more-or-less, a get-out-of-law-free card. There are probably infinite permutations of SovCit "theory", many of which these days don't use the term "sovereign citizen" (as they've gotten wise that this has become the generic term courts use when rejecting their nonsense). But if you've ever heard someone talk about how we're actually under Maritime Law or how the courts are actually bondholders, or offered to give some magic words that discharge your car payment or mortgage without actually paying for it, you've probably encountered a SovCit.
In various corners of the internet, SovCit peddlers confidently declare that they've cracked the code of U.S. law and so are immune to normal rules and regulations (like needing a driver's license to use a car, or being subjected to the criminal jurisdiction of their county judge). Once they're haled into court, however, they're frequently outraged and dismayed to find that their legal incantations have no effect. As in any conspiracy theory, the proponents always have an explanation for why it didn't pan out, usually taking the form either of (a) you didn't use the right magic words or (b) the judges/police/bailiff/everybody is corrupt and treasonous. And so the theories remain resilient in spite of loss after loss after loss. "As oft as reason is against a man, so oft will a man be against reason."
So why are these videos grabbing me right now? Well for one, in spite of their widely-acknowledged fringe status, I have to ask just how long it is before one of these cranks makes it onto the bench or some other position of substantial legal influence. After all, just how distant is their crackpottery from the crackpottery that dominates the MAGA movement? Are we really relying on the vetting capacity of this administration to keep them at bay? They're of a kind! One can very easily see how the sovereign citizen's self-serving assertions about the fictitiousness of pretty much all contemporary "law" -- as much as they are gibberish -- would hold appeal for a movement that fundamentally is about making up new law as they go in order to serve their own self-interest. If anti-vaxx nuts can worm their way into top healthcare postings, I don't think we can be sanguine about SovCits finagling their way into the DOJ.
But leave the doomsaying aside. I think the main reason I'm enjoying these videos, as a law professor, is because right now there is something deeply cathartic about watching bad legal arguments lose. In a world where the highest court of the land acts in increasingly arbitrary and lawless fashion, to see a domain where law matters is a form of escapism. No, I'm not saying that an opinion like Callais is (quite) sovereign citizen caliber. But as a law professor, it genuinely and sincerely hurts to see how weakly rule of law constrains those actors constitutionally empowered to declare what the law is.
And yes, I can hear the tutting from a section of the bleachers that it was naive to ever think that law was anything other than dressed-up politics or judicial preference. But as popular as that line is (and as much as its proponents are now, with some justification, crowing with vindication), I still don't fully believe it. The late Fred Schauer's insight about "easy cases" -- the fact that most legal disputes are not in fact seriously contested and are the subject of massive intersubjective agreement from judges of wildly different social and ideological priors -- continues to carry weight. More importantly, the notion that most of the time legal questions should have relatively reliable answers is an important one. There is little point to the existence of the legal profession if the answer to every legal question posed by a client is "I dunno -- depends on the judge." We believe and we have to believe that there are cases -- a lot of cases, most cases -- where one can answer a legal question with a reasonably confident legal conclusion.
The SovCit smackdowns speak to that. They are dramatic, albeit in many stylized, illustrations that law is what it is even in the face of very loud yelling and screaming and dancing to try and incant it into something that it isn't. In a time where it sometimes seems as if force of political will alone can convert gibberish legal arguments into binding precedent, it is nice to watch brute insistence crash against actual legal reality.