In the Boston Globe, law professors Curtis Bradley and Eric Posner (of Duke and Chicago, respectively) join the growing chorus of legal analysts who find no merit in the work of the ABA’s task force on signing statements (hat tip: RCP).  They end their first paragraph thus: “That [the task force’s constitutional] conclusion is false is well known to constitutional law scholars and, one assumes, to the current and former law school deans on the task force.”  Those unnamed deans would be Yale’s Harold Koh and Stanford’s Kathleen Sullivan.

The rest of Bradley and Posner’s column is as devastating as so brief a treatment can be.  So the question Ed Whelan has repeatedly asked still lingers: Are there any constitutional law scholars, not on the task force, who are willing to endorse such an embarrassingly bad ideological hatchet job dressed up as legal analysis?  It’s looking increasingly likely that when the ABA’s assembled delegates receive this task force report, it will go down to defeat.  Or does the general membership of the ABA really want to join in this self-humiliation?