I have long expressed puzzlement about the invocations of unspecified “process” that is allegedly “due” people who are criticized on Twitter, fired for committing an extensive array of eminently fireable offenses, etc. But I may have just been misreading! Nobdy offers a series of useful definitions that help to make sense of the claims being made by Buruma, Hockenberry et al.:
It’s a violation of dude process. That is the process that a dude gets when he is Just Asking Questions and some killjoy chick starts bugging him. Under dude process procedure the dude processes the criticism, decides it is wrong, and goes about his life remaining powerful and wealthy and care free. Dude process is connected to quid pro bro, which is an exchange of favors between two brosephs in positions of power who watch each other’s backs and take care of each other’a secrets.
Dude process protections are under threat from #metoo, which is one of the reasons that movement is unconstitutional.
Dude diligence is the amount of dilligence you do when you have sworn an oath of service and are looking into the background of a dude who might become one of the most powerful people in the country.
“Should we investigate Kavanaugh’s debt or what these emails that talk about secrets that must be hidden from spouses mean?”
“No. We don’t need to look into stuff. We’re just doing dude dilligence in him. Just putting on enough of a show to claim he was vetted.”
Sometimes the application of dude dilligence to a person can qualify as quid pro bro, and being investigated according to the standards of dude dilligence is definitely a dude process right for rich white guys.
Note that when dude diligence is being performed dude process may be denied people who need to be falsely accused of attempted rape based on Zillow searches for the greater good.
We should also discuss the important concept of substantive dude process, in which the Court issues an opinion holding that literally anything state or federal governments do to restrict access to abortion is constitutional and nobody ever has standing to challenge such regulations, without necessarily explicitly addressing the status of Roe v. Wade. Any actions are justified if they might lead to a fifth Supreme Court vote for the doctrine of substantive dude process. The most substantive substantive due process would be if the opinion was assigned to Justice Bart O’Kavanaugh.