Justice Thomas no longer listed as GWU faculty after Roe backlash

[Anonymous]

Never knew Clarence Thomas was also an instructor at GWU Law....no big loss.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/27/thomas-gwu-seminar-roe-backlash-00048202

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is not listed as an instructor for any courses on the website for George Washington University’s law school, where he’s taught since 2011, a removal that follows the high court’s controversial decision undoing decades of precedent protecting a nationwide right to abortion access.

Thomas, among the five justices who voted to overturn the precedent established by Roe v. Wade in 1973, also authored a concurring opinion suggesting the court should also revisit other precedents, including those entitling Americans access to contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships. His role in the decision prompted a GWU student to launch a petition signed by 11,300 people calling for Thomas to be removed from his teaching post at the university.

[Anonymous]

Sad cancel culture. Huge loss.

[Anonymous]

Ok, that's not petty in-group signaling...

[Anonymous]

The worst, least qualified justice on the current court. The epitome of the kind of weak affirmative action hire conservatives incessantly pour scorn upon.

[Anonymous]

Big loss indeed! The school wanted to keep the course, it seems that was his decision. It is understandable, the protester would be there during each class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sad cancel culture. Huge loss.

HAHAHAHAHA.

[Anonymous]

What a snowflake

[Anonymous]

Based on his opinions, he clearly has no grasp of the law. He shouldn’t be teaching it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sad cancel culture. Huge loss.

Or, acknowledgement that he is way off the grid and probably shouldn't be teaching. He wants to revisit the basis of several decisions undermining the same tenants that Loving is based on but not Loving. He also has dubious connections to 1/6. He is a general liability in terms of academic credibility.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure he did not want to have rotten tomatoes hurled at him, so he quit. Smart move. I'd be the first to lob one his way.

[Anonymous]

Wants to ban abortions and gay marriage. I can’t wait until the topic of miscegenation comes up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a snowflake

+1. Don’t write the decision if you can’t even handle a room full of OMG LAW STUDENTS!!!!! PANIC!!!!! Who might disagree with you. He has full time protection. The most he would face is a 23 year old telling him they think he’s wrong. Maybe if these justices got out of their protected bubbles they would be forced to deal with real life consequences.

Then again, he’s getting up there in age and was hospitalized this year. It’s very possible that he can’t manage teaching plus the Court or that he is concerned about COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure he did not want to have rotten tomatoes hurled at him, so he quit. Smart move. I'd be the first to lob one his way.

Please. He comes with a protective detail and no 2L or 3L would lob fruit at him and risk expulsion. The biggest risk he faces in a GW classroom is someone voicing disagreement in a civil non-threatening manner. If he can’t handle that, he has no place in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad cancel culture. Huge loss.

Or, acknowledgement that he is way off the grid and probably shouldn't be teaching. He wants to revisit the basis of several decisions undermining the same tenants that Loving is based on but not Loving. He also has dubious connections to 1/6. He is a general liability in terms of academic credibility.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on his opinions, he clearly has no grasp of the law. He shouldn’t be teaching it.

Fair point. Though it would teach aspiring lawyers that the Supreme Court is no longer what they were raised to think it was. A valuable lesson.