Turns out the Falls Church school board guy from the Koch thinktank, Ilya Shapiro, really is toxic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. Stop whining. Yer man tanked his political career. I bet even Cato will dump him soon.

He tanked his reputation. His career will be fine. Georgetown won’t recind their offer, although I’m sure they hope he decides not to come. As long as he has got Koch money behind him, he will always find a home.

I'm not even sure that he tanked his reputation. The 'affirmative action for me but not for thee' conservatives have no problem with what he said. And I'm not sure there are that many people on the left who know him and think he's a brilliant guy.

Even if GTown did rescind his offer, he'd just become a right wing media star because he was 'cancelled' and probably be the president of Hillsdale this time next year.

He’s tanked his reputation in the legal profession at the very least, which is actually quite a big deal in those circles. You don’t see a lot of prominent legal scholars defending him and the obvious reason is that nobody wants to be professionally associated as supporting someone who has made what are now well known racist public statements about two Supreme Court judges. They would fear potential damage to their own careers. I imagine he’s getting a lot of private messages of support, but the only public supper he’s getting is from partisan media.

Similarly, Georgetown is in a tough spot now. They won’t rescind, but they screwed themselves reputationally with a significant group of people who the school would like to visit for lectures and place their graduates in clerkships with.

But otherwise, he’s set himself up for lifetime employment in right wing circles.

Actually, plenty of prominent legal scholars are defending him. https://www.thefire.org/faculty-letter-in-support-of-ilya-shapiro-january-31-2022/

BOOM. And these are big names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

I see. You're calling him out for being inconsistent. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Unless, perhaps, you're aware of some principle that Ilya committed to follow but intentionally chose to break when it came to commenting on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination? What's more interesting is that you agree with Ilya that there will be an asterisk hung by the name of Biden's nominee, but you're still made at him. I guess that means you're also mad at yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

I see. You're calling him out for being inconsistent. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Unless, perhaps, you're aware of some principle that Ilya committed to follow but intentionally chose to break when it came to commenting on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination? What's more interesting is that you agree with Ilya that there will be an asterisk hung by the name of Biden's nominee, but you're still made at him. I guess that means you're also mad at yourself.

It's not hypocrisy, it's racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. Stop whining. Yer man tanked his political career. I bet even Cato will dump him soon.

He tanked his reputation. His career will be fine. Georgetown won’t recind their offer, although I’m sure they hope he decides not to come. As long as he has got Koch money behind him, he will always find a home.

I'm not even sure that he tanked his reputation. The 'affirmative action for me but not for thee' conservatives have no problem with what he said. And I'm not sure there are that many people on the left who know him and think he's a brilliant guy.

Even if GTown did rescind his offer, he'd just become a right wing media star because he was 'cancelled' and probably be the president of Hillsdale this time next year.

He’s tanked his reputation in the legal profession at the very least, which is actually quite a big deal in those circles. You don’t see a lot of prominent legal scholars defending him and the obvious reason is that nobody wants to be professionally associated as supporting someone who has made what are now well known racist public statements about two Supreme Court judges. They would fear potential damage to their own careers. I imagine he’s getting a lot of private messages of support, but the only public supper he’s getting is from partisan media.

Similarly, Georgetown is in a tough spot now. They won’t rescind, but they screwed themselves reputationally with a significant group of people who the school would like to visit for lectures and place their graduates in clerkships with.

But otherwise, he’s set himself up for lifetime employment in right wing circles.

Actually, plenty of prominent legal scholars are defending him. https://www.thefire.org/faculty-letter-in-support-of-ilya-shapiro-january-31-2022/

BOOM. And these are big names.

No they aren’t. The argument in the letter is a joke and most of the signatories are not law professors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. Stop whining. Yer man tanked his political career. I bet even Cato will dump him soon.

He tanked his reputation. His career will be fine. Georgetown won’t recind their offer, although I’m sure they hope he decides not to come. As long as he has got Koch money behind him, he will always find a home.

I'm not even sure that he tanked his reputation. The 'affirmative action for me but not for thee' conservatives have no problem with what he said. And I'm not sure there are that many people on the left who know him and think he's a brilliant guy.

Even if GTown did rescind his offer, he'd just become a right wing media star because he was 'cancelled' and probably be the president of Hillsdale this time next year.

He’s tanked his reputation in the legal profession at the very least, which is actually quite a big deal in those circles. You don’t see a lot of prominent legal scholars defending him and the obvious reason is that nobody wants to be professionally associated as supporting someone who has made what are now well known racist public statements about two Supreme Court judges. They would fear potential damage to their own careers. I imagine he’s getting a lot of private messages of support, but the only public supper he’s getting is from partisan media.

Similarly, Georgetown is in a tough spot now. They won’t rescind, but they screwed themselves reputationally with a significant group of people who the school would like to visit for lectures and place their graduates in clerkships with.

But otherwise, he’s set himself up for lifetime employment in right wing circles.

Actually, plenty of prominent legal scholars are defending him. https://www.thefire.org/faculty-letter-in-support-of-ilya-shapiro-january-31-2022/

BOOM. And these are big names.

FIRE?

Koch propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

I see. You're calling him out for being inconsistent. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Unless, perhaps, you're aware of some principle that Ilya committed to follow but intentionally chose to break when it came to commenting on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination? What's more interesting is that you agree with Ilya that there will be an asterisk hung by the name of Biden's nominee, but you're still made at him. I guess that means you're also mad at yourself.

It's not hypocrisy, it's racism.

And we’ve come full circle. Claim that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. Ignore evidence to the contrary. People see that its disingenuous. I’ll hop off this wheel now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

I see. You're calling him out for being inconsistent. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Unless, perhaps, you're aware of some principle that Ilya committed to follow but intentionally chose to break when it came to commenting on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination? What's more interesting is that you agree with Ilya that there will be an asterisk hung by the name of Biden's nominee, but you're still made at him. I guess that means you're also mad at yourself.

It's not hypocrisy, it's racism.

And we’ve come full circle. Claim that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. Ignore evidence to the contrary. People see that its disingenuous. I’ll hop off this wheel now.

It's possible that the phrase 'lesser black woman' could have been used without intending a racist meaning. However, that wasn't a one off comment of his and shouldn't be evaluated in a vacuum.

We know he also suggested that Sotomayor wasn't a fit nominee. We also know that he was extremely support of ACB's nomination - even though, by his own terms, you would expect him to have been offended by her nomination for the same reasons he's offended by the unknown Biden nominee (i.e. ACB's nomination was overtly gender based and there were, using Ilya's own criteria, more qualified individuals who ought to have been considered). Yet he was full of praise for ACB and raised none of the concerns he has currently or in the past re Sotomayor.

Ilya's 'out' when it comes to the racism accusation is that he isn't a racist, he's just a partisan hack and is comfortable levelling criticism towards Democratic nominees he would never level towards his own team. But of course, the people promoting him as some sort of intellectual & ideological vanguard will never admit as much.

Of course, this can all be cleared up very easily if Ilya would reconcile his recent tweets, and his previously expressed opinions on ACB and Sotomayor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

I see. You're calling him out for being inconsistent. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Unless, perhaps, you're aware of some principle that Ilya committed to follow but intentionally chose to break when it came to commenting on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination? What's more interesting is that you agree with Ilya that there will be an asterisk hung by the name of Biden's nominee, but you're still made at him. I guess that means you're also mad at yourself.

It's not hypocrisy, it's racism.

And we’ve come full circle. Claim that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. Ignore evidence to the contrary. People see that its disingenuous. I’ll hop off this wheel now.

It's possible that the phrase 'lesser black woman' could have been used without intending a racist meaning. However, that wasn't a one off comment of his and shouldn't be evaluated in a vacuum.

We know he also suggested that Sotomayor wasn't a fit nominee. We also know that he was extremely support of ACB's nomination - even though, by his own terms, you would expect him to have been offended by her nomination for the same reasons he's offended by the unknown Biden nominee (i.e. ACB's nomination was overtly gender based and there were, using Ilya's own criteria, more qualified individuals who ought to have been considered). Yet he was full of praise for ACB and raised none of the concerns he has currently or in the past re Sotomayor.

Ilya's 'out' when it comes to the racism accusation is that he isn't a racist, he's just a partisan hack and is comfortable levelling criticism towards Democratic nominees he would never level towards his own team. But of course, the people promoting him as some sort of intellectual & ideological vanguard will never admit as much.

Of course, this can all be cleared up very easily if Ilya would reconcile his recent tweets, and his previously expressed opinions on ACB and Sotomayor.

Thank you for engaging more substantively. I recognize the criticism, and if you eliminate “hack” in the third paragraph, I think you have the gist of it. That, to me at least, seems obvious on the face of it. I’d say the criticism from the left is similarly based in partisanship, rather than the merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

I see. You're calling him out for being inconsistent. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Unless, perhaps, you're aware of some principle that Ilya committed to follow but intentionally chose to break when it came to commenting on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination? What's more interesting is that you agree with Ilya that there will be an asterisk hung by the name of Biden's nominee, but you're still made at him. I guess that means you're also mad at yourself.

It's not hypocrisy, it's racism.

And we’ve come full circle. Claim that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. Ignore evidence to the contrary. People see that its disingenuous. I’ll hop off this wheel now.

It's possible that the phrase 'lesser black woman' could have been used without intending a racist meaning. However, that wasn't a one off comment of his and shouldn't be evaluated in a vacuum.

We know he also suggested that Sotomayor wasn't a fit nominee. We also know that he was extremely support of ACB's nomination - even though, by his own terms, you would expect him to have been offended by her nomination for the same reasons he's offended by the unknown Biden nominee (i.e. ACB's nomination was overtly gender based and there were, using Ilya's own criteria, more qualified individuals who ought to have been considered). Yet he was full of praise for ACB and raised none of the concerns he has currently or in the past re Sotomayor.

Ilya's 'out' when it comes to the racism accusation is that he isn't a racist, he's just a partisan hack and is comfortable levelling criticism towards Democratic nominees he would never level towards his own team. But of course, the people promoting him as some sort of intellectual & ideological vanguard will never admit as much.

Of course, this can all be cleared up very easily if Ilya would reconcile his recent tweets, and his previously expressed opinions on ACB and Sotomayor.

Thank you for engaging more substantively. I recognize the criticism, and if you eliminate “hack” in the third paragraph, I think you have the gist of it. That, to me at least, seems obvious on the face of it. I’d say the criticism from the left is similarly based in partisanship, rather than the merits.

Nope. Being a 'partisan hack' is his escape route for very obviously applying a very different standard to Sotomayor and the Biden nominee than he did for ACB (who he loudly supported). The alternative is he's a big ole racist.

But once again, Ilya could clear this all up himself by explaining the apparent difference between how he evaluated ACB and how he has behaved otherwise. He has made the specific decision not to do so an instead spent his time whining about being cancelled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

I see. You're calling him out for being inconsistent. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Unless, perhaps, you're aware of some principle that Ilya committed to follow but intentionally chose to break when it came to commenting on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination? What's more interesting is that you agree with Ilya that there will be an asterisk hung by the name of Biden's nominee, but you're still made at him. I guess that means you're also mad at yourself.

It's not hypocrisy, it's racism.

And we’ve come full circle. Claim that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. Ignore evidence to the contrary. People see that its disingenuous. I’ll hop off this wheel now.

It's possible that the phrase 'lesser black woman' could have been used without intending a racist meaning. However, that wasn't a one off comment of his and shouldn't be evaluated in a vacuum.

We know he also suggested that Sotomayor wasn't a fit nominee. We also know that he was extremely support of ACB's nomination - even though, by his own terms, you would expect him to have been offended by her nomination for the same reasons he's offended by the unknown Biden nominee (i.e. ACB's nomination was overtly gender based and there were, using Ilya's own criteria, more qualified individuals who ought to have been considered). Yet he was full of praise for ACB and raised none of the concerns he has currently or in the past re Sotomayor.

Ilya's 'out' when it comes to the racism accusation is that he isn't a racist, he's just a partisan hack and is comfortable levelling criticism towards Democratic nominees he would never level towards his own team. But of course, the people promoting him as some sort of intellectual & ideological vanguard will never admit as much.

Of course, this can all be cleared up very easily if Ilya would reconcile his recent tweets, and his previously expressed opinions on ACB and Sotomayor.

Thank you for engaging more substantively. I recognize the criticism, and if you eliminate “hack” in the third paragraph, I think you have the gist of it. That, to me at least, seems obvious on the face of it. I’d say the criticism from the left is similarly based in partisanship, rather than the merits.

Nope. Being a 'partisan hack' is his escape route for very obviously applying a very different standard to Sotomayor and the Biden nominee than he did for ACB (who he loudly supported). The alternative is he's a big ole racist.

But once again, Ilya could clear this all up himself by explaining the apparent difference between how he evaluated ACB and how he has behaved otherwise. He has made the specific decision not to do so an instead spent his time whining about being cancelled.

Ahh-Way to miss or ignore the clue / olive branch. That leaves us with you also being a partisan hack, and me, someone that would like to find a common ground, a fool. No nuance from you, just politics. Keep the knives sharp, kids. Le sigh. Ok. Back to the wheel for real this time. Gotta sharpen the knives. Of course, seems like Joe might get us into a real war, so maybe then we’ll come together as Americans. I mean, his approval numbers also require a third party conflict at this point. Those midterms are imminent.

[Anonymous]

Obviously Ilya has reasons for being extremely enthusiastic about Amy's nomination - and apparently having another standard for the upcoming Biden nominee (not to mention Ilya's previous comments about Sotomayor).

The best thing at this point is for Ilya to speak out and reconcile his views in a way that provides comfort that he's not a racist.

He clearly has enough time on his hands to send out press releases and whine about 'cancellation'.

So why not spend some time defending his opinions. He doesn't seem to want to do that.

[Anonymous]

Yup. He wants the discussion to be about “cancellation” instead of about explaining and defending his views.

What a hero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

I see. You're calling him out for being inconsistent. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Unless, perhaps, you're aware of some principle that Ilya committed to follow but intentionally chose to break when it came to commenting on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination? What's more interesting is that you agree with Ilya that there will be an asterisk hung by the name of Biden's nominee, but you're still made at him. I guess that means you're also mad at yourself.

It's not hypocrisy, it's racism.

And we’ve come full circle. Claim that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. Ignore evidence to the contrary. People see that its disingenuous. I’ll hop off this wheel now.

It's possible that the phrase 'lesser black woman' could have been used without intending a racist meaning. However, that wasn't a one off comment of his and shouldn't be evaluated in a vacuum.

We know he also suggested that Sotomayor wasn't a fit nominee. We also know that he was extremely support of ACB's nomination - even though, by his own terms, you would expect him to have been offended by her nomination for the same reasons he's offended by the unknown Biden nominee (i.e. ACB's nomination was overtly gender based and there were, using Ilya's own criteria, more qualified individuals who ought to have been considered). Yet he was full of praise for ACB and raised none of the concerns he has currently or in the past re Sotomayor.

Ilya's 'out' when it comes to the racism accusation is that he isn't a racist, he's just a partisan hack and is comfortable levelling criticism towards Democratic nominees he would never level towards his own team. But of course, the people promoting him as some sort of intellectual & ideological vanguard will never admit as much.

Of course, this can all be cleared up very easily if Ilya would reconcile his recent tweets, and his previously expressed opinions on ACB and Sotomayor.

Thank you for engaging more substantively. I recognize the criticism, and if you eliminate “hack” in the third paragraph, I think you have the gist of it. That, to me at least, seems obvious on the face of it. I’d say the criticism from the left is similarly based in partisanship, rather than the merits.

Nope. Being a 'partisan hack' is his escape route for very obviously applying a very different standard to Sotomayor and the Biden nominee than he did for ACB (who he loudly supported). The alternative is he's a big ole racist.

But once again, Ilya could clear this all up himself by explaining the apparent difference between how he evaluated ACB and how he has behaved otherwise. He has made the specific decision not to do so an instead spent his time whining about being cancelled.

Ahh-Way to miss or ignore the clue / olive branch. That leaves us with you also being a partisan hack, and me, someone that would like to find a common ground, a fool. No nuance from you, just politics. Keep the knives sharp, kids. Le sigh. Ok. Back to the wheel for real this time. Gotta sharpen the knives. Of course, seems like Joe might get us into a real war, so maybe then we’ll come together as Americans. I mean, his approval numbers also require a third party conflict at this point. Those midterms are imminent.

You’re unserious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously Ilya has reasons for being extremely enthusiastic about Amy's nomination - and apparently having another standard for the upcoming Biden nominee (not to mention Ilya's previous comments about Sotomayor).

The best thing at this point is for Ilya to speak out and reconcile his views in a way that provides comfort that he's not a racist.

He clearly has enough time on his hands to send out press releases and whine about 'cancellation'.

So why not spend some time defending his opinions. He doesn't seem to want to do that.

Because he can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously Ilya has reasons for being extremely enthusiastic about Amy's nomination - and apparently having another standard for the upcoming Biden nominee (not to mention Ilya's previous comments about Sotomayor).

The best thing at this point is for Ilya to speak out and reconcile his views in a way that provides comfort that he's not a racist.

He clearly has enough time on his hands to send out press releases and whine about 'cancellation'.

So why not spend some time defending his opinions. He doesn't seem to want to do that.

Because he can’t.

Typical right wing tactic when caught in something indefensible: Start flailing around with deflections, whataboutisms and other things, like "cancellation." And, regarding cancellation, any thinking person will tell you that it's not "cancellation" - nobody has taken away his right to free speech. Instead, free speech is not a one-way street and does not come without consequences, like others speaking out against you. The problem is not at all that he is being denied free speech.