Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

According to the Free Beacon article, at least one of them has an appalling understanding of two-party consent law.

[Anonymous]

The alleged activists will be fine and will soon enough settle into the elite clerkships and jobs to which their prestige degrees effectively entitles them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The alleged activists will be fine and will soon enough settle into the elite clerkships and jobs to which their prestige degrees effectively entitles them.

^ entitle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The alleged activists will be fine and will soon enough settle into the elite clerkships and jobs to which their prestige degrees effectively entitles them.

Maybe. Clerkships aren’t handed out like candy to SLS students any more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 5th Circuit is a highly partisan court and this is a highly partisan man. My take on this is that this event was planned and orchestrated to elicit exactly this reaction. This Judge was a member of the Federalist Society when he was nominated to the bench. He was confirmed because he will render the sort of opinions that the Federalist society wants, which are against what the majority of the country wants. It's minority rule over the majority and the majority is well-aware.

I graduated law school in '98 and if this had happened back then I would have been appalled. But 25 years later it's pretty clear what the score is. This is people telling those in power they see through them and making their voice heard.

+10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The alleged activists will be fine and will soon enough settle into the elite clerkships and jobs to which their prestige degrees effectively entitles them.

This is why these activists want to remain anonymous. They know the elite clerkships may just be elusive if their behavior as law students has a bright light shone on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The alleged activists will be fine and will soon enough settle into the elite clerkships and jobs to which their prestige degrees effectively entitles them.

This is why these activists want to remain anonymous. They know the elite clerkships may just be elusive if their behavior as law students has a bright light shone on it.

Especially if the SCOTUS justices think a clerk leaked the Dobbs opinion

Whatever happened with that investigation anyway? Who done it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 5th Circuit is a highly partisan court and this is a highly partisan man. My take on this is that this event was planned and orchestrated to elicit exactly this reaction. This Judge was a member of the Federalist Society when he was nominated to the bench. He was confirmed because he will render the sort of opinions that the Federalist society wants, which are against what the majority of the country wants. It's minority rule over the majority and the majority is well-aware.

I graduated law school in '98 and if this had happened back then I would have been appalled. But 25 years later it's pretty clear what the score is. This is people telling those in power they see through them and making their voice heard.

I just have to respond to this....
First, a judge's job is to render decisions based on LAW - not what is popular. Even if the "majority" wants it, it doesn't make it right. I just hope you are not a lawyer or law student.
Secondly, these activists are not just "telling those in power they see through them and making their voice heard." They are actively preventing the exercise of free speech by the speaker. Something that goes totally against the rules at Stanford and the purpose of college itself. They are behaving poorly - in a way that would NEVER be acceptable in the courtroom. Even by out of control defendants.
You seem to believe the "heckler's veto" is just fine. It's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The activists now want anonymity.

I am betting they are just a tad bit concerned that their names and likenesses might come up in a future google search.
Too bad.

So they wanted to tantrum and scream out an invited speaker, vandalize their dean’s office and intimidate the dean, but not be identified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The activists now want anonymity.

I am betting they are just a tad bit concerned that their names and likenesses might come up in a future google search.
Too bad.

So they wanted to tantrum and scream out an invited speaker, vandalize their dean’s office and intimidate the dean, but not be identified?

Apparently so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The activists now want anonymity.

I am betting they are just a tad bit concerned that their names and likenesses might come up in a future google search.
Too bad.

So they wanted to tantrum and scream out an invited speaker, vandalize their dean’s office and intimidate the dean, but not be identified?

Apparently so.

Too bad. There are legal groups identifying these students and have vowed to follow their careers to ensure that any future employers know of their activism.
Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the fact that the “indefensible” person here is the person who misgendered someone, not the pedophile who was misgendered.

Exactly! Such is the "logic" of the left. Disgusting.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The activists now want anonymity.

I am betting they are just a tad bit concerned that their names and likenesses might come up in a future google search.
Too bad.

This is delicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The activists now want anonymity.

I am betting they are just a tad bit concerned that their names and likenesses might come up in a future google search.
Too bad.

So they wanted to tantrum and scream out an invited speaker, vandalize their dean’s office and intimidate the dean, but not be identified?

Apparently so.

Too bad. There are legal groups identifying these students and have vowed to follow their careers to ensure that any future employers know of their activism.
Good.

Like who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 5th Circuit is a highly partisan court and this is a highly partisan man. My take on this is that this event was planned and orchestrated to elicit exactly this reaction. This Judge was a member of the Federalist Society when he was nominated to the bench. He was confirmed because he will render the sort of opinions that the Federalist society wants, which are against what the majority of the country wants. It's minority rule over the majority and the majority is well-aware.

I graduated law school in '98 and if this had happened back then I would have been appalled. But 25 years later it's pretty clear what the score is. This is people telling those in power they see through them and making their voice heard.

I just have to respond to this....
First, a judge's job is to render decisions based on LAW - not what is popular. Even if the "majority" wants it, it doesn't make it right. I just hope you are not a lawyer or law student.
Secondly, these activists are not just "telling those in power they see through them and making their voice heard." They are actively preventing the exercise of free speech by the speaker. Something that goes totally against the rules at Stanford and the purpose of college itself. They are behaving poorly - in a way that would NEVER be acceptable in the courtroom. Even by out of control defendants.
You seem to believe the "heckler's veto" is just fine. It's not.

+100
Perfectly stated. Astounding that this even has to be spelled out.