Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really.

Free speech is a between him and the government.
Colleges should encourage diverse opinions and hard conversations. With respect.
So “free speech” doesn’t protect him from being heckled or criticized. But these students are old enough that they should not have behaved like this.
And he’s a child for reacting like he did. He seems like a jerk too.

Your post is one big contradiction. The only thing I agree with is bolded. He would never have reacted that way had the dean and students not heckled and screamed at him from the start. There was zero respect shown from the school that INVITED him to speak.

According to their own federalist student, he came to campus looking for a fight.

Citation needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really.

Free speech is a between him and the government.
Colleges should encourage diverse opinions and hard conversations. With respect.
So “free speech” doesn’t protect him from being heckled or criticized. But these students are old enough that they should not have behaved like this.
And he’s a child for reacting like he did. He seems like a jerk too.

DP. Nope. Schools have conduct rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really.

Free speech is a between him and the government.
Colleges should encourage diverse opinions and hard conversations. With respect.
So “free speech” doesn’t protect him from being heckled or criticized. But these students are old enough that they should not have behaved like this.
And he’s a child for reacting like he did. He seems like a jerk too.

Your post is one big contradiction. The only thing I agree with is bolded. He would never have reacted that way had the dean and students not heckled and screamed at him from the start. There was zero respect shown from the school that INVITED him to speak.

According to their own federalist student, he came to campus looking for a fight.

Citation needed.

Oh, for the PhD part of the forum? Like you needed them for all the others? Read the whole thread.

This kind of scene is exactly what should make you pause and wait for more information. Every one of you jumping on the students only and assuming the judge was an innocent victim are gullible. How many times have we seen staged instigators - who can be the protestors OR the “victim” - and find out later it was planned. We’re years into this BS and by now, everyone should at least know to wait for judgment and that it’s entirely possible it’s not what it seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really.

Free speech is a between him and the government.
Colleges should encourage diverse opinions and hard conversations. With respect.
So “free speech” doesn’t protect him from being heckled or criticized. But these students are old enough that they should not have behaved like this.
And he’s a child for reacting like he did. He seems like a jerk too.

Your post is one big contradiction. The only thing I agree with is bolded. He would never have reacted that way had the dean and students not heckled and screamed at him from the start. There was zero respect shown from the school that INVITED him to speak.

According to their own federalist student, he came to campus looking for a fight.

Citation needed.

Oh, for the PhD part of the forum? Like you needed them for all the others? Read the whole thread.

This kind of scene is exactly what should make you pause and wait for more information. Every one of you jumping on the students only and assuming the judge was an innocent victim are gullible. How many times have we seen staged instigators - who can be the protestors OR the “victim” - and find out later it was planned. We’re years into this BS and by now, everyone should at least know to wait for judgment and that it’s entirely possible it’s not what it seems.

If you are so certain of your claim, cite your source. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke.

[Anonymous]

Bring back the draft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bring back the draft.

I wouldn't want any of these activists serving in our military. They are more suited for a stint at Starbucks as a barista. They couldn't handle the rigors of the military and would likely sabotage any efforts the military has to protect our country. These activists do not love their country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really.

Free speech is a between him and the government.
Colleges should encourage diverse opinions and hard conversations. With respect.
So “free speech” doesn’t protect him from being heckled or criticized. But these students are old enough that they should not have behaved like this.
And he’s a child for reacting like he did. He seems like a jerk too.

Your post is one big contradiction. The only thing I agree with is bolded. He would never have reacted that way had the dean and students not heckled and screamed at him from the start. There was zero respect shown from the school that INVITED him to speak.

According to their own federalist student, he came to campus looking for a fight.

Citation needed.

Oh, for the PhD part of the forum? Like you needed them for all the others? Read the whole thread.

This kind of scene is exactly what should make you pause and wait for more information. Every one of you jumping on the students only and assuming the judge was an innocent victim are gullible. How many times have we seen staged instigators - who can be the protestors OR the “victim” - and find out later it was planned. We’re years into this BS and by now, everyone should at least know to wait for judgment and that it’s entirely possible it’s not what it seems.

The dean’s prepared remarks are good proof that the students’ tantrum was planned, and that they never were going to let the judge speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that judges have become a complete disgrace.

Thanks for that, Donald Trump.

No, this has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with campus climate.

This judge came in looking for a fight and was rude and dismissive to valid questions. From Federlaist Society member David Lat:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that judges have become a complete disgrace.

Thanks for that, Donald Trump.

No, this has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with campus climate.

This judge came in looking for a fight and was rude and dismissive to valid questions. From Federlaist Society member David Lat:

This statement is full of “or he said something like that” comments. Hardly a useful source.

Plus, the judge is human. Wouldn’t most of us lose our cool if treated the way he was from the moment he stepped on campus?

I don’t care for him, nor do I like his politics. Still, he’s not the one looking bad right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge Kyle Duncan is an aѕѕhole known for a history of anti-LGBT activism. In 2015, Duncan argued before the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. He has led efforts to defend state bans on same-sex marriage. When the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of marriage equality, Duncan described the decision as an "abject failure" that "imperils civic peace", and he argued that the decision "raises a question about the legitimacy of the court."

Duncan represented the birth mother of three children who refused to give her former same-sex spouse visitation rights to the children. He represented a Virginia school that sought to prevent a transgender student from using the bathroom that corresponded to their gender identity. He also defended in courts North Carolina's bathroom bill that prohibited transgender students from using the bathroom that corresponded to their gender identity.

While he was a judge on the Fifth Circuit, Duncan refused to identify a transgender defendant by their assumed name and preferred gender pronouns. Duncan noted, "Congress has said nothing to prohibit courts from referring to litigants according to their biological sex, rather than according to their subjective gender identity".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Duncan_(judge)

He’s not wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that judges have become a complete disgrace.

Thanks for that, Donald Trump.

No, this has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with campus climate.

This judge came in looking for a fight and was rude and dismissive to valid questions. From Federlaist Society member David Lat:

The source isn’t posted for a reason. This guy is far far left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that judges have become a complete disgrace.

Thanks for that, Donald Trump.

No, this has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with campus climate.

This judge came in looking for a fight and was rude and dismissive to valid questions. From Federlaist Society member David Lat:

This statement is full of “or he said something like that” comments. Hardly a useful source.

Plus, the judge is human. Wouldn’t most of us lose our cool if treated the way he was from the moment he stepped on campus?

I don’t care for him, nor do I like his politics. Still, he’s not the one looking bad [/b]right now.[b]

Bolded is key and why this thread is absurd.

So judges can be human and students can’t be? Why the lower standard for judges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that judges have become a complete disgrace.

Thanks for that, Donald Trump.

No, this has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with campus climate.

This judge came in looking for a fight and was rude and dismissive to valid questions. From Federlaist Society member David Lat:

I believe that was a comment on David Lat’s blog, not from David Lat himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that judges have become a complete disgrace.

Thanks for that, Donald Trump.

No, this has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with campus climate.

This judge came in looking for a fight and was rude and dismissive to valid questions. From Federlaist Society member David Lat:

This statement is full of “or he said something like that” comments. Hardly a useful source.

Plus, the judge is human. Wouldn’t most of us lose our cool if treated the way he was from the moment he stepped on campus?

I don’t care for him, nor do I like his politics. Still, he’s not the one looking bad [/b]right now.[b]

Bolded is key and why this thread is absurd.

So judges can be human and students can’t be? Why the lower standard for judges?

This thread is about his visit to Stanford, so the “right now” is all that matters.

The students’ behavior is appalling and terrifying. It really was like watching toddlers in action. I work in a field that places me up against people I philosophically and politically disagree with all the time. Never have I thought a tantrum would be an effective way to communicate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that judges have become a complete disgrace.

Thanks for that, Donald Trump.

No, this has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with campus climate.

This judge came in looking for a fight and was rude and dismissive to valid questions. From Federlaist Society member David Lat:

Sometimes I believe that people here think that readers will take their statements as proven fact and not check the validity of the statement.

David Lat did NOT write this. He was quoting a critic of Judge Duncan.

Here:

After the event, Stanford FedSoc members asked Dean Steinbach for her thoughts. She asserted that nothing the protestors had done violated the Stanford disruption policy and that the event had been “exactly what the freedom of speech was meant to look like—messy.” She said that if Judge Duncan had wanted to give his remarks, he should have just kept reading them, and she claimed that he was disrespectful to the attendees.

And is there a case for that? I have readers and sources on both sides of the aisle, I believe in presenting both sides of controversies, and I’ll now quote from a source who was critical of how Judge Duncan conducted himself:

While I think the administration should have handled it differently, my main takeaway is that I have never seen a grown man—let alone a federal judge—comport himself so poorly.

From the moment Judge Duncan arrived on campus, he seemed to be looking for a fight. He walked into the law school filming protestors on his phone, looking more like a YouTuber storming the Capitol, than a federal judge coming to speak.

Judge Duncan, whom I offered the opportunity to respond to these allegations, did not deny this claim: “Did I try to record video? Damn right I did. I wanted to make a record.”

Back to my source:

He was heckled pretty relentlessly, but I truly can't have imagined a worse reaction. He could have had a moral victory if he’d stayed on message, kept his cool, and delivered his prepared remarks. He even had a heads-up that the event was likely to be disrupted, so I would have thought that he would have had time to prepare himself to stay composed.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/yale-law-is-no-longer-1for-free-speech

This is what Lat wrote in his piece describing the incident:

But here’s where things went off the rails. When the Stanford FedSoc president (an openly gay man) opened the proceedings, he was jeered between sentences. Judge Duncan then took the stage—and from the beginning of his speech, the protestors booed and heckled continually. For about ten minutes, the judge tried to give his planned remarks, but the protestors simply yelled over him, with exclamations like "You couldn't get into Stanford!" "You're not welcome here, we hate you!" "Why do you hate black people?!" "Leave and never come back!" "We hate FedSoc students, f**k them, they don't belong here either!" and "We do not respect you and you have no right to speak here! This is our jurisdiction!"

Throughout this heckling, Associate Dean Steinbach and the University's student-relations representative—who were in attendance throughout the event, along with a few other administrators (five in total, per Ed Whelan)—did nothing. FedSoc members had discussed possible disruption with the student-relations rep before the event, and he said he would issue warnings to those who yelled at the speaker, but only if the yelling disrupted the flow of the event. Despite the difficulty that Judge Duncan was having in giving his remarks, plus the fact that many students were struggling to hear him, no action was taken.

After around ten minutes of trying to give his remarks, Judge Duncan became angry, departed from his prepared remarks, and laced into the hecklers. He called the students “juvenile idiots” and said he couldn’t believe the “blatant disrespect” he was being shown after being invited to speak. He said that the “prisoners were now running the asylum,” which led to a loud round of boos. His pushback riled up the protesters even more.