Reply to Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Stanford Law grad here. The atmosphere was quite stifling when I was a student there (early 1990s), and I'm a moderate liberal. You had to be hard left to be comfortable. But there was a real emphasis on getting clerkships, which reflected well on the school. The boycott of Stanford law grads, even by just a few judges, is meaningful. [/quote]

+100
I hope more judges do the same thing.  [/quote]

I don’t know, sounds like discrimination to me. The majority of these students did nothing wrong. Punishing an entire school seems really unseemly from a judge with a lifetime appointment, but let’s be honest- the judges making the headlines here have proven beyond all doubt that they weren’t hired for their judicial temperaments. [/quote]

Interesting.  And does this sound like discrimination to you too?   :roll:  (from the link above)

"Yale knows how to discipline students, too—at least students who hold the wrong views. If you’re a member of the Federalist Society, and you send an email that another student says is offensive, Yale administrators may threaten a negative report on your character and fitness report to state bar officials. That’s what they did to the student who wrote the infamous "traphouse" email.

By contrast, a few months later, Yale refused to impose any consequences when students yelled and screamed during a Federalist Society event featuring Kristen Waggoner."

And to your point about the "majority of the students doing nothing wrong" - they certainly haven't spoken out against the disgusting behavior of their peers, now have they?  Judge Ho addresses this point:

"Second, at a minimum, [b]law schools should identify disruptive students, so that future employers will know who they’re hiring.
[/b]
Schools issue grades and graduation honors to help employers separate wheat from chaff. Likewise, schools should inform employers if they’re at risk of injecting potentially disruptive forces into their organizations.

Without that information, employers won’t know if the person they’re hiring is in one category or another. Now, some employers may be okay with that. But others may not be. [b]No one is required to hire students who aren’t taught to live under the rule of law.[/b]"[/quote]

Let’s just ignore the fact that the “trap house” comment was disgustingly racist and was in writing, with no doubt as to the author (stupid baby lawyer, stupid, stupid). Our esteemed federal judges see no issue with that? See no problem with hiring someone who makes casual racist and privileged jokes to make law and decide cases of people who may have gotten caught up the system for having a few grams in a trap house?

FedSoc people are so unaware it blows the mind. The reason that few law schools have center-right professors is because they are lower ranked talent and like to surround themselves with people who won’t figure out how impractical and short-sighted they are. ACB is the prime example. Never left her Notre Dame bubble until Trump gave her a spot to appeal to the fundies. [b]She is hardly the “genius legal mind” she was claimed to be, which becomes very clear once you put her next to people who are.[/b] [/quote]

Can you say more about the bolded? Has she come across particularly bad in oral arguments? Or are you referring to something else?

In historical relief, none of the current justices seem particularly intellectually noteworthy, save for Justice Thomas I suppose and that is owing more to his "consistency" and alignment with Scalia than to being some type of legal luminary.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics