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.

Right. He misgendered a convicted pedophile. We know that. But given that the Wikipedia article doesn’t mention the pedophile convict, I’m skeptical about the rest of that rant.

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)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not be at all surprised if we learn that none of those people were actually law school students.

They are not just law students; they are STANFORD law students-- just the best, top notch, and brightest. May their names be remembered for a long time.

+100
Names AND faces.

Anonymous wrote:I will not be at all surprised if we learn that none of those people were actually law school students.

They are not just law students; they are STANFORD law students-- just the best, top notch, and brightest. May their names be remembered for a long time.

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.

This is the “find out” state, I guess.

Indeed!

Anonymous wrote:I will not be at all surprised if we learn that none of those people were actually law school students.

Oh my. You can’t be serious, but sadly, I know you are.

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.

A jerk? How? Why invite someone to speak if you don't want to hear him or her? Just so you can heckle?

Exactly. In what way did he owe them any respect at all after that disgusting “welcome”?

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.

Anonymous wrote:I will not be at all surprised if we learn that none of those people were actually law school students.

They are definitely law students. They’ve been identified.

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.

A jerk? How? Why invite someone to speak if you don't want to hear him or her? Just so you can heckle?

I will not be at all surprised if we learn that none of those people were actually law school students.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Lovely students there.

These students aren't fit for a career in the law. Just disgusting.

Lovely students there.