Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many fascists want to provoke college students? The judge got exactly what he wanted. He wasn’t there to give an intellectual argument. It’s all performative clout chasing.

Why do so many fascist law students from "elite" universities work so hard to shut down free speech with which they disagree? The students are getting exactly what they deserve - their 15 "minutes of fame" which will hopefully result in their inability to obtain much-desired clerkships.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long thread..

I have pulled a few I think are most noteworthy.

Who cares about some antiwoke activist who has a Twitter account? Is this guy’s Twitter account supposed to be unbiased reporting? It’s not. It is an interview for Fox and their propaganda.

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many fascists want to provoke college students? The judge got exactly what he wanted. He wasn’t there to give an intellectual argument. It’s all performative clout chasing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are better consequences than anything Stanford could do to hold these students accountable.

Oh look, Ho is now jealous of all the publicity Duncan has gotten. Gotta one up him to get back on top of the SCOTUS list.

Speaking of jealous - your bitter tantrums are doing you no favors. You just look so ridiculous, defending the behavior of these activist law students. And you seem confused, to boot. Judge Ho is throwing his support behind Judge Duncan. So telling that you would try to spin this otherwise.

No one is defending their behavior. We’re just pointing out the ridiculous attention seeking by these judges. So telling that you defend them.

You bet I defend them - as does anyone who actually values free speech. So that rules you out.

Nothing says free speech more than government officials using their power to punish people who say things they don’t like.

Anonymous wrote:Long thread..

I have pulled a few I think are most noteworthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are better consequences than anything Stanford could do to hold these students accountable.

Oh look, Ho is now jealous of all the publicity Duncan has gotten. Gotta one up him to get back on top of the SCOTUS list.

Speaking of jealous - your bitter tantrums are doing you no favors. You just look so ridiculous, defending the behavior of these activist law students. And you seem confused, to boot. Judge Ho is throwing his support behind Judge Duncan. So telling that you would try to spin this otherwise.

No one is defending their behavior. We’re just pointing out the ridiculous attention seeking by these judges. So telling that you defend them.

You bet I defend them - as does anyone who actually values free speech. So that rules you out.

Nothing says free speech more than government officials using their power to punish people who say things they don’t like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are better consequences than anything Stanford could do to hold these students accountable.

Oh look, Ho is now jealous of all the publicity Duncan has gotten. Gotta one up him to get back on top of the SCOTUS list.

Speaking of jealous - your bitter tantrums are doing you no favors. You just look so ridiculous, defending the behavior of these activist law students. And you seem confused, to boot. Judge Ho is throwing his support behind Judge Duncan. So telling that you would try to spin this otherwise.

No one is defending their behavior. We’re just pointing out the ridiculous attention seeking by these judges. So telling that you defend them.

You bet I defend them - as does anyone who actually values free speech. So that rules you out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are better consequences than anything Stanford could do to hold these students accountable.

Oh look, Ho is now jealous of all the publicity Duncan has gotten. Gotta one up him to get back on top of the SCOTUS list.

Speaking of jealous - your bitter tantrums are doing you no favors. You just look so ridiculous, defending the behavior of these activist law students. And you seem confused, to boot. Judge Ho is throwing his support behind Judge Duncan. So telling that you would try to spin this otherwise.

No one is defending their behavior. We’re just pointing out the ridiculous attention seeking by these judges. So telling that you defend them.

You bet I defend them - as does anyone who actually values free speech. So that rules you out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

How is what Ho is doing different from cancel culture?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

You cannot even see the irony in your post.

Tantrums and emotions describe to a tee how the snowflake law students behaved.
The response from Judge Ho was quite measured and coherent.
When you operate a law school in which freedom of speech is not valued or respected, do not expect judges to award clerkships to students from that school.
Bad behavior has its consequences. And, it reflects poorly on the school - particularly when a number of faculty sat in the room during the tantrums from the students and said nothing.

+1,000
I’m quite enjoying the sulky reactions from our resident LWNJs. They know they’re wrong but they refuse to admit it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

How is what Ho is doing different from cancel culture?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

You cannot even see the irony in your post.

Tantrums and emotions describe to a tee how the snowflake law students behaved.
The response from Judge Ho was quite measured and coherent.
When you operate a law school in which freedom of speech is not valued or respected, do not expect judges to award clerkships to students from that school.
Bad behavior has its consequences. And, it reflects poorly on the school - particularly when a number of faculty sat in the room during the tantrums from the students and said nothing.

It’s punishing students who had nothing to do with any of that. Guilt by association. Not very judicial at all.

Then, these schools should get their acts together and make sure their students are informed about free speech and how to behave when presented with information that they don't agree with.
The behavior of these students is reflecting poorly on the school as a whole and unfortunately, impacting all students who attend.

You realize those same pretexts have been used to justify all manner of foolishness?

I'm sure the judge also hates "judicial activism", but here he is trying to tell private law schools how to administer themselves.

Well done, Judge Ho.

Yes, well done, indeed. Nice to see a voice of reason speaking out. Stanford can do whatever they want. But no one is required to hire their idiot students.

You should stop whining about cancel culture then.

And you should stop smugly saying, "Actions have consequences," if you don't want it thrown right back at you. As in this instance. The stupid law school students are getting exactly what they deserve. Actions do indeed have consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

How is what Ho is doing different from cancel culture?

Do you not see a difference between the school giving consequences and judges doxxing them on the internet?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

You cannot even see the irony in your post.

Tantrums and emotions describe to a tee how the snowflake law students behaved.
The response from Judge Ho was quite measured and coherent.
When you operate a law school in which freedom of speech is not valued or respected, do not expect judges to award clerkships to students from that school.
Bad behavior has its consequences. And, it reflects poorly on the school - particularly when a number of faculty sat in the room during the tantrums from the students and said nothing.

It’s punishing students who had nothing to do with any of that. Guilt by association. Not very judicial at all.

Then, these schools should get their acts together and make sure their students are informed about free speech and how to behave when presented with information that they don't agree with.
The behavior of these students is reflecting poorly on the school as a whole and unfortunately, impacting all students who attend.

You realize those same pretexts have been used to justify all manner of foolishness?

I'm sure the judge also hates "judicial activism", but here he is trying to tell private law schools how to administer themselves.

Well done, Judge Ho.

Yes, well done, indeed. Nice to see a voice of reason speaking out. Stanford can do whatever they want. But no one is required to hire their idiot students.

You should stop whining about cancel culture then.

And you should stop smugly saying, "Actions have consequences," if you don't want it thrown right back at you. As in this instance. The stupid law school students are getting exactly what they deserve. Actions do indeed have consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

How is what Ho is doing different from cancel culture?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

You cannot even see the irony in your post.

Tantrums and emotions describe to a tee how the snowflake law students behaved.
The response from Judge Ho was quite measured and coherent.
When you operate a law school in which freedom of speech is not valued or respected, do not expect judges to award clerkships to students from that school.
Bad behavior has its consequences. And, it reflects poorly on the school - particularly when a number of faculty sat in the room during the tantrums from the students and said nothing.

It’s punishing students who had nothing to do with any of that. Guilt by association. Not very judicial at all.

Then, these schools should get their acts together and make sure their students are informed about free speech and how to behave when presented with information that they don't agree with.
The behavior of these students is reflecting poorly on the school as a whole and unfortunately, impacting all students who attend.

You realize those same pretexts have been used to justify all manner of foolishness?

I'm sure the judge also hates "judicial activism", but here he is trying to tell private law schools how to administer themselves.

Well done, Judge Ho.

Yes, well done, indeed. Nice to see a voice of reason speaking out. Stanford can do whatever they want. But no one is required to hire their idiot students.

You should stop whining about cancel culture then.

Who cares? None of these students would want to clerk for these judges anyway. Unless you want a career as a right wing activist, clerking for them is a black mark on your resume.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against clerkship boycotts. But to be honest, clerks from top 25 schools are pretty much fungible.

I think it is very much warranted in this case.

"Rules aren't rules without consequences," Ho said. "And students who practice intolerance don't belong in the legal profession."
Calling the disruption an act of "intellectual terrorism," Ho argued that Duncan's treatment reflects "rampant" viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.
It is no coincidence, Ho said, that the worst free speech incidents have occurred at the law schools with the least intellectual diversity. Though Ho did not say what it would take for him to lift the boycott, he implied that a more politically diverse faculty—and a less ideologically uniform administration—would go a long way.

How is what Ho is doing different from cancel culture?

What is it the left always likes to say? “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

Interesting. This question has only been met with whattaboutism. I guess you all are fine letting "the left" write the rules of engagement.

Cheers, carry on.

That's not true. Posters pointed out that no law student is guaranteed a clerkship and those positions are for students who demonstrate the demeanor to be a strong lawyer - which these students do not.
It is not cancel culture at all. Bad behavior has consequences.

But he's refusing to hire from entire schools, not just the "bad behavior" students. You're right, this is beyond cancel culture, this is cancel culture with a mix of guilt by association and guilty until proven innocent.

Not only that, but he is trying to make a point about viewpoint diversity on law school faculty but also excepting current students from his hiring ban (aka don't worry current fed soc students, you're protected, but in the future conservative students should not go to YLS or SLS if you wanna get a clerkship).

What a holy cocktail! Well done, Judge Ho.

Indeed. I’ve seen first year Kindergarten teachers with better restraint. But this is what happens when you poke conservative “scholars” - they just fall apart into a bundle of tantrums and emotions. The insecurity runs really deep with that crowd.

You cannot even see the irony in your post.

Tantrums and emotions describe to a tee how the snowflake law students behaved.
The response from Judge Ho was quite measured and coherent.
When you operate a law school in which freedom of speech is not valued or respected, do not expect judges to award clerkships to students from that school.
Bad behavior has its consequences. And, it reflects poorly on the school - particularly when a number of faculty sat in the room during the tantrums from the students and said nothing.

It’s punishing students who had nothing to do with any of that. Guilt by association. Not very judicial at all.

Then, these schools should get their acts together and make sure their students are informed about free speech and how to behave when presented with information that they don't agree with.
The behavior of these students is reflecting poorly on the school as a whole and unfortunately, impacting all students who attend.

You realize those same pretexts have been used to justify all manner of foolishness?

I'm sure the judge also hates "judicial activism", but here he is trying to tell private law schools how to administer themselves.

Well done, Judge Ho.

Yes, well done, indeed. Nice to see a voice of reason speaking out. Stanford can do whatever they want. But no one is required to hire their idiot students.

You should stop whining about cancel culture then.