Look how these Stanford law school students treat a judge

Yakuda said:
That's exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They invited that judge knowing full well about his decisions and they took their shot at him.
Click to expand...

I think the Federalist Society invited him and the others showed up to protest his appearance. When the Assistant Dean made her speech she said his decisions had hurt a lot of people. Then, she and all the protesters left and the others stayed to hear his speech.

It was wrong of her to block an invited speaker. They should have held their own meeting expressing their views.
 
Jarod said:
I now see what this issue likely was, I still do not know what he said or how he said it just prior to the objections from the students.

It appears that in his ruling that he went further than necessary to make the ruling and added unnecessary dicta insulting the request and the person who made the request. He was behaving as an activist judge.
Click to expand...

IMO he IS an activist judge. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...judge-stanford-trump-kyle-duncan-17839426.php

And a sanctimonious blowhard, too.
 
Yakuda said:
Thats not the question. You decided that no one felt verbally assaulted because of what you saw on a video. So if he didn't say he felt verbally assaulted then he didn't feel verbally assaulted? People who don't look for reasons to be victims dont usually claim to be victims. Claiming victimhood is leftism 101
Click to expand...

You claiming that the judge is a victim is Snowflake Conservatism 101.
 
TOP said:
So you should know it was clear that there was verbal assault...however, I will be happy to read a link that provides information that there was no verbal assault... and that the behavior of the students and the dean was appropriate... just post it here...
Click to expand...

Don't even bother, folks. This is one of this spinster cunt's favorite tactics: Tell another poster to prove her "point" by proving a negative.

AND she claims she was a teacher. :laugh:
 
Althea said:
It appears as if the Federalist Society invited a judge to defend some of his rulings.

Unfortunately, we don't get to hear the nonsense he was spouting.
Click to expand...

I wish we had. If you read what the idiot conservatives said in this thread, you'll see that they went into a lunatic rage about incivility without having any clue whatsoever what happened before the beginning of the video. Is there one single reasonable, intelligent conservative on JPP? Can anyone point me to that person?
 
Diesel said:
I wish we had. If you read what the idiot conservatives said in this thread, you'll see that they went into a lunatic rage about incivility without having any clue whatsoever what happened before the beginning of the video. Is there one single reasonable, intelligent conservative on JPP? Can anyone point me to that person?
Click to expand...
From what I'm reading, he might not have gotten to say anything. He was invited by the Nazis in the school, but others chose to show up.

Generally, this trump appointee is anti gay, anti trans. He should not be sitting on the bench. Specifically, some male perv pleaded guilty in 2012 to attempting to access child pornography. Years later he either transitioned, or no longer identifies as male, and wanted the pronouns on his conviction changed.

A court denied his request, and it ended up before this judge and a panel of others. He agreed with the lower court that the conviction was against a male perv., and should stay that way. I don't even know why it matters to the perv? Maybe prison accommodations?

I actually agree with the ruling, but this judge has a long anti LGBT history. I'm assuming it was his past comments that caused the ruckus.
 
serendipity said:
This is Stanford’s elite law school. Watch the egregious behavior of the administrator, but also the students. They feel comfortable treating the speaker (a judge) this way. They will eventually be judges. Wokism will wreck havoc on society.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634564006370242560
Click to expand...

Why would you cut out the most important part of this video- The Judges speech?

How do we even know what he said that upset this class?

THINK NEXT TIME OK!
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Why would you cut out the most important part of this video- The Judges speech?

How do we even know what he said that upset this class?

THINK NEXT TIME OK!
Click to expand...

The fucking administrator's job is not to side with the students, she is supposed to be neutral but that seems to be a difficult concept for you!

We are seeing lately that distructive social behavior bears no consequences to the perpetrators when it suits the agenda of institutional powers, and can even be celebrated and encouraged when it serves a partisan cause. Prime example is the debacle at my alma mater Stanford when the free speech rights of a senior judge were cancelled by law shool students, aided and abetted by a DIE dean. Charles Lipson is concerned about future lawyers substituting their personal preferences for constitutional rights and freedoms. He proposes a means of restoring demeanor and accountability in his Spectator article How to stop law students from blocking free speech. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Let employers and state licensing boards know what they did

When a federal appellate judge speaks at a major law school, he should expect tough questions from a learned audience. He should not expect to be shouted down. When he tries to speak but is heckled, jeered and disrupted, he should expect a university administrator to step in, read the students the riot act and restore order. He shouldn’t expect that administrator to sympathize with the disruptive students and let the trouble continue, as the feckless bureaucrat at Stanford Law School did.

Her shameful behavior is hardly unique. It’s characteristic of mid-level bureaucrats hired to push “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” at universities across the country. They show very little concern for free speech, alternative views or robust debate. That’s a very big problem since those are the very essence of higher education in a democracy.

These metastasizing DEI bureaucracies endow political ideologues with unchecked power over students’ lives and campus activities. The episode at Stanford shows how they use it. That needs to be fixed. One path to doing that (and lowering the cost of higher education, now encumbered by top-heavy administrative structures) is to abolish the entire DEI apparatus.

The victim at Stanford was federal appellate judge Kyle Duncan
and all the students who came to hear him.

True, the university later apologized, but that’s just cheap talk unless it is followed by serious actions against the disruptive students and the administrator who failed in her basic responsibility. Of that, we have heard nothing. Only the naive expect much better from Stanford (or Yale, Harvard, Columbia and dozens more). Stanford students are so committed to their illiberal views, so cloaked in moral righteousness, that they actually protested the dean even issuing an apology.

https://rclutz.com/2023/03/17/would-be-lawyers-in-need-of-disclosure/
Read more:
 
serendipity said:
The fucking administrator's job is not to side with the students, she is supposed to be neutral but that seems to be a difficult concept for you!

We are seeing lately that distructive social behavior bears no consequences to the perpetrators when it suits the agenda of institutional powers, and can even be celebrated and encouraged when it serves a partisan cause. Prime example is the debacle at my alma mater Stanford when the free speech rights of a senior judge were cancelled by law shool students, aided and abetted by a DIE dean. Charles Lipson is concerned about future lawyers substituting their personal preferences for constitutional rights and freedoms. He proposes a means of restoring demeanor and accountability in his Spectator article How to stop law students from blocking free speech. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Let employers and state licensing boards know what they did

When a federal appellate judge speaks at a major law school, he should expect tough questions from a learned audience. He should not expect to be shouted down. When he tries to speak but is heckled, jeered and disrupted, he should expect a university administrator to step in, read the students the riot act and restore order. He shouldn’t expect that administrator to sympathize with the disruptive students and let the trouble continue, as the feckless bureaucrat at Stanford Law School did.

Her shameful behavior is hardly unique. It’s characteristic of mid-level bureaucrats hired to push “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” at universities across the country. They show very little concern for free speech, alternative views or robust debate. That’s a very big problem since those are the very essence of higher education in a democracy.

These metastasizing DEI bureaucracies endow political ideologues with unchecked power over students’ lives and campus activities. The episode at Stanford shows how they use it. That needs to be fixed. One path to doing that (and lowering the cost of higher education, now encumbered by top-heavy administrative structures) is to abolish the entire DEI apparatus.

The victim at Stanford was federal appellate judge Kyle Duncan
and all the students who came to hear him.

True, the university later apologized, but that’s just cheap talk unless it is followed by serious actions against the disruptive students and the administrator who failed in her basic responsibility. Of that, we have heard nothing. Only the naive expect much better from Stanford (or Yale, Harvard, Columbia and dozens more). Stanford students are so committed to their illiberal views, so cloaked in moral righteousness, that they actually protested the dean even issuing an apology.

https://rclutz.com/2023/03/17/would-be-lawyers-in-need-of-disclosure/
Read more:
Click to expand...

I don't like classrooms that get out of control either, however, I still would have liked to hear what sparked their protest and behavior.

All you are airing is the response to what the Judge said in his speech- Let's see and hear his speech!

Let's tell the whole story and not just the half of the story that benefits the judge OK?
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I don't like classrooms that get out of control either, however, I still would have liked to hear what sparked their protest and behavior.

All you are airing is the response to what the Judge said in his speech- Let's see and hear his speech!

Let's tell the whole story and not just the half of the story that benefits the judge OK?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you could have found this if you looked!

Stanford Law students shout down 5th Circuit judge: A post-mortem

Even Stanford agreed actions by law students — and inaction by administrators — threatened free speech. So where do we go from here?

https://www.thefire.org/news/stanford-law-students-shout-down-5th-circuit-judge-post-mortem
 
Diesel said:
I wish we had. If you read what the idiot conservatives said in this thread, you'll see that they went into a lunatic rage about incivility without having any clue whatsoever what happened before the beginning of the video. Is there one single reasonable, intelligent conservative on JPP? Can anyone point me to that person?
Click to expand...

Althea said:
From what I'm reading, he might not have gotten to say anything. He was invited by the Nazis in the school, but others chose to show up.

Generally, this trump appointee is anti gay, anti trans. He should not be sitting on the bench. Specifically, some male perv pleaded guilty in 2012 to attempting to access child pornography. Years later he either transitioned, or no longer identifies as male, and wanted the pronouns on his conviction changed.

A court denied his request, and it ended up before this judge and a panel of others. He agreed with the lower court that the conviction was against a male perv., and should stay that way. I don't even know why it matters to the perv? Maybe prison accommodations?

I actually agree with the ruling, but this judge has a long anti LGBT history. I'm assuming it was his past comments that caused the ruckus.
Click to expand...

you morons can play make believe all you want, but the few adults that exist at Stanford are ashamed and have already apologized. But do go on with your idiocy
 
zymurgy said:
you morons can play make believe all you want, but the few adults that exist at Stanford are ashamed and have already apologized. But do go on with your idiocy
Click to expand...

Suck my dick, shit eater. We don't know what the judge said that incited the heckling, but we do know by researching his record that he's a bad person -- like you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top