Well-reasoned as usual, David! My problem w/the boycott is that the judges are also excluding students who may well share their perspectives on various issues. And just a thought: I clerked for a Nixon appointee who was a marvelous judge and a great mentor, even though he and I had views that only rarely overlapped.
I tend to think that boycotts in general are like taking a sledgehammer to something that likely requires a more nuanced approach. However, the boycott approach is also reflective of the general trend these days to take an all or nothing approach to complex issues that require something more thoughtful take rather than a reaction.
Strange that the side that bemoans "activist judges" champions Judge Ho, who disgraces the federal bench not simply with his ridiculous activist jurisprudence but with his juvenile behavior.
I shall entitle this post, "The First Amendment, crybabies, and cowards."
In the history of the First Amendment, the dispute over who did what at Stanford Law ranks as the most absurd. Judge Duncan came looking for a fight and got what he wanted. He then complained his feelings were hurt and his rights violated. This complaining, of course, then got him lots of publicity in the media and right wing legal circles.
Judge Duncan is a coward and a crybaby. He did not try to engage the students (although he could have) or have any kind of discussion. He mouthed insults and was answered in kind. He sought out publicty and cried when he received it. All to elevate his reputation among people who might influence a Supreme Court nomination. He showed his cowadice and his desire for victimhood.
Judge Ho is no better. Why anyone would want to clerk for such a man is beyond me. He does not have an open mind and lacks the good polictical sense to keep his bias hidden. Like Duncan, he is auditioning for a role on a higher court.
When I was in high school (eons ago, unfortunately) we called such people drama queens. Now we must bow and scrape to them because they are federal judges. We cannot expect them to be impartial.
And, once again, David, I must remind you that unruly law students are not the real threat to the First Amendment, despite the publicity they generate. The real threat comes from legilsators at the state leven, who impose their views on everyone. Just today, the Tenneesee House expelled three members because they tried to exercise their free speech rights. Before long, I expect conservatives to demand the death penalty for anyone who dares raise her voice against one of their judges.
David, you have no sense or proportion or who presents the real danger.
Well-reasoned as usual, David! My problem w/the boycott is that the judges are also excluding students who may well share their perspectives on various issues. And just a thought: I clerked for a Nixon appointee who was a marvelous judge and a great mentor, even though he and I had views that only rarely overlapped.
I tend to think that boycotts in general are like taking a sledgehammer to something that likely requires a more nuanced approach. However, the boycott approach is also reflective of the general trend these days to take an all or nothing approach to complex issues that require something more thoughtful take rather than a reaction.
Strange that the side that bemoans "activist judges" champions Judge Ho, who disgraces the federal bench not simply with his ridiculous activist jurisprudence but with his juvenile behavior.
I shall entitle this post, "The First Amendment, crybabies, and cowards."
In the history of the First Amendment, the dispute over who did what at Stanford Law ranks as the most absurd. Judge Duncan came looking for a fight and got what he wanted. He then complained his feelings were hurt and his rights violated. This complaining, of course, then got him lots of publicity in the media and right wing legal circles.
Judge Duncan is a coward and a crybaby. He did not try to engage the students (although he could have) or have any kind of discussion. He mouthed insults and was answered in kind. He sought out publicty and cried when he received it. All to elevate his reputation among people who might influence a Supreme Court nomination. He showed his cowadice and his desire for victimhood.
Judge Ho is no better. Why anyone would want to clerk for such a man is beyond me. He does not have an open mind and lacks the good polictical sense to keep his bias hidden. Like Duncan, he is auditioning for a role on a higher court.
When I was in high school (eons ago, unfortunately) we called such people drama queens. Now we must bow and scrape to them because they are federal judges. We cannot expect them to be impartial.
And, once again, David, I must remind you that unruly law students are not the real threat to the First Amendment, despite the publicity they generate. The real threat comes from legilsators at the state leven, who impose their views on everyone. Just today, the Tenneesee House expelled three members because they tried to exercise their free speech rights. Before long, I expect conservatives to demand the death penalty for anyone who dares raise her voice against one of their judges.
David, you have no sense or proportion or who presents the real danger.