As lawyers, assuming these little shits graduate and pass the bar, they may one day end up in a court room in front of Judge Kyle Duncan. And how sweet that will be because I have a feeling Judge Duncan won't soon forget their names and faces.

Pissing off the Judge is never a wise idea.

How the hell would any of them be lawyers? They want to hide their names and faces? They feel traumatized by attack on social media?

Their careers, in the sane branches of law, are done - but the cupcake attitude did that (A lawyer "traumatized" by insult???)

They, apparently, only want stupid clients. They should be grabbing the publicity for all they can, to try to attract the stupid.

I still can't believe too many of these kids involved are law students - the "two-party consent" thing makes that even harder to believe.

I particularly love the irony that these 'academic elite' law school students are literally being 'schooled' by a journalist on basic principles of the US Constitution! That, and their ignorance of the law is really quite amusing!

It’s my understanding that in addition to the crime of being appointed by DJT, therefore TDS is already bubbling underneath for these freaks, the judge also allegedly misgender’d a tranny criminal in his court. The criminal was a dude now pretending to be a woman, who had piles of child porn. So these Stanford pukes are defending a kiddie porn criminal ? THAT a needs to be the twist and make all these stanford kids painted with that kiddie porn defender brush.

And expel all all of them and fire the various deans involved. The 7 update substack link is quite interesting as well.

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
It’s my understanding that in addition to the crime of being appointed by DJT, therefore TDS is already bubbling underneath for these freaks, the judge also allegedly misgender’d a tranny criminal in his court. The criminal was a dude now pretending to be a woman, who had piles of child porn. So these Stanford pukes are defending a kiddie porn criminal ? THAT a needs to be the twist and make all these stanford kids painted with that kiddie porn defender brush.

And expel all all of them and fire the various deans involved. The 7 update substack link is quite interesting as well.

I think they're well past the bubbling part and TDS has been on full display for quite some time now.

You take some time and click through the various links on the Original Jurisdiction substack, and you see while there's a even split of opinions amongst commentators on the conduct of the SLS staff & students, what you do see is a noticeable leftist bent in today's legal education. This isn't the first time a conservative appointed judge has been shouted-down and forced to end their appearance at a university, however with social media, not only is their more detail evidence of this but, the arguments in favor of confrontation are becoming more specious.

I'm grateful that FoxNews is keeping this shameful incident in the spotlight and keeping up the pressure on Stanford administrators.

It's now time to ask this posturing, virtue-signalling DEI twit Steinbach- Was the juice worth the squeeze?

University officials are ‘spineless cowards’ unwilling to enforce free speech policies

quote:

"It's appalling," Shapiro told Fox News. "Steinbach should be fired."

The truth behind the case that stoked Stanford law students to fury

“This is the transgender pedophile at the center of a mass protest at Stanford University against a Trump-appointed Judge who refused to allow the felon to change her name on conviction records.

DailyMail.com can reveal the mugshot of Norman Keith Varner, 42, who failed in her bid to change her name to Kathrine Nicole Jett, 42, on court records.

Varner has twice been convicted of possessing child pornography and failing to register as a sex offender.

In 2012 Varner pleaded guilty to one count of attempted receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 15 years in prison which will be followed by 15 years supervised release.

By 2015, while in prison, Varner came out as a transgender woman and began 'hormone replacement therapy' shortly after trying to change her surname to Jett in Kentucky.

However, the US Court of Appeals rejected Varner's appeal to change her conviction records to her new name. Fifth Circuit Judge Stuart Duncan and others ruling it as 'meritless' because the pedophile was known as Norman Varner at the time she committed the child sex abuse offenses. …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/11878559

I have a problem with these “news” articles or broadcasts referring to this freak as “she”. It’s a HE no matter how he drugs or mutilates himself!

Yes. Born male, die male. There's no way I will ever play along with the fantasies of these sick freaks.

Tim Rosenberger is a Georgetown University graduate and is completing a JD/MBA at Stanford University, where he is President of the Federalist Society

“As Judge Kyle Duncan and I [Tim Rosenberger] walked into the lecture hall at Stanford Law, a mob surrounded us, forming a gauntlet. Some members of the horde had painted their faces. Others were shrieking like crazy people. Someone yelled that they hoped the Judge's daughters should be raped.

The swarm followed us into the room, which had already been filled with pictures of Stanford's Federalist Society members.

Signs accused us of causing trans suicide. A trans member of our chapter, and friend of mine, committed suicide last year, making these posters particularly cruel. Frankly, their vulgar antics were to be expected.

As president of Stanford's Federalist Society, I've grown accustomed to the unhinged vitriol faced by conservatives on college campuses. But what truly shocked me about this wild pack of demonic students was that Stanford University was complicit in organizing and implicitly condoning their behavior.

Today, nearly two weeks after Stanford became a national symbol of the madness infecting American universities, the administration has done next to nothing to punish this anti-free speech gang, nor have they taken any meaningful steps to prevent them from striking again.

I believe Stanford University was delighted that Judge Duncan was silenced. The students were simply doing their dirty work. …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/11886073

I'm glad this story is being kept afloat in the news cycle.

Stanford has always been different. Instead of a traditional mascot they chose a tree which they decorate for football games. They also like to make fun of other schools. They got themselves banned from Notre Dame stadium by making tasteless fun of the Catholic religion. Similar antics at other colleges.Payback is coming as they lose gifted students who go elsewhere.
They could rename the college Oberlin West.

Hank, tell us what those snowflakes (especially Steinbach) need

The dean is on leave. Students unpunished.
Sorry can’t cut and paste entire article on my phone
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...servative-judge.html

Excellent

Considering that we expected nothing at all to happen, this is excellent news.

Just disappear Tirien, no note, no speech, just go.

Here's some good news. This is NOT going away!

Law professor threatens to report Stanford protestors to CA bar association

quote:

A law professor at George Washington University said he may file complaints intended to prevent Stanford Law School students who ambushed Judge Kyle Duncan from being admitted to the California Bar if campus administrators do not punish them for their disruptions.

Professor John Banzhaf of George Washington University Law School sent a letter to Professor Jenny Martinez, dean of Stanford Law School, warning of his plans.

“I am writing to advise you that I plan to file formal complaints with bar admission authorities opposing the admission of students identified as violating the free speech rights of Judge Duncan and their own fellow students,” read Banzhaf’s letter, a copy of which was obtained by The College Fix.

The professor, in his letter, added his pending complaint is the result of Stanford appearing not to take “any steps to discipline or otherwise sanction the student violators.”

Students at Stanford Law School shouted at and berated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan as he attempted to speak at the school at the behest of the Federalist Society earlier this month.

“As you have conceded, the students’ conduct ‘was inconsistent with our policies on free speech,’ and ‘not aligned with our institutional commitment to freedom of speech,’” Banzhaf noted in the letter.

Asked how he plans to identify the law student protesters, Banzhaf said in an email to The College Fix that the “names of some of the disruptors have been posted in various places on the Internet. There are also several video recordings of the event showing many of the disruptors.”

“Also, virtually everyone in the audience, and even many other law students who did not witness the incident in person, know who the disruptive students are,” he said. “It is not necessary to identify and file complaints concerning each and every participant. If only a few – who may or may not be among the ringleaders – are identified, there will still be an important impact.”

Banzhaf, in his letter to Martinez, mentioned his track record of successful past complaints, including against the tobacco industry.

“I’ve been called ‘a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars,’ and ‘The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry,’ among others,” Banzhaf wrote.

Did Stanford's Tantrum Blow Up the Affirmative Action Cases?

quote:

Earlier this month a mob of students and administrators at Stanford's Law School disrupted a Federalist Society event that was to feature a lecture by federal Court of Appeals judge Kyle Duncan. The angry mob, shouting and hurling threatening epithets at the judge, prevented him from speaking, thereby preventing other students from hearing what he had to say.

The school's associate dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Tirien Steinbach, who sent out an email prior to the event alerting students to the scheduled appearance of a judge whose views, she wrote, had caused "upset and outrage." At the event itself, Dean Steinbach took the microphone and, instead of calming the protestors, fired them up further by berating Judge Duncan for his views, describing them as "abhorrent" and "harmful" and undeserving of First Amendment protections. She rebuffed his attempts to answer.

This is a developing pattern at universities—deans and administrators charged with promoting "diversity" orchestrate disruptions, protests, and suppression of differing views. As the diversity bureaucracies have expanded, so have the frequency of these disruptions, usually carried out in the name of diversity.

The tantrum at Stanford occurred while U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing challenges to race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The cases were argued in October, with plaintiffs and defendants both bringing forward high-level constitutional and statutory arguments. Harvard and UNC (like most other schools) claimed that race can and should be used to a limited degree in admissions in order to promote "diversity" in higher education. Plaintiffs, represented by Students for Fair Admissions, claim that racial criteria are used to keep out qualified Asian students—and that they are forbidden by the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court is expected to render a decision near the end of its term in June.

An important subtext to the arguments involves a disagreement over whether the campaign on behalf of diversity has in fact improved the quality of education at colleges and universities. This is an issue that has divided the country for decades, and to some degree is on trial in these two cases.

Harvard asserts in its brief that decades of experience and study prove "that diversity 'lead[s] to greater knowledge' for everyone," and promotes "the tolerance and mutual respect that are so essential to the maintenance of our civil society." The brief goes on to say that Harvard's curriculum and admissions policies "are designed to expose students to 'new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing,' in and outside the classroom." The use of race as a factor in admissions, Harvard claims, is essential to the goal of recruiting classes of students with different backgrounds and experiences and a variety of different ideas, belief systems, and racial identities. Diversity is a great success, says Harvard, such that its policies should be upheld by the Court. This view is endorsed in amicus briefs submitted by many universities and advocacy groups.

Students for Fair Admissions replied in its brief and oral arguments that race or racial identity cannot be used as surrogates for anyone's views, background, or outlook on the world. SFFA's brief cited opinions by Chief Justice John Roberts—who wrote that "it is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race"—and by the late Justice Scalia—who wrote that "discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society."

The campaign for diversity, moreover, has not promoted diversity of thought and robust exchange of ideas on campus but rather the reverse—more uniformity of opinion and widespread contempt for First Amendment protections. Diversity, says SFFA, has proven to be a disaster for higher education.

In the midst of this controversy, news of the Stanford incident must have landed like an explosion in the conference room where Supreme Court Justices debate pending cases, and where they are now wrestling with the meaning of diversity and its supposed benefits for higher education. If diversity is so important for freedom of thought and the robust exchange of ideas, why are students and administrators shutting down debates in the name of diversity? Why, indeed, are these attacks on the First Amendment led by deans of "diversity, equity, and inclusion?" Debate and conflict are essential to our adversarial system of justice—yet the protesters at Stanford want to hear only from those who agree with them. That is not what "diversity" was supposed to encourage.

For some Justices, several of whom were members of the Federalist Society or have spoken at events sponsored by the group, the Stanford episode may have provoked further skepticism about the diversity campaign on campus. Far from being beneficial, they may have concluded, it has proven harmful to the purposes of higher education. The diversity campaign is turning colleges and universities into seminaries for intolerance.

The protesters at Stanford are likely not aware of it, but their actions may have blown up the affirmative action cases. A majority of the Court may have been inclined already to strike down the diversity rationale that Harvard and other schools use to justify race-based admissions policies. The tantrum at Stanford might have finally settled the case.

James Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

They are not totally ignorant.

1.3k
Jeff Zymeri
Wed, March 22, 2023 at 2:10 PM CDT·5 min read

Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez released a detailed letter Wednesday criticizing the students who heckled federal judge Kyle Duncan and announcing that DEI administrator Tirien Steinbach, who interrupted his lecture, is now on leave. Martinez declined to submit to calls that she retract her letter of apology to Duncan and emphasized that Stanford’s speaker disruption policy was violated by both students and administrators.

At an event hosted by Stanford’s Federalist Society earlier this month, Duncan, who sits on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, was expecting to give a wide-ranging lecture on recent decisions that Court had handed down. However, audio and video of the event revealed that the judge was immediately heckled upon beginning his talk, with students shouting obscenities at him. When Duncan asked an administrator to intervene, he was subject to Steinbach explaining to him that he was tearing the fabric of the Stanford community. “Is the juice worth the squeeze?,” asked Steinbach.

Public outcry followed shortly thereafter. Some called for the students who heckled Duncan to be expelled and for Steinbach to be fired. Others, including many Stanford Law students, criticized and sought to shame Martinez for her public apology to Duncan, demanding she retract it.

In a ten-page letter to the Stanford Law community, Martinez announced that no students would be punished individually, instead preferring “mandatory educational programming for our student body” on freedom of speech and academic freedom.

She also announced that Steinbach was on leave and that moving forward “the role of any administrators present will be to ensure that university rules on disruption of events will be followed, and all staff will receive additional training in that regard.”

For Martinez, the commitment to diversity and inclusion does not mean speech should be limited, but precisely the opposite. “I believe that the commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion actually means that we must protect free expression of all views,” she said.

1.3k
Jeff Zymeri
Wed, March 22, 2023 at 2:10 PM CDT·5 min read

Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez released a detailed letter Wednesday criticizing the students who heckled federal judge Kyle Duncan and announcing that DEI administrator Tirien Steinbach, who interrupted his lecture, is now on leave. Martinez declined to submit to calls that she retract her letter of apology to Duncan and emphasized that Stanford’s speaker disruption policy was violated by both students and administrators.

At an event hosted by Stanford’s Federalist Society earlier this month, Duncan, who sits on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, was expecting to give a wide-ranging lecture on recent decisions that Court had handed down. However, audio and video of the event revealed that the judge was immediately heckled upon beginning his talk, with students shouting obscenities at him. When Duncan asked an administrator to intervene, he was subject to Steinbach explaining to him that he was tearing the fabric of the Stanford community. “Is the juice worth the squeeze?,” asked Steinbach.

Public outcry followed shortly thereafter. Some called for the students who heckled Duncan to be expelled and for Steinbach to be fired. Others, including many Stanford Law students, criticized and sought to shame Martinez for her public apology to Duncan, demanding she retract it.

In a ten-page letter to the Stanford Law community, Martinez announced that no students would be punished individually, instead preferring “mandatory educational programming for our student body” on freedom of speech and academic freedom.

She also announced that Steinbach was on leave and that moving forward “the role of any administrators present will be to ensure that university rules on disruption of events will be followed, and all staff will receive additional training in that regard.”

For Martinez, the commitment to diversity and inclusion does not mean speech should be limited, but precisely the opposite. “I believe that the commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion actually means that we must protect free expression of all views,” she said.

“Enforcement of university policies against disruption of speakers is necessary to ensure the expression of a wide range of viewpoints,” she added.

To justify her apology and Stanford’s policy, Martinez cited as a point of guidance settled First Amendment law which “allows many governmental restrictions on heckling to preserve the countervailing interest in free speech.”

Continuing her analysis, Martinez said “a university classroom setting for a guest speaker invited by a student organization is thus a setting where the First Amendment tolerates greater limitations on speech than it would in a traditional public forum….In such a setting, limiting audience participation to signs, questions during a planned Q&A, and a non-disruptive level of audience reaction is appropriate to the nature of the forum.”

In her letter, Martinez responded to a counterargument from some Stanford students that the judge invited the heckling with offensive comments or engagement with protesters. These students misunderstand the policy, explained Martinez, adding that “the policy would not be meaningful to protect the carrying out of public events and the right of attendees to hear what is said if it applied only when a speaker said things protesters in an audience found agreeable.”

Stanford’s Dean apologized for a simple reason: to acknowledge that Duncan’s speech was disrupted. According to her, the apology and Stanford’s policy are not only consistent with the First Amendment, but also California’s Leonard Law, which attempts to ensure students’s speech isn’t trampled on by private colleges, among other institutions.

Martinez also explained further why the administrators had behaved incorrectly.

“The administrator who responds should not insert themselves into debate with their own criticism of the speaker’s views and the suggestion that the speaker reconsider whether what they plan to say is worth saying, for that imposes the kind of institutional orthodoxy and coercion that the policy on Academic Freedom precludes,” Martinez said.

She also pointed out that Stanford Law is not an echo chamber, but a place to train lawyers to act as effective advocates in a society that disagrees about many important issues.

“I believe we cannot function as a law school from the premise that appears to have animated the disruption of Judge Duncan’s remarks,” she said. “The cycle of degenerating discourse won’t stop if we insist that people we disagree with must first behave the way we want them to.”

“Our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is not going to take the form of having the school administration announce institutional positions on a wide range of current social and political issues, make frequent institutional statements about current news events, or exclude or condemn speakers who hold views on social and political issues with whom some or even many in our community disagree,” Martinez continued. “I can think of no circumstance in which giving those in authority the right to decide what is and is not acceptable content for speech has ended well.”

Finally, Martinez’s justification for not punishing individual students was based on the difficulty of determining whose heckling rose to the level that violated the policy. She also cited the actions of Steinbach and the other administrators as sending conflicting signals about whether what was happening was acceptable or not. This, for Martinez, rendered disciplinary sanctions “problematic.”

Reaction to the letter noted how strong Martinez’s response was.

Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, called it “a pretty amazing document” and highlighted Martinez’s comment that these future lawyers will “make arguments on behalf of clients whose very lives may depend on their professional skill.”

Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino agreed the response was a strong one, but said: “If Stanford really means what it says, it will fire Tirien Steinbach.”

LINK: https://news.yahoo.com/stanfor...ology-191017679.html

quote:

Finally, Martinez’s justification for not punishing individual students was based on the difficulty of determining whose heckling rose to the level that violated the policy. She also cited the actions of Steinbach and the other administrators as sending conflicting signals about whether what was happening was acceptable or not. This, for Martinez, rendered disciplinary sanctions “problematic.”

I'm sure (I hope) that there was enough Federalist Society members recording the proceedings, where an analysis of the video to identify those problematic students. The challenge I see for Dean Martinez is not only would somebody have to take the time to analysis the video and identify the culprits, she also has a cabal of militant faculty, who are in full-support and advocacy of the shaming of a federal judge, she's also got a significant chunk of the law school's student's body who was in full-support of this.

Open discipline of them will lead to more protests and upheaval, to which the Board of Trustees will move to oust her, not because she did the right/wrong thing but, they just don't like the exposure. Corporate executives, board members, captains of industry, don't like sticky, controversial situations where public relations gets involved and can tarnish a reputation, perceived or otherwise. In my mind, Stanford is already tarnished, have the gumption to do some house cleaning and restore the school to being a center of learning and scholarship. They'll take the easy way out by requesting Steinbach's resignation (she'll give some pathetic statement about moving on), creating more bureaucracy for group learning and a slap on the wrist for those students that are the most vocal.