Clerking and Protests Forum

[Anonymous User]

Sadly, not everyone finds the FedSoc president who set this all in motion by inviting Duncan to start with a credible source. The audio recording doesn’t appear to include anything like this.

The phrase "victim blaming" is overused. But come on. This is basically an endorsement of the heckler's veto. And that should worry progressives, because the far right has used and will use the hecklers veto more often and more effectively.

Ridiculous response. And the far right has already been using the heckler's veto for some time now.

Examples would be helpful

Two easy and recent examples off the top of my head: right-wing groups threatening violence against businesses that hold drag events and right-wing protesters trying to drown out Democratic politicians while campaigning before the 2022 election (something I saw firsthand).

Hell, wasn't shouting down politicians a tactic the Tea Party used at town halls after the passage of Obamacare? And I distinctly recall some Republicans in Texas trying to run a bus with Biden surrogates, who were campaigning in the state, off the road.

Shit, that's not even getting into some of the crazy stuff that Republicans have done in the name of preventing abortion, including murdering people and bombing medical centers. The idea that progressives should be very worried about Republicans using the heckler's veto because some left-wing students at Stanford did it is beyond out of touch. Republicans didn't need the excuse.

Republicans using state governments to try and outlaw "woke" speech is far more concerning to me. And that didn't start because some Stanford Law students acted like clowns.

By this logic Stanford fedsoc would be entitled to scream profanities and shut down all liberal events because of the rash of bombings at crisis pregnancy centers post-Dobbs.

[jamestaylorrecordsas]

Ted's podcast today March 17, 2023

He sent a letter to Stanford Law asking that the disruptive students be disciplined

I don't think we're going anywhere with this

[lavarman84]

By this logic Stanford fedsoc would be entitled to scream profanities and shut down all liberal events because of the rash of bombings at crisis pregnancy centers post-Dobbs.

My logic isn't that the behavior is okay or justified. Not sure where you came up with that. My logic is that your threat of the right engaging in this same behavior is an empty one, because it already does.

Assuming all of that is true and valid - none of those are actions by Fedsoc chapters. Or even students in general.

A defense of liberal protestors behaving like deranged hyenas in response to a federal judge giving a presentation that has to rely on Eric Rudolph bombing abortion clinics 30 years ago is a pretty terrible defense.

See above. I'm not defending the protesters. Of course, Duncan beclowned himself too, with his WSJ op-ed being a cherry on top. But he rightfully has guessed that acting this way is better for his prospects of promotion than being good at his job would be.

[butonawednesday]

It seems that Stanford Law students have chosen to engage in institutional seppuku in order to defend their perceived right to shout incoherently at individuals they dislike.

Some telling pull-quotes:

"We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights," some fliers read. As a private law school, Stanford is not bound by the First Amendment." (Stanford is bound by the Leonard Law)

"When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon."

After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."

https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-a ... r-apology/

Good on the students for standing up for themselves after Stanford threw them and the dean under the bus to placate Duncan. After his temper tantrum and unprofessional behavior, he didn't deserve an apology.

And that student quote says nothing about Stanford being bound by the First Amendment. It says the students were exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting. That is accurate. It does not say, "Stanford violated our First Amendment rights." That would be inaccurate (technically speaking).

They deserved to be thrown under the bus for being the petulant children they, and Dean Steinbach, proved themselves to be. While Duncan should not have responded in the manner he did and holds his fair share of the blame for how events unfolded, let’s not act like he was not provoked into the confrontation by people accusing him of beating his wife, etc.

Ok so I'm actually somewhat on Duncan's side here, but like let's also keep it factual. From what I understand, no one acussed Duncan of beating his wife. Duncan said the questions being asked of him were leading and gave the example of a question that asked "how many times did you beat your wife." (see here https://www.thefire.org/news/stanford-l ... ost-mortem). David Lat said:

As the judge put it to me, while he’s usually happy to answer questions when he speaks at law schools, the questions he received at Stanford were not asked in good faith; in his words, they were of the “how many people have you killed” or “how many times did you beat your wife last week” variety.

Apparently someone did ask some weird sexual question though. But IMO that is way less hostile than accusing Duncan of domestic violence, which again, we have no reporting that anyone did.

Apparently someone did ask some weird sexual question though. But IMO that is way less hostile than accusing Duncan of domestic violence, which again, we have no reporting that anyone did.

Here's the weird sexual question posed to the Fed Judge by the Stanford Law student

"I f*** men. I can find the prostate. Can you find the clitoris?"

Maybe in 2 years he'll be doing a motion in front of Duncan.

[butonawednesday]

Proud swagger out of the schoolyard

Waiting for the world's applause

[butonawednesday]

Proud swagger out of the schoolyard

Waiting for the world's applause

That's a lyric from Neil Peart of the band Rush

Must give credit