The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prof. Andrew Koppelman's Thoughts for Law Students, from the Left to the Left
Very well put, I think; an excerpt:
The students who disrupt right-wing speakers – the protest against Judge Kyle Duncan, who tried to speak at Stanford Law School, is a prominent recent case – have been appropriately criticized for their obliviousness to the value of free speech. I want to flag another issue: their piffling political ambitions. Today's left aims to protect minorities from offense. It ought to aim to change the world.
The two aspirations are in conflict. Hypersensitivity to feelings, and the desire to vent them in the crudest possible way, enfeebles law students. It turns them into lousy advocates, useless to the social movements they hope to serve….
I'm an advocate of LGBTQ rights. I've fought Duncan and his allies for decades. I think it's a good thing when he presents his views, precisely because I want to defeat those views – to change the law, in ways that Duncan would hate.
The fundamental purpose of a law school is to give the next generation the skills to build a more just world. In order to develop those skills, the students need the experience of engaging with smart, skilled people like [Judge Kyle] Duncan who embrace ideas that they find hurtful and abhorrent. A good advocate must anticipate the strongest arguments on the other side – arguments that she may find painful to contemplate, especially when she has not yet figured out how to answer them.
That's true of all lawyers, but it's particularly pertinent to those who are trying to advance social change….
Read the whole thing.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Today's left aims to protect minorities from offense. It ought to aim to change the world."
Good, but insufficiently megalomaniacal. Why not change the whole universe?
My thought exactly.
And even if you are a megalomaniac, at least wait till you’re 50. At 20 you know NOTHING.
"Never trust anyone over 30. Wait! WE DIDN'T MEAN US!" -- 1960s youngsters
The left's view of rights are tribal in nature and based on sunk costs. They are inherently destructive of individual liberty. the modern Bolsheviks are not about "rights" but retribution and discrimination against the "oppressors."
"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions."
We already have the needed fundamentals
Those are individual rights -- not mob rights.
Why did you put that in quotes? Were you quoting someone?
Calvin Coolidge
it sounds like him, but a cite?
If you move your mouse over the words 'Calvin Coolidge' and click the mouse button, you will see a web page from a place called The Heritage Foundation. At the bottom, click the line that says 'Read Full Report', then read the page, or use your browser tools to search for e.g. 'If all' or some other part of the quote. There you will find the quote, and a footnote 20. That footnote gives the source as a July 4th speech titled 'The Inspiration of the Declaration'. If you search for that title and 'Coolidge', you will find a number of sources saying it is the text of a speech he gave on July 5, 1926 in Philadelphia. If you want a dead tree reference, apparently that speech can be found in 'Foundations of the Republic: Speeches and Addresses', Scribner's Sons, 1926, pp 441-54.
I see it now, but I also found this in that link:
“American ideals do not require to be changed so much as they require to be understood and applied.”
I also disagree with some of what was put in quotes in any case.
“All men are created equal…” was advanced and progressed when it started including women in that equality. And as the quote from Coolidge says, it is in the understanding and applying of those other principles (inalienable rights and consent of the governed) that many more advances and progress was made.
“I only found this that sounds like that.”
The quote is at the bottom of page 451.
ETA: I was responding to your post saying you couldn't find the quote, before you edited it.
The whole part of that speech put in blockquotes in that Heritage Foundation report:
“It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary.”
I think he was arguing against something that few were saying, or perhaps he was talking about socialists and communists, rather than anyone we would now call center-left, given that point in history. From what I see, the vast majority of what modern American liberals/progressives see as advances and progress from the time of the Founding is exactly what I was pointing out above: That the basic principles stated by Coolidge have been expanded to include more people in that equality than the men that signed the Declaration of Independence were willing to treat equally. The inalienable rights that the Founders were willing to protect did not include everything that we view as inalienable rights today and/or they were not protected consistently. And consent of the governed did not include all white male adults in the right to vote in most states, in addition to denying that right to non-white people and women in the vast majority of places.
Thus, I do not often see Americans that wish to “deny their truth or soundness.” Instead, I often see people that want to make them more true and sound in practice in America.
"The two aspirations are in conflict. Hypersensitivity to feelings, and the desire to vent them in the crudest possible way, enfeebles law students. It turns them into lousy advocates, useless to the social movements they hope to serve…."
How about serving the law?
How about serving the law?
One can serve the law and also wish to change it, right?
Wrong.
Not your statement, but the practice of adding "Right?" at the end, it's just another variant of NeedleNose Ned from "Groundhog Day"
"You ain't got any (Life Insurance). Am I right or am I right? Or am I right? Am I right? Right!"
Frank "Watch out for that first Step..."
Actually Frank, it comes from foreign languages, particularly German.
nicht wahr?
It's perfectly good British English, so kindly fuck off.
Wank off yourself Wanker, amirite?amirite? right!
Ahh, the ol’ “Tut-tut and Finger-wag” play. A classic! It will be at least as effective as it always is…
The good professor forgets one thing. His approach requires hard work, both doing your homework and hard analytic skills. The shout-down approach only requires a mob. The easy way usually wins.
Always easier to tear things down than build things up.
True on January 6, true today.
But of course your conservative champion is now shouting about defunding the police, just like his understudy was, so it seems like you should be giving this little talk to your team.
Prof. Koppelman forgot one other thing.
He forgot to state that Judge Duncan is a gay-bashing bigot. Mentioning that would have strengthened an otherwise solid presentation.
Bigots have rights, too, but not the right to avoid being described as a bigot. Religion neither improves bigotry nor transforms it into anything other than bigotry. Prof. Koppelman would be more persuasive among reasoning, decent, modern audiences if he mentioned that superstitious gay-bashing is bigotry.
Jerry Sandusky Knows Gay-Bashing
As Republicans have shown, over and over. Do you think we have a newly-bolstered "major questions" doctrine, an inviolable Second Amendment, religious freedom claims trumping Smith, Dobbs, unrestricted partisan gerrymandering, a vitiated Voting Rights Act, etc., all because Federalist lawyers patiently addressed "liberal" lawyers and jurists, persuading them of the rightness of their positions? Or do you think they simply grabbed power, strategically and cynically, until they could impose their policy preferences without having to convince anyone?
I'm glad he wrote this straightforward -- and, until fairly recently, uncontroversial -- explanation of the fundamentals of genuine advocacy.
It's unfortunate he had to. IMO this concept should be front-loaded in law school nearly to the point of a weed out. Nobody ultimately benefits if the practice of law descends into just another set of balkanized screaming contests and power plays.
That he waited so long makes any impact null and void and that nullity is all the validity it holds.
Prof. Koppelman is conflating law school students with actual attorneys.
Look, college students do dumb, excessive shit.
Many of them grow out of it and can even become Supreme Court Justices.
It’s disappointing that LAW SCHOOL PROFESSORS don’t see these events as TEACHING opportunities (you know their job).
To be fair, the actual profs who teach these students do.
The ones with a more public facing personas are the ones making hay.
Prolly true but my only exposure to law professors is this blog and with Mssrs. Koppelman, Volokh, Bernstein, etc., alway harping against law students (Prof. Bernstein even wanted to have federal charges against students), one could understand my misconception.
Bernstein wanted federal charges? Lol What a fucking clown.
The propriety of bringing criminal charges depends entirely of the nature of the acts the defendant committed. You don't get a free rein to pillage & burn just because you happen to be a student.
I wouldn't want to be one of David's students, knowing that he really, deep down, really hates students.
Everyone does
I don't remember any such thing. Are you talking about some other incident besides Stanford?
[citation needed]
The fact that a dean was roundly criticized for trying to do what you say suggests that the common lesson from these intolerant protests is that intolerance is both appropriate and effective.
That's reserved for activists.
As do right-wing bigots, especially the superstition-addled conservative gay-bashers.
No "Klingers"?? "Betters"?? "Replacement"??
are you the real Jerry Sandusky,
because the Real one would have said,
"Prepare for Replacement Klingers, at least as much as your Betters will allow"
which when I actually type it out sounds like some creepy S&M roleplay,
well, you are Jerry Sandusky,
Frank
Yeah, terribly disappointing that law professors don't take advantage of these teaching opportunities by ... doing exactly the thing that the professor just did in this very article.
"Look, college students do dumb, excessive shit."
This isn't that. It's a hostility to fundamental Constitutuional values. It's a whole different kettle of fish.
"It’s disappointing that LAW SCHOOL PROFESSORS don’t see these events as TEACHING opportunities"
A better approach would be for the administrators to vigorously push back against the hecklers. And for professors to advocate for free speech, not try to justify and defend a heckler's veto.
These were not college students. These were adults. (I mean, chronologically.)
These are post-graduate students studying for a Juris Doctorate. They aren’t 18yo’s with no experience in academia or the world in general. They’ve successfully navigated their undergraduate program with high enough achievement to attend Stanford Law. They’ve managed to navigate the hurdles needed to obtain financing.
Intelligence is not wisdom. In my experience law students have never been models of maturity and judiciousness.
That's a bug, not a feature.
An 18 year old who joins the army will in just a few short weeks learn a great deal of maturity and responsibility. Is it too much to ask a 35 year old 3L to match that level of maturity and responsibility? As I said a few threads ago, that 3L might be a public defender in a few short months, and they sure as heck better be mature and responsible by then.
Even a 1L is the same age as the lieutenant making life and death decisions for his platoon. Can we expect similar levels of maturity, or is the argument that law students are inherently lacking in something military people have?
Agreed.
But the solution is the same, under grad or law student - teaching when they act the fool, not to take their scalps.
Heh. I have a sudden vision of those Stanford students doing pushups….One, Sir!, Two Sir!, Three Sir!…
Come to think of it, it might make for a better world.
ETA: or perhaps spending quality time running around the quad holding heavy law books overhead, chanting 'I will not disrupt invited speakers'.
"I've fought Duncan and his allies for decades."
Does he want a cookie?
Duncan called a man, who TWICE got convicted of having child pornography, a man. Horrors.
People who fight "Duncan and his allies" are terrible people.
"People who fight “Duncan and his allies” are terrible people."
If you consider them terrible then they must be actually very morally upright people.
Basic respect for the parties in front of the court, no matter who they are and what they did, is absolutely critical. Duncan failed at a fundamental and basic aspect of the job. I mean sure in this case it was a gross criminal. Would he do that to someone who is innocent? What about a lawyer appearing in front of him? Wouldn't that be inappropriate?
BTW would YOU deadname opposing counsel you knew was trans?
Duncan is just declining to be a courtier of a naked emperor.
We don't refer to a person who has a delusion he is King Charles by "His Majesty". No difference.
Duncan has a three year degree in reading casebook excerpts. As do you. You both are not remotely qualified to determine who is and isn’t suffering from a delusion. That’s just a political opinion based on your vibes. You are substituting that ill-informed and un-expert opinion for reality and basic respect.
Also I notice you didn’t answer this question: would you deadname a trans lawyer you were working with?
I thought one traditionally worked against opposing counsel. IANAL, so thanks, that explains a LOT.
I mean transactional lawyers work together to do deals.
Most cases in litigation settle so obviously the lawyers work together to accomplish that.
Even litigators in contentious cases have to work together on discovery and scheduling.
That's the simple -- and simpleton's -- view.
From the Head Simpleton
By using offensive language? Slurs? How is that any different than the Stanford students yelling crude things at a judge?
It doesn't take an advanced degree, special licensure, or credentialing to recognize that a man who thinks he is a woman is delusional.
It doesn’t take an advanced degree, special licensure, or credentialing to recognize that a fetus isn't a person.
See how that works? You can take any true fact and put it at the end of your preface. It doesn't change the fact that deadnaming someone is intentionally being a dick. And grossly unorofessional in general, let alone in a judge.
A fetus isn't a person? what is it, a Tadpole?
Peoples used to think Black Peoples weren't Peoples, you could buy and trade them like used F-150's
And THAT is what made me pro life.
That and the fact that you lack critical thinking skills, which you demonstrate here on a regular basis.
Until the minimum requirements for self-sustaining life are achieved, failing to use the word 'potential' is intentionally dishonest.
A fetus is a fetus. A person is a person. They are two different things.
If you want to use the word "person" in talking about a fetus, you can call it a potential person.
But until viability a fetus has a 0% chance of becoming a person.
Not respecting my beliefs about men and women is you intentionally being a dick.
See how that works?
Why does your opinion about someone else's identity matter?
The fact that you can't understand that intentionally injecting your unsolicited opinion about someone else's preferred form of address proves that yiu are an asshole isn't surprising.
Duncan is a gay-bashing bigot. His religion is superstition and delusion, making your attempt to rely on others' delusion in this context particularly stupid.
Childish, silly fucking fairy tales are the foundation of your worldview, Bob from Ohio. That's why you disdain modern America, and mainstream America disdains you.
Carry on, disaffected, doomed clingers.
There are government schools in California placing litter boxes in restrooms for children who think they are cats.
You say that's progress.
Holy shit, you still believe that's true? Incredible.
It was actually because of school shooting drills.
Well, if you throw the litter box *at* the shooter....
BTW would YOU deadname opposing counsel you knew was trans?
The correct legal answer is that you should call opposing counsel whatever it benefits your client to call him/her/xit, consistent with the rules of the court. Obviously in the Maryland case on the other thread, you would be crazy to "deadname" opposing counsel in front of that particular judge. Before a less ideologically driven judge, it would be sensible to use opposing counsel's actual name, if you have to use a name. ie if his actual name is John Smith, but he "goes by" Suleiman the Magnificent, I'd go with "Mr Smith." But if he's legally changed his name to Suleiman the Magnificent then I'd go with that, and hope the jury would take it into account.
As to the sex designation and the pronouns, then I'd go with reality, especially in a case touching on sex or genderish matters. So if Mr Smith had decided to go by "Miss Smith" but had not formally effected a name change, and my clients were, say, parents opposing their thirteen year old's "sex change" operation, I think accepting the miss-ness of "Miss Smith"' would undermine my client's case.
Unless I was in a jurisdiction that had specified in law that references to Mr/man/male/he/his etc were to be taken to be references to gender identity rather than to sex.
As to what you might call opposing counsel should you meet him/her/xit in a bar, well that would depend on how you felt about him/her/xit. As a non lawyer, when chatting to lawyers I have usually found "you lying hound" to be a useful standby.
A good lawyer could just avoid the whole thing by using "opposing counsel" and "counselor" and such other traditional forms.
How will you do the certificate of service? What if it isn't an adversarial proceeding but a transaction? Are you going to send document drafts with a signature line that deadnames the other attorney?
Why do you persist in asking me questions I'm never going to answer? You're not my wife or my boss, I don't have to humor you.
Because your petulant refusal to answer direct basic questions about your actual beliefs allows me to form an adverse inference about what the answer actually is. By doing so you further reveal yourself to be of poor character and unfit to be an attorney. It simply increases my confidence that you should not be a member of the legal profession.
"adverse inference"
Dude, you are not on a jury. Such a twit.
Jury instructions are based on simple deductive reasoning skills. I’m just using those skills to accurately assess your consistently shitty character.
Your second sentence doesn't follow from the first.
I disagree with Lee -- it’s whatever is on that person’s bar card. Or what Bob suggests above.
The BBO name (and number) are official, appearing on filings and the rest. That name — and no other — is licensed to practice law, and I would consider the use of any other name to be fraud. Change your name to Rumpelstiltskin if you wish, but change it with the Bar Association and get a new bar card with your new name on it. Just like women have been doing (or not doing) for decades when they got married & divorced.
Now as to personal pronouns, I just don’t use them.
And the nice thing about Dr. (and one reason I use it) is that it is gender neutral — my “preferred pronouns” are “Dr. and Dr.’s” — and that *does* piss the activists off…
“ get a new bar card“
Bar card? Is that like a diners club card?
I thought your preferred pronoun was 'janitor'?
That's Dr. Janitor to you.
"That name — and no other — is licensed to practice law"
Yeah, those names are nototiously strong at passing bar exams.
Are you insinuating that the right to practice law is issued to a specific name? So if a lawyer changes their name they have to retake the bar exam because that name isn't licensed?
Or can you admit it's the person, not the name, that is licensed to practice law? And that they deserve to be called by their preferred name (using your example, calling a woman who practices under her maiden name but legally changed their name after getting married)?
If only some intermediate system were possible, between utterly fixed and inalterable names, and names one can change at a whim.
Maybe one where the legal system uses a specific name for a specific person, but there's a formal process that allows changing it?
Why? People use nicknames all the time.
People who are certified to practice law can be addressed however they want they want. What problem is banning that practice solving?
Who gives a fuck what you "would consider"? It's not.
"Names" are not licensed to practice law, and there are no "bar cards."
If there are no bar cards, why does the MassBBO require $10 to replace them?
”To obtain a replacement bar card, please email your request to registrationdept@massbbo.org or mail to the following address: Registration Department Board of Bar Overseers 99 High Street Boston, MA 02110
There is a $10.00 charge for each replacement bar card. Payment may be made by check or money order, payable to the Board of Bar Overseers.
https://www.massbbo.org/apex/FAQ
Plenty of women change their legal names on those occasions without changing the names they practice under.
You cannot be stupid enough to actually believe this.
Good thing you aren't a lawyer because purposely calling the opposing lawyer something that isn't their name isn't going to help your clients case but will piss off the vast majority of judges of any description and might result in sanctions.
What part of
ie if his actual name is John Smith, but he “goes by” Suleiman the Magnificent, I’d go with “Mr Smith.” But if he’s legally changed his name to Suleiman the Magnificent then I’d go with that, and hope the jury would take it into account.
were you struggling with ?
“ especially in a case touching on sex or genderish matters. So if Mr Smith had decided to go by “Miss Smith” but had not formally effected a name change, and my clients were, say, parents opposing their thirteen year old’s “sex change” operation, I think accepting the miss-ness of “Miss Smith”‘ would undermine my client’s case.”
This would piss off the judge when opposing counsel corrected you but you refused to change.
"genderish matters"
And you expect to be taken seriously?
Do you know what a quotation mark designates?
I thought so, but if I used them improperly to indicate your use of the term, please enlighten me.
I didn't use the term I was quoting someone who did.
Surely that depends on the judge.
Dammit, now I want to change my name to "Suleiman the Magnificent"
"if his actual name is John Smith, but he “goes by” Suleiman the Magnificent, I’d go with “Mr Smith.” But if he’s legally changed his name to Suleiman the Magnificent then I’d go with that"
This seems reasonable for opposing counsel, especially for legal documents.
However, a judge ignoring a preferred form of address to a lawyer or a defendant, especially in regards to a group like trans people who face such overt hostility from a specific political direction, would seem to make a claim of bias on the judge's part easier to prove.
I've witnessed this from the jury myself. The victim of a (minor) crime was trans and the judge kept referring to her as "him" and then, after recess, would acknowledge the error and make it again anyways before the next recess. It was frustrating.
Well, sure, it IS frustrating to have people insist that you deny the evidence of your senses. Not everybody is sufficiently trained on doublethink to pull it off consistently.
Brett, if you intentionally deadname a crime victim you're an irredeemable asshole. How can you not see that?
Brett, people's names are something that matters to them. And they get to!
For other people's chosen name to matter to you is weird. Well it would be if you didn't make it clear you're ignoring courtesy because culture war bullshit matters more to you.
That just makes you an asshole.
There are two different flavors of assholes in these discussions.
#1: Richard Smith prefers to be called 'Ricky'. Despite knowing that, a coworker consistently[1] refers to him as 'Dick'. The coworker is an asshole. Calling people you know by their preferred names or nicknames is just polite.
#1: Richard Smith prefers to be called 'Ricky'. He is at the DMV or in court and the DMV clerk/judge refers to him as 'Richard Smith'. Ricky takes umbrage at not being referred to by his preferred name. In this case, Ricky/Richard is the asshole. It's not polite to get angry because people - especially strangers - refer to you by some common variant of your name.
[1]emphasis on 'consistently'. If your name is Richard Allen Smith and you prefer to be called 'Rick', when your wife or mother refers to you as 'Richard Allen', she's not being an asshole, she is just letting you know you are sleeping on the couch tonight.
p.s. There are other possibilities. For example, my name has a diminutive, like 'Ricky'. I prefer the more formal 'Rick'; that's how I refer to myself. I have both friends - close friends - and relatives that for whatever reason always use 'Ricky'. They aren't being mean. TBH I dunno if they just have never picked up on what I call myself, or have some reason to prefer the diminutive; I have never asked. If I got bent about it, I would be an asshole.
I concur with your two scenarios, and your analysis thereof.
I would note upon which side of the ledger Brett is taking a stand, and thus why I spoke up.
No, it's not always easy to navigate. I had someone whose friends had a nickname they used for him he didn't like; as a boy scout patrol leader I adopted that name for a full year before he told me he hated it.
"I would note upon which side of the ledger Brett is taking a stand..."
???
My take is that Brett's position is that in court, if your driver's license/birth certificate/etc says 'Richard Smith', you can expect to be referred to as 'Mr. Smith', not 'Ricky' or 'Speedy' or whatever other nicknames you might prefer, and you shouldn't be upset by that.
How would you characterize Brett's position?
(I am reminded of the news story from a few months ago, where an XX person who identified as male/father was pregnant and when he went into labor was totes upset that the hospital thought that people giving birth were generally mothers rather than fathers - how dare they call it the 'maternity ward'! That strikes me like Yao Ming showing up at Motel 6 and getting upset that the beds are too short.)
(Would you expect a judge to refer to Charles Arthur Floyd as 'Mr. Charles Floyd' or 'Pretty Boy'? Would you expect the judge to care what Pretty Boy's preference was, or just to use legal names?)
it IS frustrating to have people insist that you deny the evidence of your senses. Not everybody is sufficiently trained on doublethink to pull it off consistently.
This seems more Brett-directed than specific to court. Or at the very least of a scope beyond the courtroom.
Yes, there are always outlier stories about really out there people. Some of them are legit, some turn out to be right-wing activists playing the fool. But you seem to be taking such stories in stride, as is appropriate.
I do think that there is nuance in a judge's choice in what to call someone before them. How out there it is, what the legal name is, the insistence of the ask, and the judge's own preferences are all elements in play.
But that's like the least interesting part of this whole discussion to me.
Is it really that hard to treat people with basic human kindness and respect? What is the personal cost of not being an asshole to another human that had the misfortune of being in the same space at the same time? Who cares what their divers license or birth certificate says? Read the official name out and then comment that they have a preferred name and, for the remainder of the interaction, that is the name that will be used. It's not like the trans person doesn't understand the requirement to use the legal name in these circumstances. Choosing to deadname someone beyond that legal requirement isn't excused by anything. No one is fooled into thinking the asshole is being reasonable.
If your name is Richard Allen Smith and you prefer to be called ‘Rick’, when your wife or mother refers to you as ‘Richard Allen’, she’s not being an asshole, she is just letting you know you are sleeping on the couch tonight.
I think this is a good point, and it brings out the fact, lovingly ignored by the “omigod you’re deadnaming him, sorry her” crowd, that what other people call you is not your property.
Yes, you may have an official name, let us say, Mr Carlos Irwin Estévez, and you may use the name Charlie Sheen in your professional life. You may use other names when booking hookers. All that is up to you.
But other people can call you what they like, because they’re the ones speaking. They may go for something like “Charlie” or “Mr Sheen” or “Mr Estevez” or “you whoremongering SOB” according to taste and circumstances.
The question is – what is the correct etiquette for peoples names (and titles) in different settings ? And opinions will differ. And that is precisely why formality exists. It establishes the ground rules for addressing people – who may not be your friends – in formal situations, and reduces the probability of hissy fits. Which is important, especially if everyone has a sword.
Which is why Brett is quite right to insist that the correct form of address in an official situation – such as a court or in written documents emanating from courts – is the person’s actual name (and actual title.)
So in the case of Charlie Sheen, “Mr Estevez” would be right. Except if all relevant parties, that is to say judge, both counsel and Mr Estevez, were content to call him something else. But even if they had so agreed, the written record should clearly indicate the departure, so that the written record correctly identifies the person by their actual name.
Thus “Mr Carlos Estevez (hereafter referred to as “Charlie Sheen”) ia accused of …….”
I've got to break it to you: Duncan didn't "deadname" anybody.
According to the government, and the judge agreed, Varner had not legally changed his name, because when he went to the Kentucky court asking for the name change, he'd lied about his residency; He wasn't a resident of Kentucky at the time, the Kentucky court had no jurisdiction to do the name change.
So the judge was using Varner's live name.
That’s not what they went by though. That’s deadnaming. It’s disrespectful and the people who do it are indisputably assholes.
Is that like being a Masshole? 🙂
Yes, but with a better chance of being a decent driver.
You live in Maine. Tell the truth, is there a vehicle in your driveway without tires?
No one gives a shit about your Marxist thought prisons.
You people are objectively harming children with this nonsense.
Objectively, eh? You'll have to back that up wiith more than opinion, since that's what the word means.
No, I think courts ought to use people's actual legal names. Basically without exception.
Pretending that it's just common courtesy to do whatever the left gets it into their head to demand is getting old, frankly. The guy's name is Norman Varner. Legally, that's his name. Should he go to a court that actually has jurisdiction, he can possibly get it legally changed, though I understand the courts are reluctant to help sex offenders with name changes that might help them hide their pasts.
But if he did get it legally changed, THEN it would be wrong for the judge to keep using his old name. Not before.
"No, I think courts ought to use people’s actual legal names. Basically without exception."
No nicknames? No calling Jonathan, Jon? No calling Mary Jane, MJ? No deviation from the actual, legal name?
That actually makes me wonder if there is a legal requirement to use Mr. if you are male and Miss/Ms./Mrs. if you are female. Can a man claim the prefix of Ms. if they want, or a woman claim Mr.?
If the pronouns are up to the speaker's preference, then Brett Bellmore could just as easily be "Miss Brett" regardless of whether she liked it or not.
"Deadnaming" "Mansplaining" "White Privilege"
speak fucking English,
Frank "Just call me Fuckface"
They???
Did Ted Cruz legally change his name?
Did Eugene Volokh?
Do you recognize special snowflakey privileges for intolerant right-wingers in this regard?
Apparently Jerry Sandusky changed his name (on this Blog)
Having legal skills are fundamentally racist as proven by the underrepresentation of important BIPOCs. They must remove these White Supremacist standards in the name of equity which is in America's National Security interests.
P.S. the legal profession is under represented by all minorities EXCEPT Jews and homos. As demonstrated by this blog.
". . . the legal profession is under represented by all minorities. . . . "
Glad you acknowledge that; any suggestions to improve it?
Remove the standards so the minorities can qualify.
RESTORE the standards so that minorities will know that they WILL HAVE TO qualify and hence not just presume they will be admitted under affirmative retribution.
Improve K-12 -- more charter schools for minorities. (THEY -- i.e. parents -- want them, their kids do better in them, and they deserve the opportunity).
Yes, schools just for minorities, great idea!
If you don’t let people say things in the open, they will say it behind your back.
If "behind your back" means legal journals, political ralllies, and other places where you can speak without disrupting someone else's speech.
You misunderstand me.
I beg your pardon.
These assholes had nothing to say. They were there for the sole purpose of preventing Judge Duncan from "say[ing] things in the open." Pathetic. (As are the people defending them.)
This I agree with 100%. The conversation has swerved badly away from this central.point, but Ed managed to make an accurate statement.
Although I acknowledge that 'assholes' is pure opinion. Accurate, but opinion.
Whoops, sorry. Wrong Ed.
Dr. Ed is still 0-for-his lifetime.
I'm not seeing many people defending the crude protesters at Stanford. I am seeing people understand why someone might want to protest someone who lets their personal bigotry affect their professional behavior and undermine their profession. You can say the protesters were wrong and the judge is an asshole who encourages that sort of behavior without defending either of them.
"the judge is an asshole who encourages that sort of behavior"
With that provocative short robe he wears.
Are you comparing non-violent protesters to rapists?
I'm calling you an apologist for crime and disorder.
Koppelman's mistake is thinking that these students aspire to a career in law, as conventionally understood. If that was what they aspired to, his points would be exactly on target.
But they don't aspire to be lawyers as Koppleman understands the law. They aspire to be lawyers as THEY understand the job: To be inquisitors, Red Guard. He's looking at a revolutionary movement, and mistaking it for students being infantile.
We've gone through several cycles of campus activism, and none of them were followed by a reversion to sanity. Instead, some of the radicals got recycled into the university administrations, and enabled the next cycle to be more extreme.
The same will happen with this group of campus radicals, unless the usual cycle is stopped, and the next group will be literal Red Guard.
And in a couple decades it's going to be really hard to find judicial nominees who weren't indoctrinated to believe that what these children are doing isn't perfectly right and just.
Hell yeah, more telepathy and story spinning by Brett!
They act like Red Guards. Its not "telepathy", its observed behavior.
The Red Guards came for government functionaries like you also, kowtowing won't help.
Nah, Bob.
You're just devaluing the actual atrocities of Communism to get your policy jollies.
Brett's doing some *work* to get there - mindreading into some crystal ball predictions.
You, tellingly, don't even bother. Just calling them communists.
You thing the Red Guards started with murder? Verbal abuse first then gradually escalating.
I'll call them Brownshirts if you prefer.
I think you've just proven everyone who insults other people is a communist.
I swear, you used to be better than this. Not great, mind you, but better.
These people Koppelman is complaining about are behaving exactly the way the Red Guard did in the beginning. As Bob remarks, the Red Guard didn't START with murder. They ended with it.
The key point of similarity is that these people don't think anybody who disagrees with them has a right to speak. That dissent from their views can be legitimate. They think they're entitled to do what it takes to shut up people who disagree with them.
The rest is just mutual egging on, and people in a position to stop them enabling them instead, until it's too late, and the boulder is already rolling.
You haven't changed, Mr. Bellmore.
Still a bigoted, delusional, autistic, antisocial, right-wing jerk -- and the target audience of a white, male, movement conservative blog.
No, Brett - you're a moron with Communism on the brain. You always saw them behind every tree and in every mind you peer into; you've just managed to make no progress in a decade.
I don't even think it's true that law students don't think others have the right to speak - again, the Stanford thing had legs because it was rare.
You don't know the people you're talking about, you just have a narrative and mush them in. Same as it ever was.
It's happened several times. Here's one which finished with the protestors giving one of the Professors a concussion :
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/middlebury-college-charles-murray-bell-curve.html
When Mr. Murray moved to another room to deliver his talk, protesters pulled fire alarms in the hallway. When he was done and left the building, several masked protesters, who may have come from off campus, began pushing and shoving Mr. Murray and his faculty interviewer, Allison Stanger, who suffered a concussion after someone grabbed her hair and twisted her neck.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protests-violence-prompts-uc-berkeley-cancel-milo-yiannopoulos-event-n715711
Here's another where the protestors succeeded in getting a talk cancelled, using the persuasive argument of ... smokebombs and a firebomb.
Wow several times nationwide going back like 6 years?
That actually proves my point about how extraordinary we are talking.
That's your blind eye, Admiral. Put the telescope to your other eye and you will see the signal clearly :
https://www.dailywire.com/news/evergreen-college-settles-professor-bret-weinstein-emily-zanotti
When Weinstein — a self-described progressive himself — refused, students began a campaign of harassment, branding Weinstein a “racist” and threatening his safety.
Eventually, the leftist-on-leftist protest got so out of hand that Evergreen was forced to cancel classes.
Also, everyone whose paintings are in an art museum started the same way Hitler did!
That's a really stupid take, you know? The only way it makes even the tiniest bit of sense is if you assume shouting down speakers is a value neutral activity utterly orthogonal to beating them. Rather than, as it actually is, a step in the direction of beating them.
Are you going to claim that? That shouting speakers down isn't in any way indicative of aggressive intolerance, but instead is a harmless hobby like stamp collecting?
Brett, lotsa issues with this take.
1. Shouting down speakers is not the norm among law students, even liberal law students.
2. Even if it were, there is a wide wide middle you are excluding between something being value neutral and something being basically the Red Guard.
And finally, you end with more middle excluding aimed at DMN, who said nothing like you strawmanned him to say.
See Ducks: Walking and Quacking.
Brett -- the other thing is that they are not very bright...
I don't know if it is low IQ in general or (more likely) that they are so uneducated as to be ignorant but they REALLY aren't that bright.
Ask them to defend something they believe in -- gun control, abortion, Orangeman Bad -- and they simply can't do it. They have the answers (bad, good, and evil respectively) but get lost when you ask them "why"?
The difference between being stupid, and 'just' having some unquestionable premises gumming up your reasoning processes, can be hard to discern. These kids are smart in the sense of raw reasoning power, the ability to solve puzzles and remember things.
But they're kind of like Robocop, only shorting a substation through them wouldn't really help.
That's a pretty good description of you lot! Dumbly regurgitating your Fox News and MAGA talking points all day, without any actual knowledge or understanding.
That’s a pretty good description of you lot! Dumbly regurgitating your Fox News and MAGA talking points all day, without any actual knowledge or understanding.
Says Randal, regurgitating lefty BS talking points.
No self awareness. ChatGPT, is that you?
That's a pretty funny comment, for several reasons. Nice.
"Koppelman’s mistake is thinking that these students aspire to a career in law, as conventionally understood."
I didn't realize you knew all those people and their career plans. You should be an incredible source of knowledge for this discussion.
Unless, of course, you're just talking out your ass.
Always so desperate to be a servant of the special people at the expense of everyone else.
I guess if they wanted to help everyone they'd pick a profession that builds things and creates new value rather than one that schemes and fights to divide up what others created.
Read Mr. Bumble's comment above. "Serving [i.e., upholding] the law" -- as opposed to subverting it in service of this or that "social movement" -- does serve everyone. This is what honest attorneys, prosecutors, and judges do.
But their intention is to make Americans' lives worse.
What was law school like in the early to mid-20th century? The postwar era brought us free speech as we know it. The people who decreed free speech must have come from somewhere.
Remember that half of a legal education back then was learning the West system, how to find stuff in books and what all those funny characters meant.
The modern leftists wouldn't have the discipline to learn that.
No, it wasn't.
To a large extent, at least in the ACLU, what you had were outright communists, who didn't want to be censored. But they knew that an appeal to just the rights of communists wouldn't be persuasive, so they adopted a pose of a principled support for freedom of speech, and made a point of defending the speech of Nazis. Thus defending a general principle that just happened to benefit them.
Not, however, because they actually cared about the general principle. Just because it was a more effective way to protect themselves.
So long as the threat of censorship was primarily from the right, they stuck to this stance. Once they decided that they main threat of censorship was from the left, themselves, the masks started coming off.
Consider reading up on the actual history of free speech in political and legal philosophy rather than just deciding it must be a communist thing.
I said, "at least in the ACLU", and my account was accurate in regards to them. Several of the founding members were actual communists, and the organization was founded in response to anti-communist actions by the government.
Of course there were actual civil libertarians around, if there hadn't been anybody who took ideas like free speech seriously, it wouldn't have been an effective tactic. But they were never in actual control of the ACLU.
Sarcasrt0 never engages in facts, only gaslighting, one-sided tone policing and the occasional bootlicking up the Federal hierarchy.
No, you were not right about the ACLU. It is your usual telepathy.
If the ACLU had no communists, why did they expel the communist from its board?
“In 1936, Flynn joined the Communist Party and quickly rose in the ranks. However, her association with CPUSA created contention with her role as a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. She was ousted from the ACLU board in 1940, following the nonaggression pact signed by Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler….
“…[c. 1964] The Soviet government gave Flynn a state funeral in the Red Square with more than 25,000 people in attendance….”
https://blog.lib.utah.edu/the-rebel-girl-elizabeth-gurley-flynn/
Twelve years after her death, she was officially reinstated by the ACLU, repealing the 1940 expulsion –
““Today we operate in a different climate, where an individual can be a Communist and a civil libertarian,” the [ACLU] minutes state, adding that the repeal will “signal that the A.C.L.U. judges the individual and is not a red‐baiting group.””
https://www.nytimes.com/1976/06/22/archives/aclu-reverses-ouster-of-elizabeth-gurley-flynn.html?_r=0
I thinking of a big lecture Hall like in "The Paper Chase" with a Professor Kingsfield "
Charles W. Kingsfield Jr.: Mr. Hart, would you recite for us the facts of Hawkins versus McGee?
[looks up]
Charles W. Kingsfield Jr.: I do have you name right? You are "Mr. Hart"?
James T. Hart: [mumbles] Yes, my name's Hart.
Charles W. Kingsfield Jr.: You're not speaking loud enough, Mr. Hart. Will you speak up?
James T. Hart: Yes, my name's Hart.
Charles W. Kingsfield Jr.: Mr. Hart, you're still not speaking loud enough. Will you stand?
Frank
?
"The people who decreed free speech" were the people who came up with (and advocated the ratification of) the First Amendment, not some "early to mid-20th century" judges.
In 1950, the number of female lawyers had risen by 50% to 6,348 or 3.5% of lawyers. (Another source says 9,500)
Law schools were full of white men. That's what they were like.
There is a lot of law professor/lawyer brain worms going on in this piece.
"The fundamental purpose of a law school is to give the next generation the skills to build a more just world."
That's what some professors at top schools might think, but uh, no its "purpose" is to sort of train future lawyers. Doesn't really have anything to do with justice.
"[S]mart, skilled people like Duncan"
Consistently praising the skills of conservative judges is peak liberal law professor.
"Some of the best law students in the country actually believed that they were advancing their cause by shouting insults at Duncan."
Believing that T-14s are the best law students in the country. Another peak law professor brain moment.
He says "Lawyers need to understand reality."
And:
"We thought it was nonetheless worth testing the hypothesis that he is not a mere political apparatchik, but an honest judge who sincerely tries to get the law right. Lawyers who can’t imagine that possibility won’t be able to do their jobs."
So this is very interesting because Koppelman did acknowledge reality about who Gorsuch was: a dude super into textualism who didn't have a track record of being openly hostile to LGBT people.
But that's not the same as acknowledging he was an honest judge. He saw an opening on this particular personality with his known quirks. Notably he clearly did not think this was a thing about Thomas (a supposed textualist) or Alito or Kavanaugh. Because he didn't have to keep up the pretense they would ever buy his arguments.
If you're going to acknowledge reality you have to acknowledge that sometimes the judge is in fact a political hack or stuck in one mode on some issues and proceed accordingly. There is no point in pretending you'll win an LGBT rights case in front of Duncan.
Remember that half of a legal education back then was learning the West system, how to find stuff in books and what all those funny characters meant.
The modern leftists wouldn't have the discipline to learn that.
That’s funny because right-wingers often accuse historians, political scientists, literature professors, etc who do much more painstaking research involving books of being leftists.
At one point, i knew how to use the shepards manuals. Not the same kind of books!
"Remember ..."
It isn't any more accurate this time than it was the first time you posted it.
LTG is quite the rambler. The purpose of law school is to learn the law. You can start with 1A.
You're supposed to start with a skull full of mush and leave thinking like a lawyer,
seems they have it backwards today.
I agree. Koppelman is operating under the increasingly and demonstrably false belief that our conservative-leaning judiciary is filled with judges who just want to reason to the best answer, and can be swayed by arguments that properly anticipate and address their preconceptions.
The judges of the Fifth Circuit have rapidly and dramatically shown us that they are not interested in this model of adjudication, and this is reflected by the fact that so many challenges to Biden policies are brought in courts under its jurisdiction.
There is a queer irony, too, insofar as Duncan himself does not seem to be able to engage in the kind of critical engagement with his interlocutors. In one of the clips from the presentation, we could see a student trying to criticize Duncan for being unwilling to consider the broader social ramifications of his rulings. It wasn't a particularly well-articulated critique. But Duncan couldn't seem to respond in any way other than to repeat some tired tropes about how judges should decide what the law is. He couldn't step outside his own preconceptions and attempt to engage the student on the more fundamental, theoretical disagreement. He lacks precisely the same skill that Koppelman is saying law students should have.
It reminds me of a lot of the way that VCers glance right past the interesting theoretical problems that undermine their confident claims. Josh, in particular.
I can tell you anecdotally this is correct beyond law school - my more politically oriented colleagues who landed at liberal nonprofits report the petty squabbling over purity is taking 80% or more of time and resources.
Purity patrolling zealots are a problem for every party, big and small, but that's where it seems to be kicking the hardest on the left.
If you think purity patrolling among the left is something wait till you learn about the requirements to run for office in the MAGA Party.
Yes, I didn’t want to broaden the subject but the place purity kicks in the right is the media and voters.
Which is much worse.
But the left is still going through it,
It would appear that on the left to be "pure" one must support censorship.
What equally odious purity test can you point to on the right?
You must support freedom and liberty which is contrary to Democrat power dynamics of dependence and servitude.
You not only have to support censirship, you also must support parental control (but only in some situations, otherwise oppose it), preventing personal medical decisions, banning books, baselessly slandering teachers, opposing equal treatment of gay people, opposing anything about trans people, calling any nudity pornography (like the statue of David), and the list goes on.
Cultural conservatives are the most pro-censorship, anti-liberty force in American politics today.
Do you understand that there's a difference between being able to be a professor or student or executive and seeking a particular party's political endorsement, when it comes to ideological purity tests?
The second has a much broader impact on the nation.
If I wanted conclusory bullshit without so much as hand-waving an argument, I would have asked you.
You asked for a difference, I provided one. Now you're getting pissy.
There was an article in the NY Times in my feed today that talked about new lesbian bars in LA. The article referred to women, trans, and genderqueer people being welcome. Nothing particularly crazy or disagreeable there. But the comments were embarrassingly packed with self-hating homophobia and anti-trans BS. There were rants against the use of the word “queer” and denouncements of trans women and all, apparently, by people who might otherwise identify as liberal, LGBTQ, or LGBTQ-positive. It took what was a great, positive story about a resurgence of lesbian/femme-friendly businesses and soured it.
Something something can't get purchase with the actual political opposition, so create opposition one get some satisfaction from browbeating within your own people.
If I ever need a lawyer, l will certainly not look for one who was taught at a law school that considered its fundamental purpose to be to develop lawyers with the skills to make the world a better place.
You might be happier with a graduate of Regent, Liberty, or Ave Maria -- maybe even Notre Dame, Brigham Young, and a few others -- who consider their fundamental purpose to be developing lawyers with the skills to make the world a worse place (and gullible enough to be superstitious at a professional level).
School principal: "Gestational and non-birthing parents, we have placed kitty litter boxes in the unisex bathrooms for the dignity of the children who identify as cats."
Rev. Kirkland: "Ah, the world is finally becoming a better place!"
It's insane that you still believe that.
Do you believe a person can live their whole lives as a man and then by the power of their minds alone they can transform themselves into real authentic women?
No worries there. Trump has a list of lawyers who have you covered! Just pull any name off the list (if they haven't been disbarred and their prison terms have ended) and you're on your way!
Kraken!
What is a "Trans" right? Are there "Hetero" rights? Everyone has the same rights so what tranny rights are we missing?
It's not that they have different rights, it that's MAGA-types are actively trying to LIMIT equal rights.
The GOP’s coordinated national campaign against trans rights, explained
https://www.vox.com/politics/23631262/trans-bills-republican-state-legislatures
Ha, yea creeps will be creeps
There are no rights listed in that article. You don't have the right to abuse children by cutting off body parts. They can cut anything off they want once they are 18. Minors also can't drink or smoke and can't even get a tattoo by themselves in many places. Good. Kids are idiots.
You are literally born that way, male or female. Use the corresponding bathroom and shower facilities.
See above regarding ID. You are what you are not what you pretend. My kid wearing a Spiderman suit is not really Spiderman.
Your ignorance will backfire. The next step will be simply to have coed bathroom and shower facilities. Which'll be great. Thanks to all you ignorant reactionaries for forcing it to happen.
"Why do you make me hit you?"
Their ignorance makes them roadkill along the course of American progress.
Yay Vox. My anus is a more trustworthy source.
Meanwhile his anus is an unrelenting source of shame, and Pride Pox.
"gender affirming care" "top surgery" and "bottom surgery"
Leftists, using newspeak since circa 1984
"bottom surgery" is especially devious
aka castration
Who cares if castration nowhere near covers what is entailed. Who cares if he's arbitrarily limiting his redefinition to trans women and ignoring trans men.
Bob's newspeak beats the other newspeak he doesn't like!
"castration
(kas-TRAY-shun)
Removal or destruction of the testicles or ovaries using radiation, surgery, or drugs. Medical castration refers to the use of drugs to suppress the function of the ovaries or testicles." National Cancer Institute
Do "trans men" have something besides " testicles or ovaries"?
Does bottom surgery include quite a bit more than that?
Did you neglect the fact that bottom surgery is also something trans women get?
In your rush to get your pejorative term out there as the only legitimate one, you ignored a lot of facts on why that term doesn't fit.
Because, of course, you're not here because that's right, or to argue even. You're just here to yell.
Preventing someone from speaking is censorship. It's not free speech.
George Orwell couldn't've said it better.
These "student-activists" and their supporters are trying to turn our society into a 1984-like dystopia.
"Preventing someone from speaking is censorship."
Agreed, within reason. Preventing the audience from interrupting (especially shouting over the speaker) avoiding anarchy and the heckler's veto.
There is a justification for limiting certain speech at certain times. Talk in the middle of a movie and you'll get kicked out. Talk during an exam and there will be justified repercussions.
Your statement is loosely true, but subject to significant modifications or elimination based on the situation.
No shortage of self-regard in Koppelman's piece. Doesn't sort well with his theme to get in the heads of adversaries. Somehow, every adversary he ever had it made sense to credit their thinking—except the ones he wrote this piece to kick around. Not a shred of insight from Koppelman about them.
Oh, I wouldn't say that Koppelman is very good at getting into the heads of his adversaries. OTOH, he at least understands that doing it is important if you mean to ever persuade them, which is a step up from people who don't even try.
So his approach is superior to cultural conservatives' efforts against, for example, abortion?
Because after 50 years of preaching and claiming they are right, anti-abortionists haven't been able to change national opinion. That's why they are going the authoritarian route these days.
Koppelman got more than any of us could have expected. Transexuals went from being outlawed/prohibited to potentially illegal to highest protection in the course of a few years. This is great for trans people who live in the big city liberal enclaves; not so great for trans people who live anywhere else.
If he wanted the bring the rest of the country along, he should have advocated a more gradual approach. People tend to resist when major changes are dictated from above.
I think its good that people can live the lives they are comfortable in living. I don't want to tell people what they are allowed to do or not allowed to do. But I don't think these changes are going to go well in the long run.
Which also explains why Eugene thinks it's such a great take.
Progressive law students are Prof. Koppelman's adversaries?
Progressive law students are Prof. Koppelman’s adversaries?
Nieporent, he seems to think so:
The students . . . have been appropriately criticized for their obliviousness to the value of free speech.
Hypersensitivity to feelings, and the desire to vent them in the crudest possible way, enfeebles law students.
It is a quack remedy. It confuses trivial, symbolic victories for real ones.
Steinbach does not understand the point of legal education.
That was amply displayed by the infantile behavior of the protestors.
The self-indulgent fantasy that Duncan is some kind of demon also cuts off the possibility of real conversation. Lawyers need to understand reality.
Like it or not, you have to be able to imagine your way into their view of the world.
Any sign in the above that Koppelman did what he demands in that last bit? Guess not:
The distinguishing mark of adults is that they focus on bringing about real results in the world, instead of indulging in the pleasure of venting their feelings.
Yeah, he's pretty adversarial. And not at all about, "be able to imagine your way into their view of the world."
You don't seem to know what the word adversary means. He and the students share the same goals. He's annoyed because the students are sabotaging rather than advancing those goals.
When you’ve one so totally that the only opposition ia some powerless fringe crazy, arguing is irrelevant. It makes complete sense to use garbage disposal methods to get rid of them. Their opinion, of you or of anything else, is simply of no account. They’re not part of your world, they don’t belong there, what they say is going to have no effect on it.
The problem comes when you miscalculate, and don’t realize the implications of the powerless crazy anti-social dregs of society’s outskirts having titles like Court of Appeals Judge.
It could be worse. Imagine today’s students on the Edmund Pettus bridge, trying to shout down and drive off the crazies and powerless social nobodies who came there, oddly, dressed in police uniforms.
One thing mopping up the powerless remnants of opposition after a complete victory does not require is courage. It’s risk-free virtue signaling. If today’s virtue warriors should ever find they actually have to fight, they might run. They might even just switch sides if they find the other side more socially rewarding.
They WILL run and they WILL switch sides -- I've seen both.
That was so well-written. This hypersensitivity that people claim is more important than free speech and honest debate is corrosive.
Free speech means that people who say things you don't like are equally entitled to speak their minds. It means people who believe horrible, hateful things are allowed to speak about them.
Like choice in society that values liberty, expression in a society that values freedom will inevitably result in people being required to accept that things they loathe exist (and have the right to exist) in the world.
I didn't realize you were such a far right Nazi fascist.
Supporting free speech and pointing out that it means that people will say things you don't like (and that's a good thing) is ... fascist?
Inigo Montoya has a quote for you.
They have the right to say whatever vile BS comes to their minds. No one is obligated to listen to them, agree with them, fund them, make room for them, or be nice to them in return. Free speech doesn't mean free from consequences.
However, when they do that as part of their role as a US judge, and the people in the court room below them are captive to the judge's bigotries, that's a problem for the whole system.
It's kind of a problem when you declare the views of about half the population as beyond the pale, and declare your intent to relentlessly sanction them before you've actually taken power. While they still hold roughly half the power in society, and much of the power you exercise is actually at their sufferance.
They might just take you seriously, and decide not to let you execute your plans.
So, you're running a state funded educational institution, and the politicians are actually responsive to your hated foes. Maybe you'll end up no longer being state funded, and they'll be unimpressed when you complain about how your right to teach that they're monsters at the taxpayers' expense is being violated.
To Brett, common courtesy is a power move.
Not everything is an outcome of some secret conflict, Brett.
To Sarcastr0, "common courtesy" consists of always doing what the left demands. Nothing more, nothing less. If the Party says O'Brien is holding up five fingers, saying you see five fingers is only the polite thing to do.
No, Brett, that's your telepathy acting up.
This was a direct response to your comment that 1) half the population agree with you on not calling people what they want to be called, and 2) saying it's bad to insist on not calling people what they want to be called is a silly demand until those asking for it 'take power.'
That's not a partisan thing. That's just not how rules of courtesy come to be.
If common courtesy is what the left demands maybe that signals the right is a bunch of uncourteous assholes?
“the views of about half the population”
He is pretty extreme. Guaranteed nowhere near half the population support his views. Hell, a good amount less than half the population support conservative positions, period, let alone hard right positions.
"Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequences"
Agreed. But a paid speaker, invited by the law school specifically because he holds views that are outside the norm, should never be shouted down. Challenged during the Q&A? Yes. But a heckler's veto isn't acceptable. Speech should be countered with dissenting speech. Drowning out dissenting voices is usually speech supression.
"the people in the court room below them are captive"
That is completely separate from the campus speech (or free speech, same issue) discussion.
The thing about the US legal system is that there are layers of appellate courts. If he makes clearly biased decisions, he will be overturned.
Is it a perfect system? No. No system is. But it is how the checks and balances within tbe judicial branch work. And they usually work.
To be clear I think he is a terrible judge with terrible beliefs and a loose, conditional respect for the law. However, that doesn't justify shouting him down when he comes somewhere to speak.
No disagreement here.
On my campus, we're getting a Turning Point USA speaker in the near future. It's an anti-trans speaker, to be specific. It's going to whip up protesters for sure and it seems pretty obvious that this is intentional. (TPUSA is open about "triggering" people as a strategy.) They're trolling for protesters, basically.
The campus LGBTQ organization has scheduled a separate, distant event uplifting trans voices during the same time. They're advocating for non-engagement.
I give the odds on angry protesters being there at roughly 99%, regardless. I'm steeling myself for a bad day at work.
" They’re trolling for protesters, basically."
Well, sure. They're trying to demonstrate to the normies that the left are intolerant maniacs. The left are glad to help, because a significant faction on the left think they should be intolerant maniacs, and the rest aren't concerned enough about it to do anything about them.
Complaining that they're deliberately making you look bad misses the point. If the left didn't have that unpoliced faction of violent, intolerant maniacs, they'd fail.
"Today's left aims to protect minorities from offense. It ought to aim to change the world."
The law should do neither.
He didn't say the law. He said the left.
It was a law school. The people being discussed were law students.
He didn't have to say "law" for us to understand he was talking about the law.
'Today's left aims to protect minorities from offense. It ought to aim to change the world.'
Protecting Federal judges from offence is just kissing arse. Promoting equal treatment and respect for minorities *is* changing the world, something the right is determined to roll back.
Way to miss the point. "Kissing ass¹" is a way to accomplish one's goals.
¹We're not British.
I don't want to roll anything back. I simply reject the concept of categorizing and herding people into particular groups, or creating rights based upon group membership.
Cool. So you treat people as individuals! And if an individual says "my nickname is 'Bob'" or I prefer to use she/her pronouns, you're okay with that because there is no grouping which sex/gender would be, were one to notice such things.
"Protecting Federal judges from offence is just kissing arse."
Allowing a speaker who has come to a law school to speak to students isn't "kissing ass". It's common decency and supporting free speech (even if you don't like what he does with it).
Oh, and the dogs are still gnawing this bone, as if it was any way important or significant.
Speaking of "Dead Naming" what's the hold up on the Nashville Murderer's "Manifesto"???
Almost there's something in there our "Betters" (HT Reverend Sandusky) don't want us to see,
Frank
“Dead Naming”
What does that even mean? I refuse to allow fringe groups to control or redefine the language to suit their goals and beliefs. I simply ignore them, refuse to engage on their terms and move on as if they never spoke.
Tough guy here.
Tell you what, next time a trans man introduces himself to you as "Steve," and everyone else in the room refers to him as "Steve," why don't you do the research to figure out his assigned-at-birth name, which you can then steadfastly use every time you address him or speak about him, with others.
"So, Olivia, what did you think about the presentation I sent you?" "I'm sorry, what did you call me?" "Your name, Olivia." "What the fuck is your problem?"
Or:
"Did you see that presentation that Olivia sent around earlier?" "Who?" "Olivia." "I don't know who you're talking about?" "You know, Olivia, who wants people to call her 'Steve' now." "Steve, from accounting?" "Yes, him - er, I mean, her." "Um... yeah, I guess?"
So brave! Way to live your life without engaging on the terms of some radical fringe group!
So, are you in a legal hearing, and is Olivia 'Steve's' actual, legal name? Because if you're not going to use somebody's legal name in a court of law, what really is the point of having legal names?
In fact, it wasn't mysterious that the judge knew that 'Katherine' was actually Norman; He didn't have to look it up, Norman was petitioning the court to alter old court records that still had his legal name on them.
And Duncan was explaining to him that he didn't actually have a legal right to have accurate records altered to reflect a new name, especially a new name that he hadn't actually legally changed.
I agree.
No one should be able to hide behind euphemisms ("conservative values," "traditional values," "family values," "religious values,") to obscure bigotry. No one should be able to hide behind misleading terms ("libertarianish," "often libertarian") to disguise movement conservatism, especially authoritarian movement conservativism.
Ditch the political correctness. Call gay-bashers, Republican racists, chanting right-wing antisemites, xenophobes, misogynists, and Islamophobes what they are: bigots
How many capital murder defendants would want these students to represent them?
How many LGBT people would want to be this judge's courtroom?
Ok, no "LGBT people" in his courtroom, no LGBT people judging non-LGBT people.
Deal?
You don't want that deal. Even when you strip out the LGBT people, decent cis heterosexuals will still treat your anti-trans bias as the horrible thing it is.
You do realize that this virulent anti-trans movement has very limited support, right? Especially amlng people who believe "equal protection under the law" is a virtuous lodestar
Koppleman believes in dynamic interpretation of statutes....he says he had an originalist approach aimed at Gorsuch. Bull crud. "Sex" as it was written in 1964 did not mean what Koppleman and Gorsuch said it meant.
How can I advise clients about the law if the court can change the language? We end up with ad-hoc rulings on everything. Anyone here ever tried to write memos (final determinations when I was a government hearing officer) when the administration keeps telling you what the final result is? Basically, the popular person wins. I don't want to be a part of that. I want laws that protect unpopular people.
Are you saying vertical stare is something the good prof is against?
Once more: Gorsuch did not in any way change the meaning of "sex," let alone rely upon such change as the basis for its opinion. It meant in Bostock exactly what it meant in 1964.
Bostock turned on the meaning of "because of," not "sex."
I swear most Bostock critics have never read it. Gorsuch used 1960s dictionaries for every word he analyzed. He concluded It’s logically impossible to fire someone because they are a man who is attracted to men or because they were born as man and now identifies as a woman and not have it be “because of” sex.
If his interpretation of “because of” is wrong, that means someone fired for being in an interracial relationship would not be a Title VII violation. Which would obviously be a bizarre interpretation of the text of title VII. (I’m not firing you because you’re black, I’m firing you because you’re a black guy dating a white woman)
The only way Bostock would be wrong is if the historical and social context at the time the words were chosen matters more than the words themselves. That’s the only way you get there. It might be appropriate to do, but it’s not textualism and it’s also a heavier lift considering what the text says and what prior precedent on Title VII had said (Oncale for instance).
But if you mindlessly follow this logic, you can't have a policy of refusing to hire people who lie on their job applications, say. A person's sex isn't like their taste in ice cream, it's an objective fact. If they're a guy, and tell you they're a girl, they're lying. Or delusional, which amounts to the same thing.
It's a matter of following the strict logic right off a cliff.
"I want laws that protect unpopular people."
The trans community thanks you for your support.