Bork Lecture at FedSoc National Convention Will Include Panel of Judges To Address Antisemitism

A fitting update to the rising tide of antisemitism on the left and the right.

Following up from my post last night, I am pleased to report that the Bork Lecture at the FedSoc National Convention will focus on antisemitism:

In 1987, Howard G. Crane — then-Managing Partner of Kirkland & Ellis and a self-described "liberal Democrat" — testified in support of Judge Robert Bork's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, describing Judge Bork as "a person without prejudice against any group." Crane, who was Jewish, explained that Judge Bork, as a young law firm associate, persuaded his firm to eliminate its ban on Jewish attorneys, resulting in Bork's firm hiring Crane.

In memory of Judge Bork's commitment to religious respect and his rejection of anti-Semitism, Hon. Judge Roy Altman (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida) will moderate a discussion with judges from different faith traditions about the crucial importance of the American tradition of religious respect and tolerance in the U.S. constitutional order, including their personal experiences with interfaith dialogue.

The judges will discuss how First Amendment values — such as respect for free speech and for free exercise of religion — can provide a roadmap for preserving Western values under assault by anti-Semitism and other forms of religious intolerance.

Featuring:

Hon. Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Ray Gruender, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Hon. Andrew Oldham, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Hon. Martha Pacold, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Hon. Lee Rudofsky, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Hon. Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Hon. Evan Young, Texas Supreme Court
Moderator: Hon. Roy Kalman Altman, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Congratulations to Judge Altman and all of the other members of the panel. This event could not be more timely.

Comments

[LivvyLawyer]

A vacuous accusation of antisemitism is used to deflect from genocide, which is a US federal capital crime. No Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian lawyer participates in this roundtable.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Here’s Andy Oldham in NetChoice v Paxton:

Instead, their primary contention—beginning on page 1 of their brief and repeated throughout and at oral argument—is that we should declare HB 20 facially invalid because it prohibits the Platforms from censoring “pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda, [and] Holocaust denial[s].” Red Br. at 1. Far from justifying pre-enforcement facial invalidation, the Platforms’ obsession with terrorists and Nazis proves the opposite. The Supreme Court has instructed that “[i]n determining whether a law is facially invalid,” we should avoid “speculat[ing] about ‘hypothetical’ or ‘imaginary’ cases.” Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 449–50. Overbreadth doctrine has a “tendency . . . to summon forth an endless stream of fanciful hypotheticals,” and this case is no exception. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 301 (2008). But it’s improper to exercise the Article III judicial power based on “hypothetical cases thus imagined.” Raines, 362 U.S. at 22; cf. Sineneng- Smith, 140 S. Ct. at 1585–86 (Thomas, J., concurring) (explaining the tension between overbreadth adjudication and the constitutional limits on judicial power).”

The “obsession” with Nazis turned out to be most one of the most accurate predictions ever. Once Elon took over Twitter and moderation changed to the “free speech” moderation policies Paxton et al wanted, it became an absolute cesspool of neonazism and antisemitism.

Nick Fuentes now has a million followers. He was banned pre-Elon.

Anyway, the guy who scoffed at concerns over antisemitism in a judicial opinion is definitely the right guy to be on this panel.

[LivvyLawyer]

Zionist has supplanted Nazi and fascist as the default pejorative on the left. Similarly Zionist has supplanted commie, Marxist, and antifa as the default pejorative on the right. Zionists don't like this state of affairs, but their is nothing antisemitic about the situation. Joe Biden calls himself a Zionist while my husband, who is Jewish, loathes Zionism and Zionists.

Judge Oldham addresses another issue.

A social medium platform is functionally equivalent to a telegraph service under federal law. A telegraph service is a telecommunications service under federal law, but the FCC declines to regulate a telegraph service. A federal court has jurisdiction over a telegraph service under 47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences. In addition, at least 24 states should be regulating a social medium platform under California-like statutes that address common carriage of a message or under Massachusetts-like statutes that address common carriage of intelligence by electricity.

At least 24 states absolutely forbid and criminalize moderation, curation, and denial of common carriage of an electronic message, which is intangible personal property.

If federal and state judges stop paying attention to the law, the legal system ceases to function.

[David Nieporent]

Joe Biden calls himself a Zionist while my husband, who is Jewish, loathes Zionism and Zionists.

You're confusedly posting from the wrong account, Martillo.