Thursday, June 01, 2023

Idiot Stanford Law Students Learn That Ignorance Has A Price

Liberals have a really tough time with reality. Think about it. The same people that won’t take a stand to reinforce our southern border with a wall, live in mansions surrounded by walls. They rant and rave about gun control but are protected by armed security guards. They continuously lie about climate change blaming CO2 output and fossil fuels, but they fly in private jets. The entire “woke agenda” is so filled with oxymorons and fallacies that if I listed them all it would literally fill this entire column. So rather than do that, I will focus on one incidence that has finally managed to bite the “woke perpetrators” in the ass.

As you know, the left LOVES to scream about being heard and free speech. They drag that soap box out almost as much as their phony “racism” platform. Still, they have no intention of practicing what they preach, …… that is of course, unless it benefits them.

Case in point. Last month on March 9th, Judge Kyle Duncan, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals, was asked to speak to a group of Stanford Law students by the Federalist Society. Unfortunately, these so called “law students” behave like an uneducated pack of 6th graders. Showing up with vulgar signs and shouting down the judge every time he attempted to speak. Seriously, the entire room wreaked of leftist sarcasm and vile. One of the so called “reasons” for this display of blind callowness is that during a ruling Judge Duncan refused to use a transgender sex offender’s preferred pronouns.

The left is really good at having selective memory and changing the discourse of an argument. These fools totally disregard the fact that the transgender in question was a sex offender. Instead, they focus on the judge not using the preferred pronouns of the animal that committed the crime.

Now, what makes this incident even more egregious, is that Stanford Law’s Associate Dean of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) Tirien Steinbach, made an absolute ass of herself. First, by laughing and egging on the jeering of Duncan and then delivering a ten-minute condescending rant to the judge essentially ridiculing his career.

As you probably deduced by now, the judge was unable to deliver his speech. So any chance for meaningful dialogue was destroyed by an immature group of self-entitled elitists. These students were unbelievably obnoxious and disrespectful and you have to wonder what our legal system in the future will look like.

After hearing about and viewing the incident, the Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez, and Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, sent a letter of apology to Duncan.

“We write to apologize for the disruption of your recent speech at Stanford Law School. As has already been communicated to our community, what happened was inconsistent with our policies on free speech, and we are very sorry about the experience you had while visiting our campus.”

The letter of apology drew protest from some students and support from others. Proving that discernment is not a trait that elitists possess. The concept of free speech isn’t complicated. Time and place need to be taken into account, but an invited federal judge, speaking to a group of law students should never include raucous, rude behavior by those students.

Shortly after the incident, Steinbach was either placed on leave or chose of her own free will to leave. There is no word on when or if she will return. In either case, her actions and those of the ignorant students have exacted a price on Stanford Law.

Two federal judges now say they will no longer hire any Stanford law students as clerks. Circuit judges Elizabeth Branch and James Ho have gone on record saying that they “will not hire any student who chooses to attend Stanford Law School in the future.”

The same two judges began a boycott of Yale law students in October of last year after students there heckled and disrupted a free speech panel. After announcing his decision in October judge Ho said, “Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views, but it also actively practices it.”

After Duncan was harassed last month, judge Ho didn’t hold back.

“Rules aren’t rules without consequences. Students that practice intolerance don’t belong in the legal profession. How do we know everyone’s views will be protected if everyone’s views aren’t represented?”

He then called the attempted intimidation:

intellectual terrorism. Imagine that every judge who says that they’re opposed to discrimination at Yale and Stanford takes the same path. Imagine they decide that until the discrimination stops they will no longer hire from those schools in the future. How quickly do we think those school would stop discriminating then?”

It’s reassuring to see these judges take action against this type of ridiculous persecution of dissenting views. Judge Ho is correct, others need to implement similar boycotts, otherwise what has already become a tiered system will travel further down the road of the absurd.