Ed Whelan Profile picture
Mar 10, 2023 10 tweets 4 min read Read on X
With the acquiescence of @StanfordLaw administrators, Stanford law students yesterday shouted down Fifth Circuit judge Stuart Kyle Duncan at a scheduled event on topic of “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter." 1/
@StanfordLaw In email before event, Stanford DEI dean Tirien Steinbach stated support of right of students to protest event, "in keeping with University policies ... against disrupting speakers."

All good. Except she and 4 other administrators at event allowed gross disruption. 2/
@StanfordLaw Steinbach in fact fanned the flames, both in her email and at the event. Her email quoted with evident approval an absurd summary of Duncan's record. And in remarks at event, she said Duncan "literally denies the humanity of people" and told him "your work has caused harm." 3/ Image
@StanfordLaw After drowning out made it impossible for Judge Duncan to proceed, Steinbach delivered prepared remarks that berated Duncan and sided with protestors: "your advocacy, your opinions from the bench, land as absolute disenfranchisement of their rights." 4/
@StanfordLaw Steinbach stated Stanford's policy on free speech even as she repeatedly called it into question. So Stanford has DEI administrator who won't support Stanford's policies on free speech and who made only token effort to stop gross disruption. 5/
@StanfordLaw From what I hear, Stanford law culture is as bad as Yale's, perhaps even worse. Lefty students are viciously abusive of Federalist Society student leaders. A few years ago, a federal judge was spat on. 6/
@StanfordLaw Stanford, I'm told, filmed the entire event. So let's see if it makes the video public soon, and let's see if there are any consequences, especially for DEI dean Steinbach, for violation of university policies. 7/
Here's video of Stanford DEI dean Steinbach's remarks slamming Judge Duncan and setting forth university policy on free speech while calling its soundness into question and stating that it might need to be reconsidered. /8

vimeo.com/806801455/16c7…
Not that it matters under free-speech principles or Stanford's stated policy, but protestors had no objection to Judge Duncan's topic. With support of DEI dean, these emotionally pampered crybullies instead claimed that his presence on campus made them feel unsafe. 9/
Given how ACLU has abandoned its commitment to free speech, it's perhaps not surprising that DEI dean Steinbach's previous position was chief program officer at ACLU of Northern California. 10/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ed Whelan

Ed Whelan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EdWhelanEPPC

Feb 14
Awesome letter of resignation by Hagan Scotten, lead prosecutor in the Eric Adams case. Scotten, BTW, is recipient of two Bronze Stars and former law clerk to Chief Justice Roberts and then-D.C. Circuit judge Kavanaugh. 1/
Adams prosecutor Scotten tells Emil Bove that Bove's first reason for motion to dismiss "is so weak as to be transparently pretextual" and second reason is "worse": "No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives."
And then this: "If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me." 2/
Here's the full letter. static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/d…
Read 4 tweets
Feb 11
On the Rule of Law and Presidential Defiance of Judicial Orders
Some thoughts of mine on the topic. Link to blog post at end of thread.
1. It's not defiant, or even remarkable, for the federal government to decline to comply with an order while it seeks emergency relief from that order.
2. I do not hold an absolutist position against a president’s sustained refusal to comply with a court order. My position is instead that rule-of-law considerations in our constitutional system generally call for a very strong presumption in favor of executive-branch compliance with federal court orders. Truly extraordinary circumstances might well overcome that presumption.
3. In his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln drew a sharp and important distinction between the Supreme Court’s rulings in particular cases and the holdings or reasoning that underlie those rulings. As I understand Lincoln's position, the Rule of Law requires (at least as a general matter) that a ruling bind the parties in the case.
But, Lincoln explained, while the Court’s holding on a constitutional question is “also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government,” its holding does not bind the president and Congress in those other cases.
Lincoln’s remarks were of course directed at the Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision. Lincoln’s actions as president were faithful to his words. Rejecting the dual holdings of Dred Scott, Lincoln signed into law bills banning slavery in the District of Columbia and in other federal territories, and he instructed the executive branch to issue passports and patents to free blacks (thus recognizing them as citizens).
Read 5 tweets
Feb 6
New in Confirmation Tales, "William Pryor's Gamble on Recess Appointment Pays Off: Liberal Democrats' abortion politics backfires"
In 2004, George W. Bush rescued William Pryor from filibuster limbo by recess-appointing him to Eleventh Circuit. 1/
Pryor’s judicial career might well have ended when his recess appointment expired at the end of the Senate’s 2005 session. But that’s not at all how things turned out. The extraordinary measures by liberal Democrats to block Bush’s judicial nominees backfired on them. Pryor’s blunt and direct testimony on Roe v. Wade and abortion had the ironic effect of ensuring that he was ultimately confirmed. 2/
Liberal Democrats had aimed to stigmatize as unacceptable any judicial nominee who opposed Roe. But their more moderate colleagues who joined the bipartisan “Gang of 14 Agreement” in May 2005 expressly recognized that it was not disqualifying for an appellate nominee to regard Roe as “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law” and to decry that it had “led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children.” 3/
Read 8 tweets
Jan 23
New in Confirmation Tales, Teddy Roosevelt Quickly Regrets Appointing Justice Holmes: “I could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone"
In Roosevelt’s distinctively vivid and outsized way, he provides an enduring lesson in how presidents are disposed to misjudge Supreme Court candidates. 1/
Here's link to new Confirmation Tales post. 2/confirmationtales.com/p/teddy-roosev…
It is essential, Roosevelt argued, that a justice be a “party man, a constructive statesman” in the “higher sense” of those concepts. But Roosevelt's "higher sense" suddenly descends into the question whether Holmes agrees with Roosevelt on every political matter that Roosevelt regards as important. 3/
Read 4 tweets
Jan 22
On first read, President Trump's DEI executive order looks outstanding. Corporations and law firms that have been using DEI to engage in unlawful discrimination had better stop pronto.
It's not just that President Trump is ending unlawful DEI in the federal government. He has also committed that his Administration will enforce non-discrimination laws against private actors (e.g., big business, Big Law) that engage in unlawful discrimination under the banner of DEI.

So, for example, any company that has been following Eric Holder's DEI advice (and overpaying him for the privilege) should quickly hire new counsel (outside Big Law) in order to get straight with the law.
I sure hope that former Attorney General Eric Holder does a quick pivot to explain to all of his clients the massive liability they will face for following his DEI advice. But those clients would be better served by finding other lawyers, probably outside BigLaw.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 17
In a gross act of constitutional defiance, Biden is about to announce that he regards the ERA as having been lawfully ratified.
Never mind that his own Department of Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and just about everyone else has recognized otherwise.
Biden is citing Virginia's purported ratification of ERA on January 27, 2020--a year before he became president. Why has he waited until now to make his declaration? Because he knows that it's outrageously wrong.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(