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

Jun 30
Court in NRSC v. FEC overrules what remains of 2001 ruling (Colorado II):
Ultimately, the First Amendment question in this case boils down to whether FECA’s limits on political-party coordinated expenditures are permissible in order to prevent circumvention of the base limits on contributions to candidates through earmarked contributions to parties. In Colorado II, this Court said that they were. But Colorado II applied deferential scrutiny to Congress’s politicalparty coordinated-expenditure limits. Since Colorado II, however, the Court has emphasized that under the closely drawn test, judicial review must be “rigorous.” Under that more demanding standard, the Court agrees with petitioners that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits are not proportionate, necessary, and narrowly tailored given the other less-speech-restrictive tools available to the Government to prevent circumvention—in particular, earmarking and disclosure laws.
Ruling on birthright citizenship. Chief: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. 5-4.
Here are the opinions: supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…
Read 4 tweets
Jun 30
Rulings in sports cases. Kavanaugh majority opinion. 6-3. Held:
1. Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.
2. West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females.
Kavanaugh majority: Under this Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status but instead on the basis of biological sex. The classification at issue readily satisfies rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny.
Consolidated opinion for the two sports cases. supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…
Read 10 tweets
Jun 29
First #SCOTUS ruling today, Watson v. Republican National Committee.
ACB majority for herself, Chief, and 3 libs. Held: The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.
Alito dissent in Watson, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh (in large part).
Read 11 tweets
Jun 25
1st #SCOTUS ruling today, Monsanto v. Durnell.
Kavanaugh majority, 7-2, KBJ joined by Gorsuch in dissent. Held: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label.
Monsanto opinion here: supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…
2nd #SCOTUS ruling today, Wolford v. Lopez.
Alito majority, 6-3, libs in dissent. Held: Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
Read 10 tweets
Jun 23
4th (but not last) ruling, Pung v. Isabella County. Alito majority, unanimous on bottom line (only CT doesn't fully join). Held: 1. The proper baseline for measuring “just compensation” following a tax sale is the auction sale price, not the property’s hypothetical fair market value, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of the country’s history of tax sales. 2. The Court rejects Pung’s argument that the County violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause by failing to compensate him for his property’s fair market value.
5th and last, Blanche v. Lau. Held: Held: The Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission. 6-3, libs in dissent.
Read 4 tweets
Jun 23
1st #SCOTUS ruling today, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe. ACB majority, 6-3. Held: 1. Courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute. 2. The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which contains an express cause of action against someone who “subjects” another to torture, does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.
Here's opinion in Cisco v. Doe. supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…
Cisco, argued in April, is ACB's 6th majority opinion of the term. She'll likely end with 6 or 7.
Read 7 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!

:(