Washington Free Beacon
More than 100 students at Yale Law School attempted to shout down a bipartisan panel on civil liberties, intimidating attendees and causing so much chaos that police were eventually called to escort panelists out of the building.
The March 10 panel, which was hosted by the Yale Federalist Society, featured Monica Miller of the progressive American Humanist Association and Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative nonprofit that promotes religious liberty. Both groups had taken the same side in a 2021 Supreme Court case involving legal remedies for First Amendment violations. The purpose of the panel, a member of the Federalist Society said, was to illustrate that a liberal atheist and a conservative Christian could find common ground on free speech issues. More
Probably some future Supreme Court Justices among that bunch.
The end can’t come soon enough.
Why am I NOT surprised that Law Students at Yale U. demonstrate why we need a 1st Amendment, and that they’re too stupid to realize their own hypocrisy ?
Out: First Amendment.
In: Leftist Mob Rule
@Different Tim March 17, 2022 at 5:55 pm
> Probably some future Supreme Court Justices among that bunch.
> The end can’t come soon enough.
Can’t go brain tumor crazy, if the guillotine arrives first.
There’s no “Y” in “Commie” btw.
Every one of those students should be failed and kicked out of yale. Putin will hire them because they are good little facist commies.
Is ‘Student’ becoming a synonym for ‘Stupid’?
So…
They shut down the soap box.
They cheat at the ballot box.
I only know of one box that is left.
One of the protesters said “I’ll straight up fight you.” They should have obliged and knocked her ass over appetite.
@Jethro March 17, 2022 at 7:12 pm
> I only know of one box that is left.
Box…car?
Good grief, at Yale Law School.
Once again the left is imitating real Nazis.
Beer Hall Putsch
Exactly what they are doing.
Their energy should be returned several fold until they fold or are put in hospitals.
This is what you get when law curricula include social justice. There are some arguments about what was intended in the Constitution. But they are ignoring that and working from an outcome back to finding interpretations in the existing words in the document.
See living document. No, it isn’t a living document. It was drafted and ratified by some very intelligent people, and probably some average people. That does not mean that the underlying concept changes because a majority, or a vocal minority, insists that it should include 10% ideas or sentiment.
If you want it to mean something else, the Constitution gives you a method to change it. If you don’t think you can get the necessary people to agree with you, you cannot just bypass it.
Deal with it, or move to a different country that agrees with you. What? You cannot find a totally acquiescent population in any of the countries? That is your problem. Do not expect me to agree with you, and don’t blame me.