Well that's fair, I guess

[mrkelley23]

I can't imagine the reaction if this situation were reversed.

[Beebs52]

By reversed you mean if protestors/students/graduates were anti Hamas/Hezbollah, or what? I understand your question in theory but not in specifics?

[flockofseagulls104]

I can't imagine the reaction if this situation were reversed.

Universities, news media, google, amazon et al, have not hired conservatives and have openly discriminated against them for years.
Is that what you mean?

[mrkelley23]

I can't imagine the reaction if this situation were reversed.

Universities, news media, google, amazon et al, have not hired conservatives and have openly discriminated against them for years.
Is that what you mean?

Nope. I mean if a bunch of federal judges came out and said we are definitely not going to hire anyone from, say, Liberty University. Sight unseen. No looking for quality or anything else. The institution you attend is an automatic disqualifier. And two of these judges are now on their third example of this kind of intimidation. What you're describing is not remotely similar. It's called false equivalence, and you would be wise to start recognizing it.

[mrkelley23]

By reversed you mean if protestors/students/graduates were anti Hamas/Hezbollah, or what? I understand your question in theory but not in specifics?

No, I just mean if a group of (ostensibly liberal) judges came out and said they would not hire any clerks from, say, Brigham Young Law School.

Thank you for asking for clarification. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.

[Beebs52]

By reversed you mean if protestors/students/graduates were anti Hamas/Hezbollah, or what? I understand your question in theory but not in specifics?

No, I just mean if a group of (ostensibly liberal) judges came out and said they would not hire any clerks from, say, Brigham Young Law School.

Thank you for asking for clarification. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.

Okay. Just in general. Across the board. That's what you were pointing out.

[flockofseagulls104]

I can't imagine the reaction if this situation were reversed.

Universities, news media, google, amazon et al, have not hired conservatives and have openly discriminated against them for years.
Is that what you mean?

Nope. I mean if a bunch of federal judges came out and said we are definitely not going to hire anyone from, say, Liberty University. Sight unseen. No looking for quality or anything else. The institution you attend is an automatic disqualifier. And two of these judges are now on their third example of this kind of intimidation. What you're describing is not remotely similar. It's called false equivalence, and you would be wise to start recognizing it.

They don't say it. They wouldn't dare say it. They just do it.

Thank you for correcting me. It would be much more relevant and credible to me if you corrected the usual subjects on this bored when they engage in that sort of hyperbole on purpose. Which is their usual form of response. Especially the doc, who lives in some sort of fantasy land.

[mrkelley23]

Universities, news media, google, amazon et al, have not hired conservatives and have openly discriminated against them for years.
Is that what you mean?

Nope. I mean if a bunch of federal judges came out and said we are definitely not going to hire anyone from, say, Liberty University. Sight unseen. No looking for quality or anything else. The institution you attend is an automatic disqualifier. And two of these judges are now on their third example of this kind of intimidation. What you're describing is not remotely similar. It's called false equivalence, and you would be wise to start recognizing it.

They don't say it. They wouldn't dare say it. They just do it.

Thank you for correcting me. It would be much more relevant and credible to me if you corrected the usual subjects on this bored when they engage in that sort of hyperbole on purpose. Which is their usual form of response. Especially the doc, who lives in some sort of fantasy land.

Strangely, I don't have a problem with judges deciding, on their own and in private, that they don't want clerks who are graduates of certain institutions. They should have the right to hire who they want. Where I draw the ethical line is this public letter, which threatens the institution rather than the graduates. It's kind of a reverse protection racket.

I don't engage with certain people here because, unlike you, they will not admit to being wrong even when shown. You have, and I admire that. It's difficult to do.

Weyoun is a special case. I admire his intellect. I don't admire the namecalling and mudslinging he has been engaging in recently. But if my family and I had been personally attacked in the way his has, I can't swear I wouldn't do the same. I know I almost responded in a visceral and ugly way when Spock blithely invoked the name of TBone over on the other forum.

[silverscreenselect]

Strangely, I don't have a problem with judges deciding, on their own and in private, that they don't want clerks who are graduates of certain institutions.

What strikes me as funny in this entire conversation is that law schools tend to be insular and not a part of the main campus conversation at many campuses. I know when I was a law student, the law school at the University of Florida was in its own building some distance from the main campus. My only interactions with activities on the main campus were class registrations and payment of fees each quarter, football games, and an occasional movie night at the Rathskeller. We kept to ourselves and didn't get involved with main campus activities. Although the Vietnam War had pretty much ended by the time I got to law school, Watergate and its accompanying revelations were a hot topic on the main campus. I know Emory Law School is similar. Their building is some distance from the main Emory campus. So, although some departments are hotbeds of student activism, law schools are not one of them.

The only "political" activity I remember was when Justice William O. Douglas gave a talk at the law school. He spent most of his time talking about environmental issues and noted that the Army Corps of Engineers was dedicated to improving the nation's rivers and added that one day they'll improve the rivers right out of existence. During the Q&A session afterward, students kept trying to get his opinion on major cases and issues at the time like capital punishment, and he kept steering away from answering any question that might lead him to recuse himself in an upcoming case.

FWIW, Columbia Law School is the only law school in the country that has more than one Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as an alumnus. Here's a list (admittedly these aren't current students or very recent grads) of famous Columbia Law School alums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ool_alumni

[BackInTex]

I could see the wholesale dismissal of a universitity's students if the graduation or tesitng policies are questionalble, such as being Equity driven.

I can't see it for the behavior of some (even if a majority) of students. Though I would scrub the resumes and be a little more diligent in the interview process.

[Bob78164]

Nope. I mean if a bunch of federal judges came out and said we are definitely not going to hire anyone from, say, Liberty University. Sight unseen. No looking for quality or anything else. The institution you attend is an automatic disqualifier. And two of these judges are now on their third example of this kind of intimidation. What you're describing is not remotely similar. It's called false equivalence, and you would be wise to start recognizing it.

They don't say it. They wouldn't dare say it. They just do it.

Thank you for correcting me. It would be much more relevant and credible to me if you corrected the usual subjects on this bored when they engage in that sort of hyperbole on purpose. Which is their usual form of response. Especially the doc, who lives in some sort of fantasy land.

Strangely, I don't have a problem with judges deciding, on their own and in private, that they don't want clerks who are graduates of certain institutions.

I do. Judges are public employees hiring clerks with public money. Applying guilt by association in this manner, even privately, seems highly problematic.

I would not have a problem in principle with the approach that BiT outlined. --Bob