at least she’s not the typical Ivy League grad like almost all the recent justices. Probably the one small positive for her. BTW after she is there they will have 7 Catholics.
I agree. There is no “law of recusal” when it comes to Supreme Court justices - the only check would be impeachment for bad behavior.
Just going by the article, I don’t see anything wrong with her handling of that case. The victim should have sued the county for some form of negligence, not direct responsibility - the article lists another case where, under this negligence claim, two other victims of a similar case against Polk County won their appeal, with Judge Barrett finding in their favor.
I don’t know the facts of the case, but I believe the employer has to be proved negligent in some manner (didn’t provide enough training, didn’t perform an adequate investigation after initial complaints were made, didn’t do a thorough enough background check, tried to cover up evidence after allegations were made) .
Just having an employee on the clock while a crime was committed doesn’t make the employer automatically liable for damages.
Would you agree that attempting to have an art professor fired for spending 20 minutes silently listening to a pro-police demonstration is a bit more worrying than going after a comedian for making jokes? At least he hasn’t been fired.
For examples of people who were actually fired:
I’d rather not have my freedoms of speech and association policed by liberal leftists who will try to get people fired using mob tactics. It’s a stretch to speculate those same liberal leftists will try to have their ideological ideas enabled into law via a future Supreme Court decisions. However, if they’re given the opportunity, I wouldn’t put it past them.
The Times-Union’s rather blatant slant on the issue aside, I will agree that some on the left have a bit of a hair-trigger. I don’t think this professor should be fired or have students attending his classes be intimidated into not showing up for class. But after the extreme brutality inflicted on innocent people by the law-enforcement community that is supposed to protect and serve them, can you blame them for getting a little antsy?
I honestly don’t understand how you both claim to believe in free speech, but also claim that students speaking their mind is some sort of horrible spectre of cancel culture. Even in that heavily slanted article, it’s clear that the only action the University took was to investigate the complaints. A quick google finds zero follow-up of any action taken against the art professor, so it appears that what you’re objecting to is “some students said a professor should be fired, the university disagreed, and that’s in some way terrible”.
So the first person in the article was a security guard fired for using a racial under a ‘zero tolerance’ policy, which says more about the stupidity of ‘zero tolerance’ policies than anything else. It looks like ‘cancel culture’ then stepped in using ‘mob tactics’ of complaining to get the guard reinstated, so I don’t really understand how it’s relevant to your objections. The second person is a teacher who refused to correctly refer to a student because he claims his bigotry is justified by his religious beliefs. I’m perfectly fine with that sort of ‘cancel culture’, if you can’t manage the most basic level of courtesy towards students you do not belong in a position of authority over them.
I fail to see how any of these relate to ‘cancel culture’ and the law - the first case involves students exercising their right to free speech (which you claim to support), and the University not taking any action against the person you’re saying was ‘canceled’. The second case is a good argument against policies that don’t take context into account, but doesn’t seem to involve the law at all, and the situation was corrected in short order when ‘cancel culture’ stepped in with ‘mob tactics’ to object to the firing and get it reversed. The third one is an asshole who wanted to get away with outright bigotry to his students, and I’m fine with teachers who cannot handle the most basic aspects of speaking to other people politely losing their jobs.
Thank you for asking. Requesting my guidance in this matter shows good judgement.
Is the vulgar, highly biased partisan in this scenario me? If so, then yeah, pick the vulgar, highly biased partisan.
Just realized that I left some ambiguity in my response above. My apologies. Embrace the “opinion”* of the vulgar, highly biased partisan.
*It always feels off, somehow, to characterize my factual statements as opinions. Ah, well. C’est la vie.
Interesting. Just a month ago, Democrats overwhelmingly opposed Barrett’s confirmation, by a margin of 45 percent. Now that margin has suddenly shrunk to just 16 percent. Wonder why? Just a “get it over with” mindset?
Among all voters overall, support for Barrett’s confirmation has grown to a margin of 23 percent (as opposed to just a margin of 3 percent a month ago).
What happened was that the Democrats completely blew the confirmation hearings. They treated it like it was a legitimate process, just another debate over a Supreme Court nominee’s judicial philosophies. And so people are judging Barrett as a legitimate Supreme Court nominee, and she did a fantastic job ducking on any controversy and looking like a reasonable judge.
But now the Democrats are going to boycott the committee vote to show how disgusted they are with the process? Pathetic.
I have mixed feelings on the decision because it created the opportunity for Sheldon Whitehouse to give his presentation on corruption in the judicial system, and I think using the opportunity to highlight the fact that she could be ruling on the election is something they should try to do when they have the biggest spotlight.
The aspect that was completely inexcusable is Diane Feinstein’s behavior. She should be removed as ranking member over this. Democratic voters around the country right now are having to wait in line for hours and risk getting sick in order to vote for a party to protect healthcare, women’s rights etc. Why should they bother doing that if party leadership sends them the signal that it doesn’t even matter to them?
I agree completely, both on Sheldon Whitehouse’s presentation and on Diane Feinstein’s conduct.
As far as the American public’s view on the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett: I notice that polls differ (which no one reading Velocity’s post would infer from it). From an article dated yesterday:
Granted, that doesn’t break down the results by party, but the impression left by Velocity’s post–that large swathes of Democrats, supposedly, now approve of confirming ACB–isn’t supported.
From two days ago:
I am in favour of free speech. I’m opposed to mobs using intimidation to limit the freedom of speech of individuals. The art professor wasn’t even making a speech. He attended a rally to hear what the speakers had to say. Students who saw him at the rally then tried to get him fired and called for other students to boycott his classes. I don’t think the students’ actions should be illegal. I want their ability to protest and to call for action to be protected as free speech. However, I think they were being jerks. It’s very intimidating for somebody to have their livelihood threatened. That art professor may decide not to attend any political rallies in the future because he doesn’t want to deal with the backlash from activist students. The university should have firmly and publicly told those students they had a right to their opinions, but the university wasn’t going to abide by them, and that they had no right to put notices up on classroom doors. Would those same activist students also try to create rules regulating what rallies university employees could attend? I wouldn’t put it past them. Regulations are a step away from laws, and I’d oppose any laws that would restrict someone from attending a political rally. I’d hope the Supreme Court would too. I’m more confident that a conservative Supreme Court would oppose those laws than a liberal one.
Regarding the black security guard and the teacher who referred to the student by her biological sex, neither should have been fired, and I’m glad the security guard was reinstated. The school that fired the security guard did so because they had a zero-tolerance policy that overruled common sense. They were more worried about the backlash from deviating from that zero-tolerance policy than they were worried about protecting their employee who did nothing wrong. It took public furore to get the security guard reinstated. That’s not always going to happen. And with the French teacher who was fired, he was trying to stop a student from walking into a wall. The student didn’t even want the teacher fired. But now that school has a rule, whether it’s official or not, that you can’t slip up on the pronoun for a student’s self-declared gender. Will that rule evolve into a law? I hope not. If it does, I hope it’s struck down for violating free speech. Which again, I think is more likely to be done by a conservative court than a liberal one.
As I have in the past, I’m sure in the future I will give your opinions all the respect and consideration they deserve.
From what you’ve posted, it sounds like you’re only in favor of free speech as long as people don’t use it to complain about people that you agree with. Once they complain about someone you agree with, they cease to be engaging in free speech and instead are a ‘mob using intimidation’. And I’m still not clear how this is ‘cancel culture’ or
Actually, according to how you characterized the first event, it took a mob using intimidation to get him reinstated. So it appears that in this case, you’re pro-cancel culture.
The teacher actively refused to refer to the boy by correct pronouns according to the article describing the incident. If teachers want to single students out because of their bigoted beliefs, refuse to give them even the most basic of courtesy, then claim a ‘slip up’ when they’ve already made it clear that they won’t treat the student with basic respect because of their religious bigotry, I’m perfectly fine with them being fired.
While I question the validity of your claim to have done so in the past, I’ll provisionally take your word for it, and declare myself gratified (except for the part where they’re characterized as mere opinions. That still feels dissonant). May it serve you well going forward.
Are you asking me which instances of free speech I’m in favour of, or which free speech I think people should have the right to use? If it’s the former, then it’s contextual and based on my personal opinions. So yes, I think it’s favourable to try to restore the job of someone who was wrongly fired, and unfavourable to try to fire someone who attended a political rally. In either case, I’d support the rights of the person making the petition. But also, in both cases, I don’t want the goals of the petitioners turned into rules, much less laws. Usually when someone uses a racial epithet, it’s done with malice. So while I’m not in favour of zero-tolerance policies that defy common sense, neither am I in favour of a rule requiring a tribunal before someone can be fired for using racial epithets. I’m even more opposed to the idea of a rule requiring someone be fired for attending a political rally that members of a student body object to.
In the case of the French teacher, you seem to believe that the teacher should have been obligated to refer to the student by her self-declared gender identity. I don’t believe the teacher was under any such obligation. You further seem to think that there was something nefarious about calling out “Don’t let her hit the wall!”. I think the teacher probably wasn’t thinking about pronouns at that moment, and was more concerned with stopping a student from injuring herself.
Do you believe someone should be fired for attending a Pride rally? Do you believe someone should be fired for attending a religious rally opposing gay marriage? If you say yes to the first question, and no the second question, or vice-versa, then you don’t actually believe in free speech. You only believe in free speech for people who think like you do. Believe whatever you want. But I’d rather not see those beliefs enacted into law, much less have those laws upheld by the judiciary.
I’m quite sure in the past, and with this response, I’m providing your opinions with the exact amount of respect and consideration they deserve. Please be assured I will continue to do so in the future. If I don’t reply to this aside further, just take it as an example of that consideration.