[nathanbedford]

Your warning points us to some necessary soul-searching. As conservatives do we support or oppose events because they reflect the Constitution or do we support or oppose events because we like or dislike the result politically?

So we dislike hiring leftists for judicial clerkships where they can influence judges opinions and perhaps begin a career lending themselves in black robes where they can do even more harm. Do we then support state action to discourage that i.e. action by federal judges in hiring?

But we also dislike teaching BLM propaganda in schools where children of tender age, even younger than law students at Yale, are easily indoctrinated with unpatriotic values we despise. Do we then oppose state action? Do we invoke one state action, such as federal law, to enjoin another state action, state boards of education?

To put it in its rawest terms and to paraphrase your reply, do we favor banning Mitt Romney on airplanes for his opinions but oppose banning Marjorie Taylor Greene for hers?

What is the constitutional principle involved, if any? Equal protection of the laws? Application of government power? If no constitutional provision is involved, what then?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Mitt Romney and MTG weren’t trying to pick fights with speakers and follow them to restaurants, presumably to create more havoc.

As far as I’m concerned, the odious Mitt Romney can sit next to me on a plane, as long as he doesn’t try to talk to me.

[Guenevere]

‘You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel’
Introspective much?

[Does so]

How about we ban free speech at universities named after slave owners?

[Jumper]

Sometimes the Constitution has no place in an agruement except for a reference point. Filled away. The Constitution according to Yale’s students is a Living Document that Evolves with the ideals of those who hold the ideals and the ideals can be put into power once those who have them have power.

Forget for a moment the legal document because if it were revelant to this discussion beyond mentioning it is not taken seriously by the DNC who would burn it if they touch it.

We are talking about ideas. You are talking about a one sided viewpoint.

Just deal with the right and wrong aspects based on what is fair. And I am not talking about “fairgame”.

[TimSkalaBim]

You point to a central conundrum for conservatives. The Constitution which we demand the state adhere to clearly prescribes a policy of laissez-faire in matters described in the article, yet monsters are the ones taking advantage of this freedom. There is no fix for this, legislatively or otherwise. The Founders understood that freedom will only really exist if the people have a sense of self-government, a concept utterly alien to modern America. There is no outside corrective for the little monster embryonic lawyers Yale is hatching. The spirit of liberty has been abolished from their souls.