[TakebackGOP]

I don’t support this. This is like when they wanted to ban people who called Mitt Romney a traitor on the plane from flying or when they wanted to hurt Trump’s election attorneys. David Brock and Jake Tapper didn’t want them to get work.

[Fai Mao]

No it is not the same at all.

[Gnome1949]

We are on the precipice of a society filled with such hate, no civil discussion may take place.

Who wants trash like this inside the legal system?

I don’t want this trash to become lawyers OR clerks of judges.

We certainly never want such prejudice sitting as judges.

We have seen societies in which no dissent is allowed. Those societies are the ones with concentration camps.

[Mr. N. Wolfe]

I fully support this. Sane, rational people, like judge Silberman, need to speak up. These fascists have gotten away with far too much for far too long. If I had my way, the school officials who enabled these asshats as well as the hooligans themselves would all be thrown in the hoosegow.

[TheWriterTX]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If they are so void of human decency or standard intelligence, if they are incapable of recognizing how their actions run contrary to their alleged chosen profession, they don’t deserve to be considered for a position of power.

They are not fit for purpose.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Because Trump’s attorneys were all up in the Biden campaign’s face challenging them to a fistfight and threatening to follow them to a restaurant.

And don’t get me started on those anti-Romney people, rioting in cities from coast to coast.

[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?

[Guenevere]

Absolutely not the same.
This was fully planned.......collective bullying organized by fascists

[Don W]

Perhaps you missed the part where the students shouted down every opinion there other than their own?

They were actively denying speech they did not support, though it was supposed to be a discussion.

[mewzilla]

They’re free to get work doing something other than depriving fellow citizens of their Constitutional rights.

[cp124]

Poison Ivy League

[bantam]

You think that is the same??
Really??

[Mr. K]

If you can’t see the difference you need to rethink it

[Jumper]

The kids in college are a product of their educations and thus most are taught to protest from an early age.

The only way to fix colleges to dimish the value of said college(s) degree(s).

This is an eye-opening mement for Free Speech.

Now if Bill Gates would defund MSNBC.

[Brass Lamp]

"I don’t support this. This is like..."

You would almost have a point except that the objective of the exercise (working through a degree program) is to produce exactly the graduate work which is intended to be submitted to the scrutiny of career gate-keepers. It's the whole point of a law student's "academic career", and they've all tacitly submitted themselves to that scrutiny. Imagine the following interview for a clerk's position:

"So, I see you attended an Ivy League institution. Tell me about what you did there."

"Well, I started a lot of fires, not just little fires in trashcans, but big ones! With mattresses and tires and stuff!"

"I see. Well, what kind of work did you do?"

"I mostly punched people who didn't look like they could fight back and screamed at people who looked like the could. There was a lot of running away, too."

"No, I mean, what was your academic capstone project?"

"Oh, I wanted to examine the environmental interaction between the adhoc subculture of the jury and the larger gestalt of the local surrounding community from which they were drawn with regards to physical and psychological influence."

"Oh, huh. And how did that work?"

"I experimented by going to public debates in which the debaters would serve as analogues to empaneled jurists and threw rocks through windows from both the outside AND the inside to see if it produced and different effects and the course of the debate."

"I hope that isn't something you'd still do in our courtroom!"

"Oh, no. I've grow a lot since then."

"Good!"

"Yeah, today I would block all the fire escapes, hit the gallery with teargas, dox the jury, and SWAT the legal team of the defendant/complainant/prosecution or whatever."

I don't know about you, but I would not give this applicant and even, fair chance at the job.