Tearing off the Blindfold.

[CO. Hoosier]

One of the most important constants in our government is the blindfold on lady justice. At first the forces of political ideology were simply tugging at it. Now there exists a full onslaught to untie it and remove it. I can only guess at the reasons. My best guess is that all ideologies are turning to the judiciary to settle important policy and political questions because are representative government has become corrupt and useless with its money-driven cram-down approach to legislating instead of compromise and negotiation.

A material part of the problem arises from the utter disdain we hold for political opponents. Our most prominent officials and candidates employ words like “hate,” ”Nazi,” “authoritarian,””anti-democratic,” and all flavors of group-think for mere political advantage. Opponents are now enemies, or worse. There was a time when the law and judicial functions were above the fray. No more. This is why I see this quote from Professor Turley so disturbing:

With the start of classes at George Washington Law School, I have already had visits to my office of conservative and libertarian students asking if I thought they could speak freely in other classes without being penalized by professors. Despite teaching for decades, it is a question that I never heard from students until the last few years. It is now routine. It is the widespread fear of conservative students who have faced faculties with overwhelmingly liberal viewpoints and growing intolerance on virtually every campus. Now a new study at North Carolina confirms how conservative students routinely “self-censor” and do not feel comfortable sharing their views in classes. Not surprisingly given the heavy liberal makeup of faculties, liberal students feel little such fear over retaliation.​

When I studied law, there was no room for ideology. Courses in torts, contracts, commercial transactions, property, procedure, trial practice, and on and on were about the law and how to apply it for the benefit of clients and society. Turley’s point is about whether students can safely reveal their political leanings. My point is that political leanings have little to no relevance in leaning the law. Ideology has infected the courts. We learned that the blindfold stayed on, not to remove it for the sake of promoting an ideology.

Professor Kingsford is turning over in his grave.

 

[mcmurtry66]

One of the most important constants in our government is the blindfold on lady justice. At first the forces of political ideology were simply tugging at it. Now there exists a full onslaught to untie it and remove it. I can only guess at the reasons. My best guess is that all ideologies are turning to the judiciary to settle important policy and political questions because are representative government has become corrupt and useless with its money-driven cram-down approach to legislating instead of compromise and negotiation.

A material part of the problem arises from the utter disdain we hold for political opponents. Our most prominent officials and candidates employ words like “hate,” ”Nazi,” “authoritarian,””anti-democratic,” and all flavors of group-think for mere political advantage. Opponents are now enemies, or worse. There was a time when the law and judicial functions were above the fray. No more. This is why I see this quote from Professor Turley so disturbing:

With the start of classes at George Washington Law School, I have already had visits to my office of conservative and libertarian students asking if I thought they could speak freely in other classes without being penalized by professors. Despite teaching for decades, it is a question that I never heard from students until the last few years. It is now routine. It is the widespread fear of conservative students who have faced faculties with overwhelmingly liberal viewpoints and growing intolerance on virtually every campus. Now a new study at North Carolina confirms how conservative students routinely “self-censor” and do not feel comfortable sharing their views in classes. Not surprisingly given the heavy liberal makeup of faculties, liberal students feel little such fear over retaliation.​

When I studied law, there was no room for ideology. Courses in torts, contracts, commercial transactions, property, procedure, trial practice, and on and on were about the law and how to apply it for the benefit of clients and society. Turley’s point is about whether students can safely reveal their political leanings. My point is that political leanings have little to no relevance in leaning the law. Ideology has infected the courts. We learned that the blindfold stayed on, not to remove it for the sake of promoting an ideology.

Professor Kingsford is turning over in his grave.

Philosophy of Law 101. Not a bad little class to audit @Marvin the Martian @Bulk VanderHuge

 

[hoot1]

One of the most important constants in our government is the blindfold on lady justice. At first the forces of political ideology were simply tugging at it. Now there exists a full onslaught to untie it and remove it. I can only guess at the reasons. My best guess is that all ideologies are turning to the judiciary to settle important policy and political questions because are representative government has become corrupt and useless with its money-driven cram-down approach to legislating instead of compromise and negotiation.

A material part of the problem arises from the utter disdain we hold for political opponents. Our most prominent officials and candidates employ words like “hate,” ”Nazi,” “authoritarian,””anti-democratic,” and all flavors of group-think for mere political advantage. Opponents are now enemies, or worse. There was a time when the law and judicial functions were above the fray. No more. This is why I see this quote from Professor Turley so disturbing:

With the start of classes at George Washington Law School, I have already had visits to my office of conservative and libertarian students asking if I thought they could speak freely in other classes without being penalized by professors. Despite teaching for decades, it is a question that I never heard from students until the last few years. It is now routine. It is the widespread fear of conservative students who have faced faculties with overwhelmingly liberal viewpoints and growing intolerance on virtually every campus. Now a new study at North Carolina confirms how conservative students routinely “self-censor” and do not feel comfortable sharing their views in classes. Not surprisingly given the heavy liberal makeup of faculties, liberal students feel little such fear over retaliation.​

When I studied law, there was no room for ideology. Courses in torts, contracts, commercial transactions, property, procedure, trial practice, and on and on were about the law and how to apply it for the benefit of clients and society. Turley’s point is about whether students can safely reveal their political leanings. My point is that political leanings have little to no relevance in leaning the law. Ideology has infected the courts. We learned that the blindfold stayed on, not to remove it for the sake of promoting an ideology.

Professor Kingsford is turning over in his grave.

Seems to me whether political ideology or any ideology sticks it ugly head into law depends on how you define ideology and what field of law is under discussion.

As to "liberal" professors brainwashing law students, the Federalist Society has 200 chapters in law colleges standing up for its ideas (ideology).

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Philosophy of Law 101. Not a bad little class to audit @Marvin the Martian @Bulk VanderHuge

The one thing I learned from reading COHvac's post (and do not EVER bitch about the length of cosmic's posts again), is that when pretending to point out how bad a problem has become overall, he only highlights what the other side has done.
Ex. (from vac's post) "A material part of the problem arises from the utter disdain we hold for political opponents. Our most prominent officials and candidates employ words like “hate,” ”Nazi,” “authoritarian,””anti-democratic,”"

Notice how he stated a problem ("utter disdain we hold for political opponents, as if it's a two-way street), but in his examples, he highlights "hate","Nazi", "authoritarian", "anti-democratic". At no time did he mention "socialist", "communist", "elitist". or any of the other common terms used by the other side to denote disdain. This is an oft-used strategy of our local HVACTORNEY, and I'm sure he thinks it's chock full of nuance.

One does not need to be a lawyer, or a COHU alumnus, to know when he is stepping in a pile of bullshit.

I will not be borrowing tuition money for such a worthless institute, and therefore will not be taking advantage of the current student loan forgiveness policies being discussed.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

One of the most important constants in our government is the blindfold on lady justice. At first the forces of political ideology were simply tugging at it. Now there exists a full onslaught to untie it and remove it. I can only guess at the reasons. My best guess is that all ideologies are turning to the judiciary to settle important policy and political questions because are representative government has become corrupt and useless with its money-driven cram-down approach to legislating instead of compromise and negotiation.

A material part of the problem arises from the utter disdain we hold for political opponents. Our most prominent officials and candidates employ words like “hate,” ”Nazi,” “authoritarian,””anti-democratic,” and all flavors of group-think for mere political advantage. Opponents are now enemies, or worse. There was a time when the law and judicial functions were above the fray. No more. This is why I see this quote from Professor Turley so disturbing:

With the start of classes at George Washington Law School, I have already had visits to my office of conservative and libertarian students asking if I thought they could speak freely in other classes without being penalized by professors. Despite teaching for decades, it is a question that I never heard from students until the last few years. It is now routine. It is the widespread fear of conservative students who have faced faculties with overwhelmingly liberal viewpoints and growing intolerance on virtually every campus. Now a new study at North Carolina confirms how conservative students routinely “self-censor” and do not feel comfortable sharing their views in classes. Not surprisingly given the heavy liberal makeup of faculties, liberal students feel little such fear over retaliation.​

When I studied law, there was no room for ideology. Courses in torts, contracts, commercial transactions, property, procedure, trial practice, and on and on were about the law and how to apply it for the benefit of clients and society. Turley’s point is about whether students can safely reveal their political leanings. My point is that political leanings have little to no relevance in leaning the law. Ideology has infected the courts. We learned that the blindfold stayed on, not to remove it for the sake of promoting an ideology.

Professor Kingsford is turning over in his grave.

What is a “lady” after all?

 

[outside shooter]

On the contrary,

there exists a full onslaught to secure the blindfold, to not let the rich, powerful, and well-placed get away with basically everything, simply because of the fear of cult-driven violence.

45 is accountable for his own actions.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Seems to me whether political ideology or any ideology sticks it ugly head into law depends on how you define ideology and what field of law is under discussion.

As to "liberal" professors brainwashing law students, the Federalist Society has 200 chapters in law colleges standing up for its ideas (ideology).

Sure definitions are a problem, especially these days,.

But we can keep ideology to politics. Save the ideology for representative government. The problem is people, lawyers, and judges want to use the courts to advance political agendas. As a result we have hideous inconsistencies and destructive political fights over judicial appointments.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

On the contrary,

there exists a full onslaught to secure the blindfold, to not let the rich, powerful, and well-placed get away with basically everything, simply because of the fear of cult-driven violence.

45 is accountable for his own actions.

Wut?

 

[hoot1]

Sure definitions are a problem, especially these days,.

But we can keep ideology to politics. Save the ideology for representative government. The problem is people, lawyers, and judges want to use the courts to advance political agendas. As a result we have hideous inconsistencies and destructive political fights over judicial appointments.

CoH, given your experiences in going before various judges how accurate is this website which in part states,

Judicial Philosophy is the way in which a judge understands and interprets the law. Laws are universal, but they must be applied to particular cases with unique circumstances. To do this, judges interpret the law, determining its meaning and sometimes the intent of those who wrote it.

The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus judicial restraint, loose constructionism versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.

 

[bawlmer]

Heard an interesting proposal on a podcast today. Eric Segall proposed establishing by law that the SC be split evenly between Ds & Rs. He takes issue with both the current Roberts court and the earlier Warren court for being too politically active and sees an even split as a way to steer it back to the center. Not sure how to make that happen, but I like the idea of a less politicized SC.

 

[outside shooter]

Wut?

We have a trend where the well-placed demand to be above the law and immune from justice.

It seems to me that we are making at least a tiny bit of headway in fighting that trend.

 

[hoot1]

Heard an interesting proposal on a podcast today. Eric Segall proposed establishing by law that the SC be split evenly between Ds & Rs. He takes issue with both the current Roberts court and the earlier Warren court for being too politically active and sees an even split as a way to steer it back to the center. Not sure how to make that happen, but I like the idea of a less politicized SC.

Got a feeling judges would claim their judicial philosophy has nothing to do with their political affiliation and reject being labeled R or D.

 

[bawlmer]

Got a feeling judges would claim their judicial philosophy has nothing to do with their political affiliation and reject being labeled R or D.

Segall cited data that shows the justices' votes over time are highly correlated with party preference for both parties. He used Thomas and Ginsburg as examples of party-aligned votes almost 99% of the time.

 

[Hulls4Three]

Heard an interesting proposal on a podcast today. Eric Segall proposed establishing by law that the SC be split evenly between Ds & Rs. He takes issue with both the current Roberts court and the earlier Warren court for being too politically active and sees an even split as a way to steer it back to the center. Not sure how to make that happen, but I like the idea of a less politicized SC.

“Politically active” is not how I would describe. Conservative courts generally kick decisions back to legislatures, liberal courts generally craft policy out of whole cloth. One side is politically active, the other does their job.

 

[Bowlmania]

Notice how he stated a problem ("utter disdain we hold for political opponents, as if it's a two-way street), but in his examples, he highlights "hate","Nazi", "authoritarian", "anti-democratic". At no time did he mention "socialist", "communist", "elitist". or any of the other common terms used by the other side to denote disdain. This is an oft-used strategy of our local HVACTORNEY, and I'm sure he thinks it's chock full of nuance.

Your forgot "riots," "civil war,' "groomer," "pedo," "cuck," "snowflake," "beta," "antifa," and "woke."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Got a feeling judges would claim their judicial philosophy has nothing to do with their political affiliation and reject being labeled R or D.

Gorsuch said during his confirmation hearings that a justice on occasion must decide contrary to personal beliefs. I think he did that on the immigration case, maybe another. I doubt if others have ever done that. That would be an interesting question to explore during confirmation hearings. I doubt most senators would or could do that.

 

[bawlmer]

“Politically active” is not how I would describe. Conservative courts generally kick decisions back to legislatures, liberal courts generally craft policy out of whole cloth. One side is politically active, the other does their job.

The good people of New York state beg to differ.

U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law

The Supreme Court on Thursday declared for the first time that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, handing a landmark victory to gun rights advocates in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence.

www.reuters.com

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Your forgot "riots," "civil war,' "groomer," "pedo," "cuck," "snowflake," "beta," "antifa," and "woke."

“Incompetent” and “ignorant” applies to all of the current administration. The problem is that with Biden and his crew, these descriptions are mostly accurate so they lose their impact.

 

[IUINSB]

“Incompetent” and “ignorant” applies to all of the current administration. The problem is that with Biden and his crew, these descriptions are mostly accurate so they lose their implant.

So is Biden's hair falling out again?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The good people of New York state beg to differ.

U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law

The Supreme Court on Thursday declared for the first time that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, handing a landmark victory to gun rights advocates in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence.

www.reuters.com

I think you need to add a dimension to the oft used social issues/economics issues. That dimension would be judicial philosophy. And it has nothing to do with political issues like social/economic ones, but instead would rely on the proper role and actions for the courts. Conservative jurispurdence people believe in running things through the legislature, a limited role for the Courts in making new con law principles, a firm commitment to stare decisis, etc. A Liberal jurisprudence believes you should craft new law frequently, overturn past "bad" decisions, etc. to achieve your stated ends.

So you could be on the social and economic left, believe may of those policies are the best ones, but believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, that Courts should not be in the business of creating rights out of whole cloth, and generally believe that the method of passing your desired policy is to run it through the legislature, not the Courts through creative legal decisions or the Presidency via exec. order, regulatory creativeness, etc.

Or you could also be on the Right, believe in more traditional social values and have libertarian economic leanings, and also think the judiciary and the president should use any means necessary to advance those policies.

 

[walkerman]

“Politically active” is not how I would describe. Conservative courts generally kick decisions back to legislatures, liberal courts generally craft policy out of whole cloth. One side is politically active, the other does their job.

Uh like they the decision to overturn roe v wade?

 

[Bowlmania]

Uh like they the decision to overturn roe v wade?

And, as Clarence Thomas hinted, they're just getting started.

 

[zeke4ahs]

“Politically active” is not how I would describe. Conservative courts generally kick decisions back to legislatures, liberal courts generally craft policy out of whole cloth. One side is politically active, the other does their job.

You mean like how they overrode a New York gun decision right before they contradicted themselves with Roe?

 

[bawlmer]

I think you need to add a dimension to the oft used social issues/economics issues. That dimension would be judicial philosophy. And it has nothing to do with political issues like social/economic ones, but instead would rely on the proper role and actions for the courts. Conservative jurispurdence people believe in running things through the legislature, a limited role for the Courts in making new con law principles, a firm commitment to stare decisis, etc. A Liberal jurisprudence believes you should craft new law frequently, overturn past "bad" decisions, etc. to achieve your stated ends.

So you could be on the social and economic left, believe may of those policies are the best ones, but believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, that Courts should not be in the business of creating rights out of whole cloth, and generally believe that the method of passing your desired policy is to run it through the legislature, not the Courts through creative legal decisions or the Presidency via exec. order, regulatory creativeness, etc.

Or you could also be on the Right, believe in more traditional social values and have libertarian economic leanings, and also think the judiciary and the president should use any means necessary to advance those policies.

I'm probably too influenced by a podcast with professor Eric Segall I heard this morning (The Economist, What can America expect from the Supreme Court’s next term?). But the core argument is the SC is playing too big a role in influencing our public life, formerly a liberal court but now a conservative one as well (eg, overturning past "bad" decisions isn't just for liberals any more).

My own opinion is it's the result of our legislators not taking enough responsibility to address difficult political issues.

 

[IUINSB]

My own opinion is it's the result of our legislators not taking enough responsibility to address difficult political issues.

Agree. The legislative branch has abdicated its duty to legislate. The country is run by executive orders and judicial decisions.

 

[Univee2]

Agree. The legislative branch has abdicated its duty to legislate. The country is run by executive orders and judicial decisions.

Ox . . . and . . . . being gored.

The Left loved the Supreme Court . . . until they didn’t.

The Left hated the FBI . . . until they didn’t.

 

[Stuffshot]

I'm probably too influenced by a podcast with professor Eric Segall I heard this morning (The Economist, What can America expect from the Supreme Court’s next term?). But the core argument is the SC is playing too big a role in influencing our public life, formerly a liberal court but now a conservative one as well (eg, overturning past "bad" decisions isn't just for liberals any more).

My own opinion is it's the result of our legislators not taking enough responsibility to address difficult political issues.

You're right, but it's even worse than just "not taking enough responsibility." The House and Senate have actually codified their refusal to consider and genuinely debate difficult issues.

The record for the longest real filibuster is 24:18 (Strom Thurmond).

https://largest.org/people/filibusters-us/#:~:text=10%20Longest%20Filibusters%20in%20the%20United%20States%201,9%20Alfonse%20D’Amato.%20...%2010%20Strom%20Thurmond.%20

But today's filibusters can last indefinitely, because all the obstructer has to do is say, "I call a filibuster." He no longer has to keep speaking non-stop. He no longer has to stand on his feet without eating or resting. He no longer has to read the phone book or the dictionary or Bartlett's Quotations. The Senate's result now is that the mere threat of a filibuster delays things far longer than a real filibuster ever did.

Other rules that obstruct debate and enactment are buried in legalese specifying how House and Senate business (1) is assigned to committees, (2) is called to a vote in committees, (3) is released from committees, and (4) is called to a vote on the floor (and a myriad of other procedural steps that further delay things in a particular case).

I realize there must be some method. But it has morphed into a system where even without a filibuster one Senator can personally block all the Supreme Court and other federal court nominees and one Representative (speaker or committee chair) can personally block all legislation in the House.

That's ridiculous.

 

[IUINSB]

Ox . . . and . . . . being gored.

The Left loved the Supreme Court . . . until they didn’t.

The Left hated the FBI . . . until they didn’t.

Absolutely correct.

And the right hated the Supreme Court...until they didn't.

And the right loved the FBI...until they didn't.

It works both ways.

 

[UncleMark]

One of the most important constants in our government is the blindfold on lady justice. At first the forces of political ideology were simply tugging at it. Now there exists a full onslaught to untie it and remove it. I can only guess at the reasons. My best guess is that all ideologies are turning to the judiciary to settle important policy and political questions because are representative government has become corrupt and useless with its money-driven cram-down approach to legislating instead of compromise and negotiation.

A material part of the problem arises from the utter disdain we hold for political opponents. Our most prominent officials and candidates employ words like “hate,” ”Nazi,” “authoritarian,””anti-democratic,” and all flavors of group-think for mere political advantage. Opponents are now enemies, or worse. There was a time when the law and judicial functions were above the fray. No more. This is why I see this quote from Professor Turley so disturbing:

With the start of classes at George Washington Law School, I have already had visits to my office of conservative and libertarian students asking if I thought they could speak freely in other classes without being penalized by professors. Despite teaching for decades, it is a question that I never heard from students until the last few years. It is now routine. It is the widespread fear of conservative students who have faced faculties with overwhelmingly liberal viewpoints and growing intolerance on virtually every campus. Now a new study at North Carolina confirms how conservative students routinely “self-censor” and do not feel comfortable sharing their views in classes. Not surprisingly given the heavy liberal makeup of faculties, liberal students feel little such fear over retaliation.​

When I studied law, there was no room for ideology. Courses in torts, contracts, commercial transactions, property, procedure, trial practice, and on and on were about the law and how to apply it for the benefit of clients and society. Turley’s point is about whether students can safely reveal their political leanings. My point is that political leanings have little to no relevance in leaning the law. Ideology has infected the courts. We learned that the blindfold stayed on, not to remove it for the sake of promoting an ideology.

Professor Kingsford is turning over in his grave.

I'm confused. It seems you're bemoaning the fact that conservative students can't express those viewpoints freely (or at least feel they can't) while in the next breath you're saying there's no room for that expression in law school.

Of course, there's no doubt in my mind I'm missing the nuacey stuff.

 

[IUINSB]

Of course, there's no doubt in my mind I'm missing the nuacey stuff.

For the nth squared time.

 

[UncleMark]

For the nth squared time.

I don't know why I even try.

 

[Univee2]

Absolutely correct.

And the right hated the Supreme Court...until they didn't.

And the right loved the FBI...until they didn't.

It works both ways.

Of course it does, and that’s why there is such massive distrust in almost all of our governmental institutions. The FBI, CIA, CDC, FDA, the Pentagon, DOJ, DOE, Homeland Security, among others. Hell, about the only one I can think of off-hand at the moment that probably everyone trusts is the Coast Guard.

If it were possible to revamp everything that would be terrific. I don’t think we can find those ten wise, impartial people who could honcho a revamping, even if we could resurrect Jesus, Aristotle and Eisenhower, for a start.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm confused.

Agreed.

 

[IUINSB]

Agreed.

Hey, Mark, no nuance there.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Agreed.

Lax admissions

 

[UncleMark]

Lax admissions

How about if I stay at a Holiday Inn? Would that help?

 

[mcmurtry66]

How about if I stay at a Holiday Inn? Would that help?

Work study at his burned out cabin

 

[i'vegotwinners]

One of the most important constants in our government is the blindfold on lady justice. At first the forces of political ideology were simply tugging at it. Now there exists a full onslaught to untie it and remove it. I can only guess at the reasons. My best guess is that all ideologies are turning to the judiciary to settle important policy and political questions because are representative government has become corrupt and useless with its money-driven cram-down approach to legislating instead of compromise and negotiation.

A material part of the problem arises from the utter disdain we hold for political opponents. Our most prominent officials and candidates employ words like “hate,” ”Nazi,” “authoritarian,””anti-democratic,” and all flavors of group-think for mere political advantage. Opponents are now enemies, or worse. There was a time when the law and judicial functions were above the fray. No more. This is why I see this quote from Professor Turley so disturbing:

With the start of classes at George Washington Law School, I have already had visits to my office of conservative and libertarian students asking if I thought they could speak freely in other classes without being penalized by professors. Despite teaching for decades, it is a question that I never heard from students until the last few years. It is now routine. It is the widespread fear of conservative students who have faced faculties with overwhelmingly liberal viewpoints and growing intolerance on virtually every campus. Now a new study at North Carolina confirms how conservative students routinely “self-censor” and do not feel comfortable sharing their views in classes. Not surprisingly given the heavy liberal makeup of faculties, liberal students feel little such fear over retaliation.​

When I studied law, there was no room for ideology. Courses in torts, contracts, commercial transactions, property, procedure, trial practice, and on and on were about the law and how to apply it for the benefit of clients and society. Turley’s point is about whether students can safely reveal their political leanings. My point is that political leanings have little to no relevance in leaning the law. Ideology has infected the courts. We learned that the blindfold stayed on, not to remove it for the sake of promoting an ideology.

Professor Kingsford is turning over in his grave.

beyond belief POS post even for you.

that blindfold on Lady Justice was replaced with a bank card reader a long time ago, and Lady Justice couldn't care less which party or ideology said money comes from, as long as it spends.

as for colleges/universities being liberal, that's the biggest load of BS ever pushed.

if colleges/schools were at all actually liberal in the least, tuition and fees wouldn't have gone up many times inflation yr after yr, decade after decade, and students wouldn't be prohibited by law from declaring bankruptcy on student debt.

graduate workers wouldn't be denied the ability to unionize.

a majority of the board of virtually all state universities are appointed by the state's governors, and most states have conservative to very conservative governors.

colleges and universities have gone from educational institutions in culture and governance over my lifetime, to effectively ultra corporate in culture and governance.

and "corporate" equals far right conservative on everything economic in nature, and students have the debt to prove it, as do the administrations have the pay checks to prove it..

 

[Univee2]

beyond belief POS post even for you.

that blindfold on Lady Justice was replaced with a bank card reader a long time ago, and Lady Justice couldn't care less which party or ideology said money comes from, as long as it spends.

as for colleges/universities being liberal, that's the biggest load of BS ever pushed.

if colleges/schools were at all actually liberal in the least, tuition and fees wouldn't have gone up many times inflation yr after yr, decade after decade, and students wouldn't be prohibited by law from declaring bankruptcy on student debt.

graduate workers wouldn't be denied the ability to unionize.

a majority of the board of virtually all state universities are appointed by the state's governors, and most states have conservative to very conservative governors.

colleges and universities have gone from educational institutions in culture and governance over my lifetime, to effectively ultra corporate in culture and governance.

and "corporate" equals far right conservative on everything economic in nature, and students have the debt to prove it, as do the administrations have the pay checks to prove it..

I’m sure all this played really well at the last Comintern.

You really are a piece of work. A relic from those good ol’ Red days. Carry on, Comrade.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I’m sure all this played really well at the last Comintern.

You really are a piece of work. A relic from those good ol’ Red days. Carry on, Comrade.

Could you imagine watching evening tv with him. Commercials and shit lol