I guess on the specifics I'd get to the distinction on whether the man in question is trolling on the Stanford stage vs. making trolling legal arguments in his decisions. Does he defend the decisions with attempts at logic and reason, or does he stand up there and say, "nah, nah, nah, I can do what I want and you libtards have to suck it…
I guess on the specifics I'd get to the distinction on whether the man in question is trolling on the Stanford stage vs. making trolling legal arguments in his decisions.
Does he defend the decisions with attempts at logic and reason, or does he stand up there and say, "nah, nah, nah, I can do what I want and you libtards have to suck it!" Now maybe the guy has a track record of that in his university speaking engagements, I wouldn't know. But if not, I'd still default to the University being the responsible party to decide that the guy's legal opinions are so out there (like a earnest flat earther) that they aren't worth tarnishing the schools name by having him. As such, they'd be the ones to protest for allowing the FedSoc to invite a crank.
I guess on the specifics I'd get to the distinction on whether the man in question is trolling on the Stanford stage vs. making trolling legal arguments in his decisions.
Does he defend the decisions with attempts at logic and reason, or does he stand up there and say, "nah, nah, nah, I can do what I want and you libtards have to suck it!" Now maybe the guy has a track record of that in his university speaking engagements, I wouldn't know. But if not, I'd still default to the University being the responsible party to decide that the guy's legal opinions are so out there (like a earnest flat earther) that they aren't worth tarnishing the schools name by having him. As such, they'd be the ones to protest for allowing the FedSoc to invite a crank.