Will the Call for a Judicial Boycott Change Yale? Don’t Bet on it

Judge James C. Ho of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently made headlines when he publicly declared that he would no longer consider graduates of Yale Law School for clerkship positions due to the erosion of free speech rights at the university. In my view, Judge Ho is right on the merits but wrong on the means. I do not believe that these students should be the subject of a boycott for the failure of the faculty. However, the real question is whether such a boycott would even work. The answer is no. Even if the boycott were successful in dramatically reducing the prestigious clerkship for the school, it would likely not produce a change of behavior by the faculty. The sad reality is that many professors long ago jettisoned the interests of their students and their institution in favor of pursuing their own agendas.

Federal clerkships are some of the most sought after positions for law school graduates, particularly appellate clerkships.  They not only open up opportunities for the students but highlight the influence of their schools.

I respect Judge Ho’s objections over the demise of free speech at Yale. (For the record, I clerked on the Fifth Circuit on which Judge Ho serves). There has been a chilling loss of viewpoint diversity and tolerance on our campuses. It is the subject of my recent publication in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, entitled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States.

Judge Ho raised how cancel culture  “plagues a wide variety of institutions” and “is one of the leading reasons why citizens no longer trust a wide variety of once-leading institutions.” He then noted that he will “no longer hire law clerks from Yale Law School” because “Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it.”

That is manifestly true as vividly shown in a recent incident disrupting a conservative speaker at the school. Yale was also recently ranked at the bottom of universities on the issue of free speech. (Ho graduated from University of Chicago which is ranked as the number one free speech university).

Judge Ho is himself a telling measure of how far we have departed from our free speech roots. He came to the United States from Taiwan as a young child and his family is acutely aware of the struggle for free speech in the nearby mainland China. Yet, today, some faculty at Harvard and other schools now insist “China was right” on censorship on the Internet and support the limitation of free speech as harmful. Speech controls have become an article of faith with many professors.

Judge Ho is trying to use a boycott to pressure these faculty and administrators to defend free speech. The problem is that these students should not be made cannon fodder in a campaign directed against the faculty. It uses the same cancel campaign elements to combat the intolerance of the university.

It will also not work. It is manifestly harmful to these institutions to purge their faculties of conservative and libertarian members and impose a growing orthodoxy in events and expression. It is killing the life’s blood of higher education, which needs diversity of thought, free speech, and academic freedom.

Moreover, these professors already know that their policies are undermining their students and devaluing the Yale degree for many on the bench. Even without a formal boycott, conservative judges (and judges who value free speech) are likely to be uneasy about the educational bias and intolerance shown at such universities.

These professors know that. However, orthodoxy always advantages those who can control debate and opportunities. Faculty members have effectively replicated their own values and reduced any dissent in publications or events. That was evident recently when the University of North Carolina held a “celebration of the First Amendment” that appeared more like a condemnation with a one-sided panel flagging the dangers of free speech.

The control over faculties, publications, and conferences means that academicians face little challenge over their own views. Academic conferences amplify those views and exclude those who might contest their scholarship or secure positions on panels or publications.

Institutional interest has not motivated faculties to reverse this trend.  Even if judges expressly or privately (which is more likely) follow Ho’s boycott, it would not likely deter these professors who garner personal benefits from limiting dissent or allowing others to cancel opposing speakers.

The only solution is the alumni. Graduates must be willing to withhold contributions from these schools. Yale is at the virtual bottom of free speech rankings with other schools like Georgetown, Penn, and Columbia. That disgraceful distinction has not produced even a scintilla of concern at the school because faculty are insulated from any backlash. Indeed, they benefit on some levels from the viewpoint intolerance or limitations. It is only money that might motivate administrators to reconsider this trend as alumni refuse to subsidize orthodoxy.

107 thoughts on “Will the Call for a Judicial Boycott Change Yale? Don’t Bet on it”

  1. Judge James C. Ho of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is correct on all counts, including the merits and the means. Yale University isn’t a genuine institution of higher learning anymore. It’s evolved fully into a Leftist Indoctrination Entity (or LIE).

    But the same principle should apply to law school graduates from Harvard, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, or any other LIE. The reason is simple. A person working for a judge who is an assembly line product of a LIE isn’t going to follow the law or pay attention to the facts. Such a person will only be looking for ways to further the Leftist Agenda. Consequently LIE graduates placed in important positions can only cause great harm and are never an asset.

  2. RE:”The only solution is the alumni. Graduates must be willing to withhold contributions from these schools.” Absent the global rejection of the woke socio-economic and political philosophy, the graduates will be no less committed advocates and ardent supporters of their ‘beloved alma mater’. I sense that, in Harvard’s case, there may be a far more insidious cause for their conviction that ‘China was right’. The perceived threat of the Communist Fifth Column which was abroad in the land during the 50’s was an outgrowth of the rise of the Communist totalitarian states during the first six decades of the 20th Century. As that century ended and the new one began, China was not perceived as a threat but more of a cash cow for the milking by corporate interests world wide. Thus, was the door opened to their dark side. They, whom the piper pays, dance to the tune.

  3. 5 weeks from the election and Trump is doing his best to throw the election towards the Marxist Democrats. It is way past the time for Trump supporters to stop enabling and making excuses for this pathetic “man”, and denounce him thoroughly


    Trump’s ‘Death Wish’ Rhetoric
    His latest tirade against Mitch McConnell courts potential violence

    Mr. Trump let loose another tirade against the GOP Senate leader on Friday. “Is McConnell approving all of these Trillions of Dollars worth of Democrat sponsored Bills, without even the slightest bit of negotiation, because he hates Donald J. Trump, and he knows I am strongly opposed to them, or is he doing it because he believes in the Fake and Highly Destructive Green New Deal, and is willing to take the Country down with him?” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social.

    “In any event, either reason is unacceptable. He has a DEATH WISH. Must immediately seek help and advise from his China loving wife, Coco Chow!” he added.

    1. Turley seems to be under the impression that a boycott is intended to change the Yale faculty’s behavior.
      Its not. It’s to reduce the infection of the federal judiciary with clerks that have been forced fed the Yale faculty’s noxious views on speech and liberty. And, down the road, to reduce the number of available candidates for the federal judiciary that can be sourced from Yale’s poisoned well (since clerking for a federal judge is a a major plus in consideration for such positions.

      So, Mr. Turley, spare us the hurty feels for the poor students. They chose Yale (and very few of them had Yale as their only option), because they thought it would advance their career prospects. Maybe if the ‘best and brightest’ understand that’s not necessarily so, and vote accordingly with their feet over time, things will change at Yale – but again, that’s just a side benefit.

      1. Pretty uniformly, when people boycott entity X, the goal is to get X to change. And Ho was clear that that’s his goal:
        “Judge Ho asked the audience: if cancel culture is a problem, then what can we do about it? Judge Ho offered a few ideas. First, we should speak out against cancel culture and threats to free speech when we see them. Second, we should stop censoring ourselves, which is how cancel culture takes hold. Third, we can boycott institutions that engage in cancel culture. … Judge Ho explicitly stated that he wants prospective law students to think twice before attending YLS.” And contrary to your interpretation, Ho “excluded current students and past graduates, since they went to Yale without any idea that it could harm their clerkship prospects.”

      2. @James: Well said. Turley thinks change should come from the top down (alumni, donors, etc.) Except THEY are the ones who allowed the toxic culture to take root. Plus, they are already well established in their careers and have little economic incentive to effect change.

        But if the students are denied prestigious clerkships from judges who think Yale no longer produces prospective lawyers with the values necessary to be good clerks, then that will directly impact the long term careers of the students. That gives them a much greater incentive to effect change from the bottom up than, say, some partner at Cravath or a career government lawyer in the EPA who graduated from Yale decades ago.

    2. After Six Months in Office, Then President Trump & Majority Leader Mich McConnell Broke Apart

      1. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) doesn’t support representative democracy: If a candidate like Moo Brooks (R-AL), a strong supporter of finishing the Wall o our SW border, announces his bid for a senate seat in ’17 & ’22 was at hand to back out of state Super Pac to fund apposing ads.

      2. At RNC in Cleveland, OH on 7/19/16 [1] McConnell said: “We put an Obamacare repeal bill on the President’s desk He vetoed it [2]. Trump would sign it.” After six months in office, then President Trump asked about repeal bill. On 8/8/17, McConnell on an Rotary event in northern KY, McConnell explained: “Our new President has, of course, not been in this line of work before. And I think he had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process […] and doesn’t understand the complexity of legislating” [3] The next day, # 45 was asked if Majority Leader should step down: “If he doesn’t get repeal and replace done, and if he doesn’t get taxes done – meaning cuts and reform, and if he doesn’t get a very easy one to get done – infrastructure – if he doesn’t get them done, then you can ask me that question.”

      3. On his 25th anniversary, former VP Joe Biden [4] was McConnell and his 2nd wife Elaine Chao, then as Secretary of Transport one of Trump’s cabinet members, most prominent guest.

      4. With a pronounced shift among “working class” voters to GOP and a “Plebs” as leader there are casualties: “Conservative” commentators like Scott Jennings (CNN) or Brit Hume (FNN) lost their home but continue to work as “conservative” commentators. In theory others found their dedication to the “preservation, protection, and defense of democracy” In reality “The Lincoln Project” places campaign ads in favor of candidates like Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and opposing ads to Blake Masters (R-AZ). As “The Biden-Sanders Manifesto” is almost two years in operation, it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise in which direction our country shifted.

      5. As supporters for candidates like John Fetterman (D-PA), Ralph Warnock (D-GA) or Mandela Barnes (D-WI) are very confident about her choices, same goes for “MAGA-Republicans”. At the end of the day Kimberly & Sam from mainstreet will break.

      6. Just for the sake of argument: Blake Masters (R-AZ), Adam Laxalt (R-NV), Mehmet Oz (R-PA), and Herschel Walker (R-GA) are all endorsed by # 45. If they all win their bid, it’s 53-47 majority, if they all lose, it’s 49-51. If 1st case occur, it’s only a matter of time until Trump will prominently announce his bid for Presidency (due to popular demand). If the result of the election goes in the opposite direction in order to “Save America” he has no other choice than to re-run again! However, a nightmare for McConnell and his allies.

      [1] As McConnell never mentioned anything about “economic security is national security” (Trump doctrine), immigration issues and completing the Wall: # 45 was misguided if expected a backing on these key issues.
      [2] On 12/3/15 Senate passed repeal of ACA (52-47 along party-lines), on 1/6/16 House followed. Two days later, President Obama vetoed. On 2/2/16 House failed 2/3 supermajority (241-186) to override. Republicans praised the vote as showing what could happen 2017 if their party wins back WH
      [3] https://www.lifezette.com/referral/2017/08/video-mcconnell-complains-trumps-excessive-expectations/
      [4] https://nannies-hades.blogspot.com/2021/01/mitch-mcconnell-chao-wedding-elaine.html

    3. Mr. Trump forgets that without Senator McConnell’s legislative skill, he would have had little or no political success.

      1. No, Trump is correctly calling out a RINO and drawing attention to the horrific legislation that was recently passed. I’d like to hear your defense of the “Green New Deal” (Orwellian name: Inflation Reduction Act) that McConnell stepped aside to allow….without even trying to bargain for something in return. You could argue that the Trump vs. McConnell theatrics are just to shine a light on that abject failure, and the bigger goal is to stick to the art of war. Never interrupt an enemy in the process of destroying themselves. You could also argue that McConnell is simply being exposed as a controlled-opposition globalist puppet. Trump is not just eviscerating the Dems via hard truth, he’s exposing and eviscerating the RINO’s as well.

      2. 1. President Trump won 2016 Persidential election because voters (who are within GOP each) were attracted by his agenda, the way he presented his ideas. and preferred him to his opponent. He was not picked because of “Senator McConnell’s legislative skill”!
        2. As GOP holds majority in Congress during his first two years he was under the impression that it should be possible to pass “Repeal ACA” within sikx month for a 2nd time: Instead of vetoed, Trump has signed it. But he didn’t know that “Repeal ACA” is not McConnel’s top priority: Otherwise it doesn’t make sense to support Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) financially as she was one of three defectors.
        3. As part of “Trump Doctrine” to complete the Wall on SW border was his signature campaign promise but with limit legislative support [1]
        4. “If you have the votes” it shouldn’t be too difficult to confirm federal judges.
        5. 2020 Presidential/Senate Election in KY: Trump + 26/McConnell + 20

        [1] https://mexico.arizona.edu/revista/brief-legislative-history-last-50-years-us-mexico-border

    4. No, he’s telling the plain truth to voters….and it works. You seem to be a generation behind reality. Check Trump’s success rate with endorsements. We….the people….are helping him purge RINO’s. This effort started paying off in 2018. RINO’s are a key part of the uniparty lock on power and control. McConnell is in bed with China, the globalists, the DNC. He’s controlled opposition, not a person defending The Constitution. What part of the “Green New Deal” do you think any honest Republican should embrace? ….I eagerly await your response.

      1. You are correct.

        Trump has characteristics that offend some people to such an extent they are willing to compromise their safety because they don’t like his behavior having little to do with policy. That is why during discussion of policy issues, they do not wish to take Trump to task for his policies.

        Biden is President. Are we better off with high inflation soon-to-be stagflation, wars, Fentanyl, criminals, etc? That is the trade-off for the unimportant characteristics that got things done.

      2. 1. I2018 “House” election was called “blue wave” as GOP lost 42(!) of her 241 seats (- 17%) and majority. It was less discussed that part of “MAGA-Republicans” were disappointed that Trump aganda found less congessional support.
        2. President Trump was generaly blamed that both GOP candidate lost runnoff in GA (though they lead in general election). It was less discussed that part of “MAGA Republicans” were disappointed about lack of GOP-leaders & his inner circle support for Trump before and after the election.
        3. McConnell’s 2nd marriage propeled his wealth. Here is one (of many) pieces [1]

        [1] https://www.businessinsider.in/slideshows/miscellaneous/inside-the-marriage-of-elaine-chao-and-mitch-mcconnell-a-political-power-couple-who-met-later-in-life-and-got-married-on-ronald-reagans-birthday/slidelist/63382866.cms

  4. Well, at least Ho is doing SOMETHING. More than can be said of the rest.

  5. ” I do not believe that these students should be the subject of a boycott for the failure of the faculty.”

    What was the reason behind the Doolittle Raid in WW2? Japan’s immediate destruction was not its aim. Japan was vulnerable to the same attacks it was making on others. It was a wake-up call, not just to the leadership and military, but a wake-up call to the nation. Judge Ho sent a wake-up call for the university and the students. There was no Japan without its citizenry. There is no university without its students.

    An imperfect wake-up call is better than no wake-up call at all.

    I applaud Ho and would do it myself.

    1. Great point. Doolittle was a God btw. He would be really pissed how things turned out for the US.

    2. They could have chosen a better law school, like Liberty University law school…

  6. Turley is wrong. Is the culture a creation of a decrepit, woke faculty? Of course, but the students are themselves the willing, radical and rabid actors in the cult, Mansonites with fervor and knife-wielding skills ready to pollute the legal world with their orthodoxies. Turley’s argument is akin to condemning the Grand Wizard, but stopping short of stigmatizing the clansmen that erect and burn the crucifixes. In a filthy system like Yale’s, the entire edifice must be burned down to start anew.

  7. The boycott would eliminate one of the many sources being used to flood our academic and legal systems with trained Marxists. Efforts to stop that gushing sewer pipe are appreciated. Turley is thinking there’s some untainted people in that sewer pipeline. His optimism is drowned in the truth: Ivy League academia is entirely, irretrievably polluted with Marxist / Globalist operatives – wittingly or unwittingly. Top to tail, that system is hijacked and enslaved to the agenda of the WEF / UN / Great Reset / Eugenics / Depopulation / Choreographed division & conflict. The goal is glaringly obvious….. capsize the US economy and Constitution in order to herd us all into the Great Reset Sheep Ranch.

  8. Wait and see if any corporate media (and that includes NPR and PBS) touch this story. My bet is they will ignore it, with the possible exception of a couple of the hosted shows on Fox.

    The exact same edit prevails when it comes to the mayhem in the streets of our big cities. The NY Post has these atrocities every day–often with graphic video showing the crimes– and what we get from the puppets on TV is slavish agreement with the slobber spewed by Gavin Newsom, trying to blame the “red states” for increased crime. A couple key points no one mentions:

    IF DC were a state it would has 3X the homicide rate of the highest state (Louisiana, basically because of New Orleans) and 2X that of Puerto Rico. The mud flung by HairGel is based on the one-party Dem ruled cities like Houston that are in “red” states. Record homicide in all 20 of the biggest cities is the defining characteristic of social stats in the last couple of years. The “profile” of the perps is repeat violent offenders turned loose by the demented, destructive Soros-bought DAs like the terrorist in Philly.

  9. Mr. Turley, I appreciate you and follow your comments. However, I must say I give Judge Ho extra credit. He is walking the walk while you mostly talk the talk. Your writings are usually spot-on, but please take some actions that might inspire others to become active!!

  10. “Will the Call for a Yale Boycott Be a Wake Up Call for the Woke? Don’t Bet on it”

    – Professor Turley


    These are not students, they are adversarial and hostile, communist agents.

    They are not dissimilar to the likes of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

    These are subversive, insurrectionist, direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Americans and the “fundamentally formed” United States of America.

    They know that they are your enemy.

    You are incapable of assimilating the fact that they are your enemy.

    That is the problem.

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

    – Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    1. …well said. I’d argue that not all of these enemies are fully aware of the much larger-scale end-game for which they’re being used. They are often compartmentalized into specific choreographed conflicts, like…. “Climate Change”, or “Diversity”, etc., but they may not see that each of those conflicts in concert are the fracture line being chiseled to break the US away from The Constitution and economic success. The Great Reset can’t be fully realized if the US doesn’t surrender to global / centralized control and purge the people determined to retain individual and national sovereignty.

  11. I can understand where the judge is coming from. Why invite a Trojan Horse into your camp. It is suspected that one of Alito’s clerks leaked his opinion. Therefore, it only makes sense that not trusting students who have been completely indoctrinated by a once hallowed education institution should not be allowed in your chambers to undermine your efforts. This judge understands the reality of the odds. Sad but true.

    1. Please be careful in labeling out one of Justice Alito’s law clerks [1] (and supportig staff) as the leaker of his 98 pages initial draft opinion on 5/2/22 (SCOTUS: 6/24/22). As he needs five votes for a majority, he has to share his thoughts with other justices (and their clerks and supportin stuff). And as this was an high-profilel case: Why do you exclude that someone made a hardcopy and share it with others outside SCOTUS?

      On a separate note: Why did politico shared this initial draft opinion with the general public?

      [1] Within days after the initial draft was published, a female law clerk of then (liberal) Justice Breyer was singled out as leaker.

  12. What is/are the “Real” Question(s)?

    Judges James Ho, a Trump appointee promoted by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), “publicly declared that he would no longer consider graduates of Yale Law School for clerkship positions due to the erosion of free speech rights at the university.” Professor Turley thinks he is “wrong on the means” and should have asked “the real question” (whether such a boycott would even work)?

    First, I asked myself: From those who were granted admission at Yale Law School in New Haven, CT will refuse and choose another acceptance?

    Thinking of a “conservative” student who is searching for an “excellent legal education” and in the process of enrolling to the “finest US law schools” what might be his/her “real questions”, such as:

    * On which campus you can I wear my MAGA hats with pride?
    * What are the most conservative T14 law schools?
    * Where would I like to work after graduation?

    I would say: It depends…

  13. Jonathan: So Judge James C Ho has decided not to hire Yale law grads because Yale “actively participates” in the “cancellation of views”. You say Ho is “right on the merits” but you oppose Ho’s boycott of Yale grads. But in the next breath you call for your own “boycott” of Yale by urging alumni to “withhold contributions from these schools” and “[i]t is only money that might motivate administrators to reconsider” their views. Doesn’t appear that extortion is the best way to increase conservation views at Yale.

    So who is Judge Ho you have decided deserves attention in this column? Judge Ho was appointed to the 5th Circuit in 2017 by Donald Trump. That should tell us everything we should know about Ho who is a member of the right-wing Federalist Society . The Society selected all of Trump’s judicial appointments. Ho clerked for Justice Thomas. While working at the DOJ (2001-2003) Ho wrote a controversial memo endorsing water boarding of al Qaeda detainees. In a law review article he co-authored with conservative John Yoo, Ho took the view that al Qaeda detainees were not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. Ho is associated with the “First Liberty Institute” (FLI) that opposes protection for the LGBTQ community. FLI claims that transgender children are part of “Satan’s plan”. Ho also opposes gay marriage. More of Ho’s right-wing views and positions can be found at http://www.afj.org.

    It’s pretty clear Judge Ho is a conservative judicial zealot–and probably why you support him and the false claim that Yale is attempting to “purge their faculties of conservative and libertarian members”. Despite your call for a financial boycott of Yale I doubt many alumni are going to stop their financial support for the institution. Extortion usually causes an opposite reaction. Judge Ho is actually shooting himself in the foot. He is depriving himself of Yale law talent. If Ho really believes in “free speech” you would think he would want a diversity of opinions among his clerks. Nope. He only wants clerks who conform to his right-wing judicial agenda. And it’s ironic you would accuse Yale of attempting to “purge” conservative views when it is Judge Ho who is carrying out his own conservative “purge”. And, I have it on good authority that Ho has a sign on the door of his chambers that reads: “Left-wing Yale grads need not apply”. Which all proves that conservatives are big on “free speech” only when they are in the minority. When they have the power they impose their own “orthodoxy” and the “cancellation of views”!

    1. Dennis: excellent response. The more Turley falls in line with Fox propaganda, the more he tarnishes his credibility. The headline of this piece is an excellent example: using the alt-right word “Woke”, a far-right descriptor that is used in a derogatory sense to describe people who don’t discriminate on the basis of race, gender, LGBTQ status and who accept all people without labeling them, as opposed to the disciples of the “very stable genius”. I saw an interview Friday with a British journalist who said that excerpts of Tucker Carlson’s program are shown nightly on Russian television as anti-American propaganda to support the message that America’s leadership in Congress and the White House are not respected even in the United States. The fact that Russians find value in Carlson’s lies and his attacks on Biden should give anyone pause to consider whether they want to be associated with any media that is this far outside the mainstream and whose extreme content is being used as propaganda by our enemies. Trumpsters refuse to accept the fact that Biden was elected by the majority of the American people, and while we are all free to disagree with policies and opinions, Fox goes way beyond: supporting the Big Lie, criticizing and undercutting everything Biden and Democrats in Congress do, and continuing to broadcast Trump every day, even though he was put out of office. No former POTUS has ever refused to accept the will of the American people, to stay out of politics and let the people’s chosen leader carry out the people’s agenda without scrutiny or criticism. THIS is the media outlet Turley has decided to align himself with–one whose slanted views and rhetoric are used as propaganda by our enemies, and to the extent that Turley lends his credentials to support the messages of this media, he is cutting his own throat as someone deserving of respect. I wonder: does he believe this garbage, or does he need the money?

      1. Natacha: Thank you. Yes, Tucker Carlson has become a great supporter of fascist and authoritarian leaders around the world. But Carlson is just reflecting the views of his boss, Rupert Murdock. I think if Putin were to offer Carlson a gig on “Russiya 1”, the largest TV platform, he would jump at the chance. When it comes to Turley he has lost any credibility or independence when he joined Fox. His job description is to reflect the views of Fox and he does that well. That’s sad because at one time Turley was considered a serious conservative “academic”. And, no, I don’t think Turley needs the money. What he wants is national exposure. Fox gives him that because he rarely gets exposure on the rest of the media. He hopes the GOP will take back control of Congress in November and that will give him an opportunity to testify and further expound on his views. Why do you think Turley spends so much time on the alleged Hunter Biden “scandal”? The GOP has made it clear that one of the first things they want to do is focus on the alleged “corruption” in the Biden administration. No doubt they will set up a “Special Committee” to go after Hunter. And who do you think will be one of their principal witnesses? More national exposure Turley thrives on.

        I think our role is to point out the fallacies in Turley’s arguments. You know bring a little sanity to this blog. There is so much insanity here that we have a lot of work ahead of us. So keep up your good work and I will continue from my perspective. I firmly believe the truth will eventually win out!

        1. Is a scandal “alleged” if there’s actual pictures, video, audio proving the government / business relationships, drug use, and sexual escapades? The laptop is real…and data on it security-hash verified, and we know for sure that the media & tech gatekeepers of the DNC narrative buried that ugly saga to protect their chosen candidate, and project the Biden corruption on their political adversary. You throw shade on Turley for expressing his opinions to his audience, and perhaps hoping his opinions reach a wider audience? How is that any kind of disqualification whatsoever?

          You say… “There is so much insanity here…”, yes, you’re projecting.

        2. History will not treat the Trump era kindly, and Turley has chosen to lend whatever credibility he thinks his credentials provide to this cause, so history won’t treat him kindly either. Turley likes to play little games–like saying (but only in passing and without criticism or analysis) that he doesn’t believe the Big Lie, and parsing criticism of the J6 committee “procedure” with the substantive truth of the revelations that have come out as examples, so he can claim, later on, that he never supported the Big Lie or doubted the truth of the facts exposed by the J6 committee. Turley knows the disciples don’t carefully read what he writes and don’t understand the fine line he walks, so I view him as intellectually dishonest. I liken it to the McCarthy era–it’s really not that different, and it would get much, much worse if Republicans take over Congress. Fortunately, like McCarthyism, Trump and his enablers will eventually go down in flames and the country will say, later on, “I can’t believe this was allowed to happen in America”. Thanks for the kind words and keep up the good work!

      2. How is “woke” an “Alt-Right” word? You’re just sore that the word is evocative of the failure it correctly represents. How? Why? People simply point out the truth, then the defenders of “The Approved Narrative” try to squelch that truth. Get woke? Go broke. It’s not the fault of people like myself that “woke” policies are a flaming sewer pipe of failure, conflict, division, and tyranny.

      3. Actually it was a poor response. But it is expected that you would like it.

        You are far more interested in attacking those you do not like – which is all Dennis did, then address the actual issue.
        Someday maybe I will care enough about Ho to find out of Dennis is actually being truthful.
        It would shock me to find he was.

        But the relevant issue is not whether Ho is a good person or a bad person.
        It is whether judges should give clerkships to law students who reject the constitution.

        The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT!

        From Whitney V California.

        [A legislative declaration] does not preclude enquiry into the question whether, at the time and under the circumstances, the conditions existed which are essential to validity under the Federal Constitution. . . . Whenever the fundamental rights of free speech and assembly are alleged to have been invaded, it must remain open to a defendant to present the issue whether there actually did exist at the time a clear danger; whether the danger, if any, was imminent; and whether the evil apprehended was one so substantial as to justify the stringent restriction interposed by the legislature.

        Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement…
        Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one.
        If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

        — Justice Louis Brandeis

    2. McIntyre–
      “Judge Ho was appointed to the 5th Circuit in 2017 by Donald Trump. That should tell us everything we should know about Ho…”
      You are absolutely right. If President Trump appointed someone, you can be fairly sure the appointee was imminently qualified, unlike President Biden’s appointees whose dominant qualifications appear to be racial, sexual orientation and wokeness. Compare Judge Ho with Justice Jackson: Ho studied public policy at Stanford University and graduated with honors. He attended University of Chicago Law School where he was editor of the Chicago Law Review and graduated with a Juris Doctor degree with high honors. Jackson, on the other hand, is black which, based on the President’s statements was her primary qualification. Now consider Biden’s Supreme Court appointee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her primary qualification (the one listed first by the President) was that she is black. Next, she had the highest reversal rate of any of the D.C. District Judges, and in her confirmation hearing she testified, under oath, that she could not define what a woman is “because I’m not a biologist.” Like I said, you are absolutely right.

      1. honestlawyermostly: I have a Q. If you are honest “mostly” when are the times you are not an “honest” lawyer? Given the times you are not so “honest” I can tell you I would never hire you to represent me!. This aside your racist comments about Justice Jackson, who by the way was confirmed by the Senate, indicate where you are coming from. I won’t dignify anything you have said about Jackson by a response!

        1. “This aside your racist comments about Justice Jackson . . .”

          So it’s okay for the Left to choose a person because of her race. But it’s “racist” to point out that she was chosen because of her race.

          I miss the old Left. It was more subtle about peddling such contradictions.

      2. Next, she had the highest reversal rate of any of the D.C. District Judges, and in her confirmation hearing she testified, under oath, that she could not define what a woman is “because I’m not a biologist.”

        Ketanji Brown Jackson is a disgrace to black, brown, minority women specifically but all women in general, and to children who never had a mother to role model what feminine, maternal love means.

        I interact with plenty of black women daily, a few educated in the medical sciences, many more blue collar types, most humble, hardworking, mothers, aunts, nieces who are trying to do their best in providing for their families. Jackson did severe harm to black women, denigrating their intellect, casting aspersions on their roles as extremely proud women, who want their daughters to be successful mothers, wives, and have what they never had: functional, healthy families. Think of the millions of minority women who take their vocations as matriarchs, mentors, role-models, educators, providers, etc who are well aware of the absence of moral courage and intellectual vacuum that plague black families, due in large part to the absent black father, husband, moral leader.

        Jackson rests on her laurels as a privileged attorney who panders to her liberal masters, crowing for them as she pretends, like Barack Obama, to know what black mothers fight against daily for their families. Black neighborhoods in Miami like Liberty City, Overtown, Northside, Little Haiti, Hialeah, Opa Locka, and others, are lightyears away from the privileged neighborhood in South Miami known as Pinecrest where Jackson attended Miami Palmetto High school while having 2 educated parents at home: her father was an attorney for the liberal Miami-Dade School board, while her mother was a principal for a prestigious magnet school.

        It is insulting to minorities how leftists pretend to speak for the marginalized, be they immigrants, hispanics, blacks, the poor, the uneducated, physically and/or intellectually disabled, gays & lesbians, broken families, etc, when they dare not get their hands dirty in helping these very same honorable people. While I reject the tactic that Governor Ron DeSantis did in sending 50 illegal immigrants to Martha Vineyard, the fact that the Obamas, Oprah, Beyonce, and other wealthy blacks were silent, while the rich elite sent 150 National Guard to escort the 50 illegals to the border of the island, only to fling them onto a ferry to send them to a military base, depicts all too well the people to whom Jackson performs.

        Meanwhile hard working black women, who are proud of their sexual gender, fight hard to raise their daughters, their nieces, the girls they teach in Sunday Schools, to be women of honor, while Jackson dishonors them by claiming she is not a biologist and can not define “woman”.

        Jackson is an example of selling one’s soul for political religious virtue signaling.

        1. RE:”I interact with plenty of black women daily..” Well writ! Yes, one really has to have been there to appreciate their struggle to, as Candace Owens puts it, leave the plantation. A tough road to walk when self-interested good-doers throw stones in the pathway and keep reminding them that they’ll always need help on the journey.

      3. “If President Trump appointed someone, you can be fairly sure the appointee was imminently qualified, unlike President Biden’s appointees”

        Not according to the ABA.

        Trump nominated 10 judges who were rated by the ABA as “unqualified.” Biden nominated zero judges who were rated by the ABA as “unqualified.”

        Trump also nominated a higher proportion of judges rated as “qualified” rather than “highly qualified” (Trump: 67 qualified: 187 highly qualified, Biden: 18 qualified: 88 highly qualified). Data here:

        1. I think a look at Garland tells us how bad Biden’s judgement is and yours as well.

      4. honestlawyermostly: You say ” [i]f President Trump appointed someone, you can be fairly sure the appointee was imminently qualified”. Are you “mostly” sure of your claim? If you are consider the following. Trump set a record in nominating the highest number of individuals who the ABA found to be “Not Qualified”. That’s because many of Trump’s appointees lacked the relevant legal or judicial experience to serve as federal judges. Example? Trump nominated Mathew Petersen to serve on the US District Court in DC. During his confirmation hearing, after admitting that he had never tried a case or even argued a motion in state or federal court, he could not even define a motion “in lime”. As a lawyer I assume you know what that is. Eventually, Petersen was forced to withdraw his nomination but the Trump administration continued to defend him. The list of other “Not Qualified” Trump nominees is too long to cite here.

        Trump had a litmus test for his nominees. They all had to be approved by the right-wing Federalist Society that chose candidates that would support Trump’s agenda–irrespective of their lack of legal or judicial experience. Judge Cannon is a perfect example of someone Trump appointed after he lost the election and is doing her best to obstruct the criminal investigation of Trump’s violation of 3 federal statutes. The 11th Circuit has already slapped down Cannon’s non-sensical opinions and will probably do it again.

        And you are showing your racist stripes by claiming Justice Jackson was chosen solely because of her race. Now Jackson was someone who is “eminently qualified”. The ABA rated Jackson “Well Qualified”. I rest my case.

        1. Actually the ABA set a record for mislabeling highly qualified lawyers as unqualified.

          The ABA is highly politicized – and stupid.

          There are instances where ABA attorney’s who had lost elections or other appointments to Trump appointees are the people who then rated their opponents as unqualified.

          Any member of the Bar that does nto know when they must recuse themselves – is unqualified.
          The fact that is occuring damn’s the ABA.

          1. Such appeals to authority instead of fact demonstrate an uninformed person.

        2. I am presuming you mean a “Motion in limine” ?

          I would not normally nitt pick – but the core of your argument is nitt picking.

          Those who live by the nitt pick die by the nitt pick.

          1. John Say: I don’t mind “nick picking”, especially when it comes to spelling errors. So thanks for pointing out the correct spelling of “Limine”. And I appreciate your explanation of the purpose of the Motion. Too bad Mathew Petersen couldn’t explain it at his confirmation hearing and probably one of the reasons he withdrew his nomination. He was simply not qualified to sit on the federal bench. And that was the “core” of my argument. It wasn’t “nick picking”. In a subsequent comment you say “I have no idea whether Petersen is qualified to be a federal Judge–nor do you”. The proof of pudding is in the eating. Petersen withdrew because he knew his nomination was going to end up in the tank!

            Finally, you say “[a]ny member of the Bar that does nto (sic–I hate to nick pick) know when they must recuse themselves–is unqualified”. I totally agree. So what about Clarence Thomas–the worst offender when it comes to recusal. On the other hand in her confirmation hearing Justice Jackson said she would recuse herself in the Harvard discrimination case now before the Court– and she did. That’s more than we can say for Justice Thomas who has refused to recuse himself in cases in which he had a conflict of interest. That’s why federal rules for recusal need to be applied to the SC.

            1. I have no idea whether Petersen is qualified or not. I do know that his CV is significantly better than any local judge, most of my state superior court judges and some of my state supreme court justices. Further he would be hard pressed to be worse than they are.

              You can make the core of your argument whatever you want. The inability of someone seeking to be a federal judge is disturbing.
              The inability of sitting federal judges to be unable to know where the burden of proof lies in an apellate case is more disturbing.
              The inability of a nominee for the supreme court to be able to define a woman when it is absolutely certain that she will have a case that requires her to apply a LEGAL definition of woman is also disturbing.

              Large numbers of currently sitting federal judges are less qualified than Peterson.

            2. There is not a supreme court case that does not in some way touch on some justice.

              It is my understanding that Jackson worked on the Harvard case prior to being nominated.
              That is about the only time supreme court justices recuse themselves.

              I have not heard of any case that Thomas should have recused himself from.

              Justices are not obligated to recuse because long standing positions are predictive of where they might rule.

              They are not required to recuse if family members have an involvement in the case.

              And frankly at the supreme court level the conflict should be significant to require recusal.

              Purportedly Sumpreme court justices are the best of the best. Regardless, no supreme court case should hinge on whether you can force a justice to recuse. Bad or unclear decisions at lower courts can be appealed. Supreme court decisions can not.

              We should expect finality from SCOTUS. It is actually better for SCOTUS to be wrong, than to be unclear.

        3. Justice Jackson can not define what a woman is. It is absolutely certain that the legal meaning of Woman is something that she will be expected to address.

        4. “Petersen was born in Torrance, California and raised in Mapleton, Utah.[4][5] He received an associate degree with high honors from Utah Valley State College in 1993, then went on to graduate magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy from Brigham Young University in 1996. Petersen received his Juris Doctor in 1999 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a member of the Virginia Law Review”

          Jannet Napolitano graduated from UVA law, and UVA Law is number 8 in Best law schools in the US.

          Peterson was actively involved working in congress in crafting several laws.

          I have no idea whether Peterson is qualified to be a federal Judge – nor do you.

          But many many many judges are appointed to the bench with narrow areas of past experience.

          I do not know what he federal rules are – but in my county a judge must serve 2yrs in civil court before they are permitted to handle criminal cases. Some county judges NEVER hear criminal cases.

          My wife clerked for a federal judge – I do not recall that judge ever having a single criminal case.

          The most common use of a motion in Limine is in a criminal proceeding.

          The most common Civil use of a motion in Limine is to prevent a party who failed to provide material in discovery from using it in their case.

          Such as subpeonad material – such as that supeonad From Trump regarding Mar-A-Lago.

          I keep reminding you over and over that subpeona’s are not court orders. Compliance is neither manditory, A subpeona only becomes mandatory when it becomes a court order – and that is not automatic.
          A common remedy for a failure to properly respond to a subpeona is to be denied – by a motion in limine the right to use the evidence you did not provide. Another common remedy is for the court to instruct the jury to assume that failure to provide something in response to a subpeona can be treated as inculpatory evidence. Alleged failure to respond to a subpeona is NOT obstruction or contempt. You can only be in contempt of an order of the court.

        5. The federalist society is not particularly right wing, they are somewhat more libertarian.

          Regardless, being a member of the federalist society – or better still being recommended by them is far better than being called qualified by the ABA.

          “The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
          This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.”

        6. You make assumptions of things you no little or nothing about.

          Here is an example of a very prominent federalist.

          If you are looking to try to argue for a right through the 9th amendment – Barnett is the preeminent voice for a broad reading of the 9th amendment. Barnett is the originalist “Anti-Thomas


        7. I read Cannon’s recent order in response to the inability of Trump, the DOJ and Dearlie to resolve a number of issues.

          It was done quickly – less than 24hrs. It was short, succinct, it resolved all the issues, and it saved Dearlie from several major constitutional errors.

          I would say that I was impressed – except that all the issues were incredibly obvious.
          What was disturbing is that DOJ and Dearlie had both made clear constitutional errors, and in several instances ignored the fact that her order appointing the special master resolved issues that DOJ with Dearlie’s assent was seeking to relitigate.

          You – or someone here ranted that they could get no one to scan these documents because no one would work with Trump.
          It turns out that DOJ was the actual problem. While there are purportedly 11,000 documents, there are 200,000 pages.
          As Trump’s lawyers pointed out when they agreed with DOJ’s request for an extension to their own requested order.
          The schedule DOJ sought could not be met. The documents could not be scanned in the time allotted, much less scanned and reviewed by DOJ
          In prior similar cases there is no instance where the initial privilege review went faster than 50 pages an hour.
          Trump’s lawyers begged Dearlie not just to grant the DOJ requested extension – but to give them MORE time – as they were going to need it.
          Rather than clog the courts with consecutive requests for extensions to an unmeetable deadline.

          Cannon cleaned up lots of problems in Dearlie’s proposed order. Fixed the schedule to something aggressive but that DOJ might be able to meet. Eliminated stupid constraints and waivers that Dearlie and DOJ tried to place on Trump that were unconstitutional.

          Despite the 11th circuit court of appeals loss that was very badly decided – but of no consequence, because DOJ is ultimately going to get all documents marked classified. That does not mean they will win on the issue of whether they are classified.
          But Trump is not going to win at the special master stage.

          What matters most – is those documents that are attorney work product and attorney client priviledge.
          They are probably not alot of documents. It is highly unlikely that DOJ will get to keep those.

          The entire rest of this does not matter.
          It is highly likely that DOJ will not be allowed to keep documents that are determined to be personal as being outside the legitimate scope of the warrant.

          Regardless, Cannon appears to know exactly what she is doing. Conversely Dearlie is surprisingly bad and has made some very fundimental constitutional errors. The court can not order you to waive your constitutional or civil rights.

          Dearlie also does not seem to grasp that Trump’s entire lawsuit is civil, But it is a civil matter about a potential criminal case and no decision – not Dearlie’s not cannon’s can be legally final. It is unlikely that Trump will win in a criminal court – should that ever happen, which is not likely, an issue that he loses in this civil suit, but neither Cannon, nor Dearlie, not the 11th cir ct of appeals can preclude Trump from reasserting a claim in a criminal case that he loses now.

          Further Cannon has so far behaved professional.
          She has handled everything in front of her expeditiously, and succinctly.
          She speaks through her orders – not through leaks and grandstanding.
          And she sticks to the law and constitution.

        8. No jackson was also chosen for her sex. Biden explicitly stated what his criteria were.

          It is not racist or sexist to repeat what Biden said.

        9. The 11th cir ct of appeals oppinon is nearly meaningless.

          All it accomplished was getting the marked classified documents to DOJ a few days quicker.

          It was not a consequential loss for Trump – because the documents marked classifed are going to DOJ to start no matter what.

          But the 11th circuit decision was legal garbage. I doubt Trump will apeal it because the issue is essentially moot.

          But one of Trump’s lawyers highlighted one of the many errors, – this was a DOJ appeal of an order by Cannon. The burdern of proof was on the DOJ not Trump, and the 11th Apeals got that glaringly wrong. That is a massive legal error.

    3. It is called choice not extortion.

      I find it odd that you waste enormous amounts of space going into Ho’s alleged history – as if that is relevant.
      I would note that While candidate Obama made a big deal out of opposing “torture”, as president he did not make any substantive change to US policy on torture. All he did was subject requests to torture prisoners to a higher level of scrutiny. Pres. Obama was not really all that different From Bush except rhetorically. He deported more people per year than Trump. He started more foreign military adventures than Bush. He used the espionage act against more people that all other US presidents combined – yet he did not prosecute Clinton. He spied on journalists, Congressmen – of both parties. With a few exceptions Pres. Obama was Dick Cheney with a more polished facade.

      It does not matter whether Ho’s is Hitler.

      I find it odd that you equate rejecting clerks who reject the first amendment to be cancellation.
      It is actually ANTI-Cancellation.

      Would rejecting clerks that think Muder for hire should be illegal be acceptable to you ?

      I would prefer that Ho dealt with applications on a case by case basis – there are probably a few students at Yale that are not anti-free speech.
      Further though rejection of the constitutional right to free speech should disqualify any potential law clerk from any position – including clerkships in local orphans courts. free speech is probably not the only right judges should demand fealty to out of clerks.

      Finally, mostly this is a public statement of values by Ho. Federal Judges interview potential clerks before offering clerkships.
      While many judges hire clerks with disparate views from their own. No judge should offer a clerkship to a law student that is not going to follow the constitution. That is just a complete waste.

    4. Dennis McIntyre.. as usual you have to dump your toxic radical revolutionary opinionated completely off-the-mark generalizations on this forum as the ‘Great Wizard’ who has the right to judge and dismiss everyone who isn’t playing your one track hatred of Trump infused broken record….The only thing your disrespectul trolling achieves is……….. nothing.

    5. “. . . a diversity of opinions . . .”

      From those who squelch diversity of opinions?!

      That’s a howler.

  14. “It is only money that might motivate administrators to reconsider this trend as alumni refuse to subsidize orthodoxy.” I agree, but there has to be a motivation for alumni and other donors to withhold money, and I think Judge Ho has found it.

  15. Yale and Harvard have an overwhelming influence/impact on our judicial system. Maybe the appellate courts should only select clerks from law schools that are within their boundaries.For example the 5th circuit should first consider law students/grads from the law schools in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas before looking elsewhere

    1. Excellent suggestion. It would lend geographic “diversity” to the judiciary.

      1. Diversity in number and distribution, and, unfortunately, diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism) in color for the foreseeable future.

  16. >”Will the Call for a Yale Boycott Be a Wake Up Call for the Woke?

    I don’t understand. Why would the ‘woke’ need a ‘wake up call’? It makes no sense. .. we must be talking cross-purposes?

    Personally, I wouldn’t, necessarily, deny anyone gainful employment – assuming that’s what clerks on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals do – based solely on their ‘al.ma.mater’. Or even their educational background. As Matt Damon pointed out in ‘A Beautiful Mind’, you can get a $500k (adjusted for inflation) Harvard education for 10 cents in overdue library fines, if you put your mind to it.

    Being ‘woke’ with a smile will only get you so far.

    *’knowledge is a single point .. . but the ignorant have multiplied it.’

      1. It was Good Will Hunting! Ty. .. I get those beautiful minds movies mixed up.

        *my point for Prof. Turley (having recently stumbled across him in the dark), however, remains; “Will the Call for a Yale Boycott Be a Wake Up Call for the Woke?” is, ipso facto, a linguistically null and void statement. .. Res ipsa loquitur.

    1. Woke and morally (e.g. selective), ethically (e.g. relativistic), legally (e.g. twilight fringe or emanations from penumbras) broke.

  17. Yale had the distinction of being the top law school. Not anymore. The students are trained in activism, not law. Activism only requires a pseudointellectual masquerade of virtue signaling. Nearly all of Yale’s law faculty and most of the students are fake lawyers now.

    Hillary was the prototype of the fake Yale lawyer. It seems the only thing she learned was how to break the law and get away with it.

    I had one of these Yale Law idiots over for dinner one night. He went out of his way to note he had written for The Atlantic. After dinner, he took the occasion to insult my wife and me and casually walk out. Politics never even came up. Not at all. It was just the most appalling narcissism I have ever witnessed.

    I realized later that it was guys like this that had done everything possible to smear Justice Kavanaugh. It is some comfort to know I can empathize with how Justice Kavanaugh must have felt.

    Instead of a boycott, Judge Ho might instead use a litmus test to ferret out the frauds: “Are you committed to the free speech rights of all Americans? And you do understand, if you say yes and still engage in any advocacy for limiting the speech rights of others, you’re fired. Period. And that lie would be noted on your record. What say you?”

    One might argue that my litmus test is analogous to cancel culture, but free-speech advocacy is effectively agnostic about politics, so the analogy doesn’t hold.

    1. And yes, Anonymous, I am aware that Justice Kavanaugh went to Yale Law, but Yale graduates betrayed him like they’ll betray anybody over politics.

      I’m also aware that Judge Bork taught Hillary at Yale, but he didn’t teach her to be a crook. Alinsky did.

  18. Less about punishing yale and more about quality hiring. Woke acolytes aren’t just the bottom of the barrel, they’re what you find oozing out from beneath. You hire them to your own destruction. It’s like purposely injecting cancer cells into your body, or planting giant hogweed in your garden.

  19. Dear Prof. Turley.. I understand your logic here.. but believe we can expand it even further, into another dimension. By this boycott, and hopefully others to follow from other Judges, eventually enough students will finally become so po’d at themselves and the Faculty and School for allowing the erosion of Free Speech, that all will finally be pushed to wake up and see that promoting ‘wokeness’ is not the way to go, i.e., that what started out as ‘Classic University Liberalism’ has gotten way out of hand by being bullied into this new dangerous radical realm of anti-Americanism which now threatens our Constitution and indeed the core of what this Country stands for (..regardless of Political Party…). And that the ugly tide engulfing the school and all of us now will start receding and fading back into the ocean of Life where it will be safely diluted.. Judge Ho serves as a courageous modern-day Patrick Henry here..

Comments are closed.