There was an interesting complaint filed in New York yesterday in which a group of parents and educators sued New York Attorney General Letitia James over a letter viewed as threatening those who are raising transgender policies in public meetings. While the legal basis for the complaint is likely to be challenged as premature by the state, the lawsuit exposes an effort that seems clearly designed to chill such public discussions of transgender issues. The “guidance letter” warns school boards that discussing student trans issues at public meetings could violate the right to privacy for affected students and, if board members engage in such public discussions, “they may be removed” by state education officials.
The letter seems designed not only to threaten those who want to raise these policies, but also to offer cover for boards to cut off public debate. Few boards want to discuss the issue and we have seen heavy-handed tactics to cut off those who raise the policies.
The Southeastern Legal Foundation filed the lawsuit and faces considerable challenges in using a guidance letter as the basis for a lawsuit. James will argue that such letters are common and merely express how her office will interpret the law in these areas in light of questions from various boards.
It states:
“Board members may be removed by the commissioner of education if they, (1) violate the education law or another law ‘pertaining to [public] schools,’ including the state Human Rights Law; (2) willfully neglect their duties as public officers; or (3) willfully disobey a ‘decision, order, rule or regulation’ of the Regents or the commissioner of education.”
Putting aside the merits of the legal cause of action, the letter should raise free speech concerns. It seems designed to intimidate some who want to raise these policies while giving others support for shutting down debates. Polls show that the public is generally opposed to transgender policies on pronouns, sports, and bathroom access.
The letter emphasizes that free speech can be limited at these meetings:
“[u]nder the First Amendment, school board meetings are considered limited public fora. This means that school boards that allow public comment ‘may make reasonable, view-neutral rules governing the content of speech allowed,’ including prohibiting all comments on a particular topic that would have discriminatory, harassing, or bullying effects.”
James leaves the scope of what would be considered “discriminatory, harassing, or bullying effects” lingering without any clear definition. It is the same vagueness in standards that we have seen used in higher education where administrators have succeeded in getting students to self-censor to avoid the unknown lines of speech regulation.
In other words, the letter is giving these boards guidance on how to stop public debate in their meetings on issues that are currently unpopular and leading to rising opposition among parents and students. The timing of the letter before the midterm elections only magnifies suspicions that James is nudging boards to prohibit all comments on these divisive issues.
So, the desperate prog/left have retreated to their extreme base of freaks and illegals and will die on this hill?
OT
Leticia James is Miss America.
President Donald J. Trump is Mr. America.
I’m sorry, too close to meal time to try and envision letitia in a bikini….
The letter is clearly intended to remind board members to act as public officials and stay civil. It’s not a threat to remind them that rules still apply to them. The letter does not offer “cover” for boards to shut down public debate at all. That’s why Professor Turley has credibiity issues in the free speech department. This is just a dig at the AG because he can’t bring up the failed DOJ case against her or the embarrassing no-bill after trying to indict her again.
Maybe the Professor should analyze the series of mistakes made by insurance lawyer Halligan and her incompetence. He was definitely eager to criticize Comey and James to show how “corrupt” the left is. Unfortunately, it looks like none of the claims against them were ever true. Strange.
Speaking of putting a chill on speech and radical gender ideology .. . the FBI is making a list of who’s been naughty and nice.
“Attorney General Pam Bondi is ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism,” according to a Justice Department memo published here exclusively.
The target is those expressing “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; ,adherence to radical gender ideology ,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity.””
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/leak-fbi-list-of-extremists-is-coming
“compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism,”
Please note the key word ACTS.
You are free to speak as you wish. You may not ACT
The key word should be “may”. Not acts.
ATS – “may” is the equivalent of reasonable suspicion.
If you have reasonable suspicion that an individual or groups has committed ilegal ACTS, you meet the constitutional requirements to open an investigation.
“The letter is clearly intended to remind board members to act as public officials and stay civil. ”
False and NOT her job.
The AG is not the public board Nanny or Miss manners.
“It’s not a threat to remind them that rules still apply to them.”
There are no “rules” that Trump the first amendment.
You keep using the word “rules” as if it is a magic talisman that makes the first amendment moot.
” The letter does not offer “cover” for boards to shut down public debate at all. ”
Of course it does – otherwise it serves no purpose at all.
It is trivial to say – Schoolboards can not force teachers to publicly reveal the private communications of students.
That is the ONLY case in which there is a right to privacy that overcomes the first amendment.
It takes one sentence to say that – not 9 pages.
“That’s why Professor Turley has credibiity issues in the free speech department. ”
X = Turley is possibly the most credible first amendment attorney in the US today.
You have constantly proven clueless with regard to the first amndment – and are doing an excellent job of displaying your ignorance today.
“This is just a dig at the AG because”
She is a left wing tyrant.
“he can’t bring up the failed DOJ case against her or the embarrassing no-bill after trying to indict her again.”
Your arguments are Bizzare.
First the Halligan decision wll be overturned on appeal – I would suggest listening to the Oral Arguments yesterday on the FTC firing case because it is specifically about the conflicts between executive and legislative power.
EVERYONE – all the justices and both Advocates stated that the power to criminally investigate and prosecute is EXCLUSIVELY executive and presidential power. That is the most protected and exclusive executive power.
My GUESS is that the appeals court or SCOTUS remands the case because Currie and the other judges misread the law.
That is the simplest thing for the appeals courts to do.
But for those of you who actually think she got the law correct – which she did not and there is case law to confirm that.
The issue of consecutive 120 day appointments has been addressed by the courts before.
Regardless, The alternative to the appeals courts saying – Currie etc misread the law is to find the law in question unconstitutional.
There not going to do that – because they do not need to and courts tend NOT to make big decisions when they can accdomplish the same thing with little ones – that too was discussed int he FTC firing case.
“Maybe the Professor should analyze the series of mistakes made by insurance lawyer Halligan and her incompetence.”
What mistakes did Haligan make – the courts did not find Halligan made mistakes – that claim failed
The ruling in favor of James and Comey was that Bondi did not properly appoint Halligan.
That is judicial error, regardless it is a claim of error by Bondi – not Halligan.
Halligan got indictments of BOTH James and Comey.
The difficulty that DOJ is having reindicting them is proof of Halligans skill and Competence.
She succeeded.
“He was definitely eager to criticize Comey and James to show how “corrupt” the left is.”
The left is corrupt – but that is not the issue.
The issue is whether James and Comey committed crimes.
Which both inarguably did.
Nothing has changed that.
There is a world of difference between actually innocent and unprosecutable.
There are not CLAIMS against Comey and James – their crimes were committed openly and are visible to all in public records.
Obviously the claims are true.
The question is NOT did James or Comey commit crimes – it is merely whether they can be prosecuted for them.
The evidence of the corruption on the left is that you are still arguing for their actual innocence in the face of indisputable evidence.
John Say,
“ The letter is clearly intended to remind board members to act as public officials and stay civil. ”
False and NOT her job.”
Wrong, it is her job IF she’s received complaints. A reminder is not a threat.
“ The AG is not the public board Nanny or Miss manners.“
No, but she is the top law enforcement official in the state and she is obligated to remind board members of when they can be subject to criminal or civil violations.
“ It’s not a threat to remind them that rules still apply to them.”
There are no “rules” that Trump the first amendment.”
No, BUT there are rules that set limits such as time, place and MANNER. which is perfectly constitutional. If board members are making statements and epressing opposition to certain programs using deregatory or inflammatory rhetoric they CAN be subject to civility rules and conduct.
“ You keep using the word “rules” as if it is a magic talisman that makes the first amendment moot.“
You forget that rules CAN be used to limit speech since the first amendments freedom of speech guarantees are not absolute.
“ X = Turley is possibly the most credible first amendment attorney in the US today.”
ROFL! No, he’s not. It’s a fact he’s not always been right about his free speech claims. Sorry.
“ This is just a dig at the AG because”
She is a left wing tyrant.“
No, it’s because Professor Turley is being petty and needed something to enrage his MAGA readers. It is pretty obvious.
“ First the Halligan decision wll be overturned on appeal – I would suggest listening to the Oral Arguments yesterday on the FTC firing case because it is specifically about the conflicts between executive and legislative power.“
Nope, the DOJ will not win the appeal because the Halligan case is about an illegal appointment not firing the previous DA. Halligan’s illegal appointment is the least of the DOJ’s problems. They can’t even use Richmans evidence since they didn’t have a warrant. The fact that the DOJ was violating his 4th amendment rights in order to get the evidence they needed pretty much spells doom for the DOJ’s attempt to indict Comey.
“ EVERYONE – all the justices and both Advocates stated that the power to criminally investigate and prosecute is EXCLUSIVELY executive and presidential power. That is the most protected and exclusive executive power.
My GUESS is that the appeals court or SCOTUS remands the case because Currie and the other judges misread the law.”
Wow, you really don’t know how the law works. The power only works when they have probable cause and they follow required statutes, rules of evidence, and meet deadlines and file paperwork correctly all in order to ensure due process rights are maintained.
The DOJ did none of that right beginning with an illegal appointment, illegal use of evidence, incorrect grand jury procedure, and lack of probable cause. All that power is still dependent on following the law and the rules set in place to ensure proper due process and a fair trial.
“ What mistakes did Haligan make – the courts did not find Halligan made mistakes – that claim failed”
ROFL!! Everyone pointed out her mistakes. She signed two indictments while not showing the second one to the grand jury. That was a big mistake, even the judge caught it and asked why did he have two signed indictments with the same charges.
“ The ruling in favor of James and Comey was that Bondi did not properly appoint Halligan.
That is judicial error, regardless it is a claim of error by Bondi – not Halligan.”
Wrong again. Bondi Illegally appointed Halligan and she proved that when she retroactively appointed her as “special District attorney” AFTER she was illegally appointed by Bondi. That was no judicial error.
“ Halligan got indictments of BOTH James and Comey.
The difficulty that DOJ is having reindicting them is proof of Halligans skill and Competence.
She succeeded.“
John I know you could not be this stupid. Halligan never got an indictment for Comey. She never presented second indictment the grand jury and they never voted on it. There was no indictment at all.
The difficulty in re-indicting them is because they don’t have evidence against them. Halligan didn’t succeed at all. She completely messed up both cases because she’s incompetent. She had to have help from two borrowed AUSA’s because no true professional would touch these cases with her. It was THAT bad.
“ The issue is whether James and Comey committed crimes.
Which both inarguably did.”
LOL!! No they didn’t John. Neither committed a crime. The DOJ never had any evidence against them. Comey never lied. James never lied on her mortgage forms either. That is why the second try at an indictment ended up with a no-bill. Even the grand jury, the second one, was not convinced the evidence showed she was guilty.
Your sorry attempt to make sense of both cases fails because neither committed a crime and Trump’s DOJ is clearly incompetent.
“Wrong, it is her job IF she’s received complaints. A reminder is not a threat.”
Wrang – it is not her job. The AG is the states top PROSECUTOR.
They Prosecute crimes. They do not decide public policy.
There is no rational reason for the AG to offer “guidance” to school boards.
If the AG has received a complaint about illegal conduct – she should open a criminal investigation.
Otherwise it is NONE OF HER BUSINESS.
“she is the top law enforcement official in the state”
Correct.
“she is obligated to remind”
Nope, she is a prosecutor – not a nanny.
Prosecutors send messages by PROSECUTING.
“No, BUT there are rules that set limits such as time, place and MANNER. which is perfectly constitutional”
Correct and you completely misunderstand or misrepresent them.
First and most important – you can not use restrictions on Time place or manner to circumvent the first amendment.
“rules” that appear otherwise neutral that have the effect of chilling or supressing speech are unconstitutional.
You can not as an example impose a rule that you may only criticise School Board Policies on Sunday in the shower while standing on one foot.
That is a time place and manner restriction and it is unconstititional.
A rule is not constitutional because it is limited to time place and manner.
“If board members are making statements and epressing opposition to certain programs using deregatory or inflammatory rhetoric they CAN be subject to civility rules and conduct.”
Nope.
Further that should be OBVIOUS to you left wing nuts. Virtually all politicians express opposition to certain programs and do so in a derogatory or inflamatory way – Trump does it every single day and you rant about it so you can not pretend ignorance.
Any rule that prohibited him from making the remarks he makes – would be unconstitutional.
The rules you are saying that James seeks would be similarly unconstittuional.
Next as even YOU noted – James is the TOP PROSECUTOR. Any unsolicited communications you receive from the AG is going to be perceived correctly as a threat by anyone that is not a moron.
AG’s confiscate peoples property, they send people to jail.
“You forget that rules CAN be used to limit speech since the first amendments freedom of speech guarantees are not absolute.”
The first amendment is not absolute.
But it is far closer to it that YOU claim.
As James notes – a board meeting is a limited public forum. That has the 2nd highest degree of protection for speech.
In a limited public forum restrictions on speech for the purpose of maintaining an orderly proceeding are allowed.
That means that you can say – there will be 1 hour for public comment, each speaker will have 5 minutes, and speakers will speak in the order they signed up.
If the meeting is for a specific purpose you can limit speech to that purpose – if the meeting is the bid opening for a new gym – you can prohibit comments on the fall play.
At an ordinary school board meeting all comments related to any school related issue or policy must be allowed.
But you can restrict comments on the world cup finals.
Regardless, When the courts have said that ONLY time place and manner restrictions are allowed that does NOT mean that ALL time place and manner restrictions are allowed.
“It’s a fact he’s not always been right about his free speech claims.”
No one is always right – but some people – like you are always wrong.
Regardless, name an instance in which Turley has been wrong about Free Speech ?
Name an actual instance in which I have been wrong about free speech ?
Name an instance in which YOU have been right about free speech ?
“it’s because Professor Turley is being petty and needed something to enrage his MAGA readers. It is pretty obvious.”
Based on the comments here – there are as many left wing nuts that Read Turley and MAGA readers.
Regardless, why exactly is it that you think that enraging some group is Turley or anyone rationals desire ?
That is a tactic out of Alynsky’s “Rules for radicals” – while not the exclusive domain of the left it is very nearly so.
Further you clearly do not listen to Turely and your reading comprehension is poor.
Turley opposes the use of speech to enrage people. Not as a matter of law but as a matter of morality.
He speaks and writes calmly, with very little emotion.
That is pretty much the opposite of what you claim.
“Nope, the DOJ will not win the appeal because the Halligan case is about an illegal appointment not firing the previous DA. Halligan’s illegal appointment is the least of the DOJ’s problems.”
That is currey’s claim – and if she was actually right about the law – which she is not – then the law would be unconstitutional.
Actually the law – as applied to positions that require senate confirmation IS unconstitutional.
The appointments clause allows Congress to make some laws regarding the apointments of inferior officers of the united states – those that do not require senate confirmation. But the constraints on the appointments of officers of the united states – those that must be confirmed by the senate are in the constitution, This is because Congress has a voice in those appointments when it confirms o rejects those nominees. There is absolutely no role for either congress or the judiciary int he appointment of officers of the united states that require Senate confirmation – because Senate confirmation IS the restriction. The constitution has provisions for acting appointments and recess appointments – those are by the president.
Again I would suggest listening to the oral arguments on Trump firing the FTC commissioner. While I do not think the Justices were deliberately trying to telegraph the results of Trump’s appeal as it hits the supreme court, they did make it clar that the presidents Executive powers are at their appogee in the area of criminal law enforcement. That is the area that the president has the greatest power to hire and fire, and congress has the least power to oversee the executive or to make laws controlling the prosecutorial power of the executive – and just to be clear it is also the area where the judiciary has the least power over the executive.
Currey and the left has several major powers on appeal
The test of the appointments clause specific to officers of the united states do not provide any role for the judiciary, nor a role for congress aside from confirmation.
Constitutionally the presidents power of appointment and terminations is HIGHEST for “officers of the united states” and declines as the positions become less significant. Congress can make laws – such as the civil service law regarding ordinary federal employees.
It has SOME power to make laws – constrained by the text of the appointments clause for “inferior officers of the united states”
I personally think that is an error in the constitution – but it says what it says and we must follow it or change it.
With respect to officers of the united states – all the rules are in the text of the constitution.
The text of the law and the legislative history are also a problem.
You also have a major problem in that Judge Curries interpretation has the side effect of thwarting multiple otherwise valid criminal prosecutions. Habba had her 120 days. She has not been confirmed by the Senate. Everything she did during that 120 days is perfectly valid – no judge is trying to throw out her actions. But he 120 days is up and the only way she can remain or return in the position is to be confirmed by the Senate. But Trump can appoint someone else to an acting position in her stead and while it is possible that left wing nut lower courts may thwart that, the Supreme court is NOT going to decide that after the first 120 days the president looses the power to fill a a officer of the united states position if the Senate does not confirm someone.
SCOTUS is not going to buy that key administrative positions must remain vacant – particularly prosecutorial positions, or that they can be filled exclusively by unelected judges hostile to the elected presidents policies. That is just not going to happen.
And it is especially not going to happen for criminal prosecutors.
” They can’t even use Richmans evidence since they didn’t have a warrant.”
Yes, they did have a warrant – further Comey publicly waived priviledge – The judge who issued the TRO on that is going to be laughed at by the appeals courts. That was an exparte TRO – that is a violation of so many judicial rules it is not funny.
Regardless, DOJ had a warrant. Richman sought a TRO to get the evidence Returned since there is no longer an indictment and a prosecution. The judge idiotically granted it – but for a very very very long list of reasons it will be overturned.
But for the idiotic sake of argument, lets assume Richman somehow wins – DOJ just issues a new supeona or warrant.
And if Richman destroys the material in the breif period DOJ does not have control he is prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
“The fact that the DOJ was violating his 4th amendment rights in order to get the evidence they needed pretty much spells doom for the DOJ’s attempt to indict Comey.”
If that were true – you would be correct – but it is not. Richman has NOT claimed the evidence was obtained illegally.
He is trying to claim that because the case was dismissed he is entitled to it back. He would be correct if there was no appeal or if the final appeal was decided. But that is not the case.
I would further note that Richman filed a civil action in a criminal case and there is long standing law that you can not use civil actions to thwart criminal prosecutions.
Further Richmans civil lawsuit is for the return of property – but the evidence he is after is NOT real property. Real Property is objects of value. Richman essentially admits this in his motion – because he does not want the emails back – he wants all copies that DOJ has destroyed. Richman is atempting to use a civil actions to accomplish a criminal motion to supress.
Richman does not have standing to file a motion to supress – that would have to come from Comey.
This is a stupid effort to try to game the system using a stupid judge – and it will fail likely quickly
DOJ has already filed a motion for reconsideration – which MUST be granted – because the judge issued an illegal exparte TRO.
Frankly he will be very lucky to be allowed to remain on the case.
There are very very very few things a judge can do exparte – and accepting and ruling on a TRO is not one of those.
“Wow, you really don’t know how the law works. The power only works when they have probable cause and they follow required statutes, rules of evidence, and meet deadlines and file paperwork correctly all in order to ensure due process rights are maintained.”
It would help greatly if you could write coherently. I am presuming your remark is about the Richman TRO.
If so then it is YOU that does not understand the law or the facts.
The evidence against Comey was legally obtained – there are properly issued warrants.
Comey is free to file a motion to supress if he wishes – that is the correct motion in a criminal case to supress allegedly illegally obtained evidence. But Comey has NOT filed a motion to supress and he would lose it if he did.
Richman has filed a Civil Lawsuit – the FORM of the lawsuit is an action to recover property in govenrment possession. This is SOMETIMES done to return “evidence” to its rightful owners AFTER the criminal prosecution has run all the way to its final conclusion.
It applies ONLY to real property – objects not information. And ONLY where the property is the legitimate legal propertty of the person filing the request. You can not as an example file a civil suit to get your meth back if the Government fails to successfully prosecute you for possessing the Meth.
The transparent purpose of the lawsuit is to preclude DOJ from being able to use the evidence to reindict Comey.
Regardless your claims that Comey’s constitutional rights were violated or that the evidence was illegally obtained are not only bogus – but that is not even what Richman claimed.
“The DOJ did none of that right beginning with an illegal appointment, illegal use of evidence, incorrect grand jury procedure, and lack of probable cause.”
And you are clearly unfamiliar with the actuial facts – not even the allegedly favorable rulings you have cited.
No one has filed a motion to supress evidence in the Comey case – NO ONE has challenged the Warrants in court. No one has gone to court to challenge the probable cause for the warrants. Curries order regarding Halligan which will be overturned did NOT preclude DOJ from reindicting. There is no actual finding of malfeasance on the part of DOJ.
“All that power is still dependent on following the law and the rules set in place to ensure proper due process and a fair trial.”
Your are mostly correct – aside from completely misunderstanding the actual facts and the actual cases and decisions that you think means things they do not.
Curries decision has been appealed and will be reversed.
The Richman TRO will either fail on reconsideration or be revoked on appeal – and even if by some incredible miracle it was not revoked.
It would be at most a speedbump. Contra your claim the evidence WAS legally obtained and can be legally obtained again.
And Richman can not destroy it without being guilty of obstruction of justice.
” She signed two indictments while not showing the second one to the grand jury.”
Nope – There is a written Transcript and an audio of all of that and you are incorrect.
That was another Fake news bit foist on a Federal Judge – not even by the defense, but by a Rogue Magistrate, and that idiotic claim has died.
“That was a big mistake, even the judge caught it and asked why did he have two signed indictments with the same charges.”
Wrong on the facts. The transcript for all of this is available – please go read it before spraying idiotic nonsense conspricay theories that have been debunked.
A Magistrate judge did make some stupid claims that proved false and a Federal Judge said some very very stupid things in a hearing that areee unbeleivably inappropriate – but DOJ provided the ENTIRE Record and that contradicts everything you claim.
“Bondi Illegally appointed Halligan”
That is the claim – and even if true it is not an error on Haligan’s part – I asked you for evidence that Haligan was incompetent.
“she proved that when she retroactively appointed her as “special District attorney” ”
Again wrong on the facts. Halligan remains a special District attorney.
Was Bondi’s separate appointment an effort to shore up the indictment – possibly. But it is not improper to appoint Halligan as a Special District Attorney or to try to shore up the indictment.
Currey concluded that appointing Halligan as a special district attorney did NOT solve the problem with the indictiment, and I beleive she is correct on that. What she is incorrect on is the original appointment.
“AFTER she was illegally appointed by Bondi. That was no judicial error.”
X – how many of these rulings against Trump have survived on appeal ?
Can you name ONE ?
You say there is no judicial error – but the Surpeme court has in about two dozen decisions in the past year found judicial error in more than 100 lower court rulings against Trump.
Trump causes left wing nut judges to lose their integrity and objectivity.
Currie will be overturned – just like the 100+ other anti-trump decisions.
As will the ichman decison – albeit even more quickly.
“John I know you could not be this stupid.”
I am not – that would be you.
” Halligan never got an indictment for Comey. She never presented second indictment the grand jury and they never voted on it. There was no indictment at all.”
Again X – please go read the transcripts YOU ARE WRONG. You are just echoing fake news and the rantings of a Judge that backed down quietly after DOJ proved him wrong.
I provided links to the actual transcripts – the COMPLETE ones.
I would further note there ios an affadavit from the attorney’s involved,
From the GJ forman, and from the Magistrate Judge that ran the GJ that contradict this idiotic claim.
X you are echoing ill informed left wing media talking points – not actual facts or rulings.
Most of the time the claims you make are OBVIOUSLY absurd.
You say the evidence against Comey was “illegally obtained”
Richman is an attorney. The evidence in question came from him.
Can you link to the story where Trump’s “plumbers” broke into his offices and stole his emails ?
Where a SWAT team raided his offices without a Warrant and took the emails ?
How did DOJ get these emails illegally ? Richman was NOT going to hand them over without a warrant.
If you bother to read the actual legal filings – there is no dispute there was a warrant. Nor has Comey challenged the Warrant.
And ONLY the defendant can seek to have evidence supressed and ONLY during the course of the trial.
Next you claim some idiotic nonsense about there is two indictments but really none or some bizzaro claim that makes no sense.
I can tell you EXACTLY what happened – because I have read the transcrtipts – but I linked to them weeks ago and you can go find them yourself and read them.
But in Truth like this nonsense abotu illegally obtained evidence, you should be able to figure out the stupid claims regarding the indictment are FALSE.
HOW ? That is easy – If your claim was true – the magistrate judge that ran the GJ as well as the members of the GJ would have backed up this idiotic claim under oath.
Further – not only does the DJ forman and the US attorney sign off on an indictment – but the GJ magistrate judge does.
Are you claiming that Halligan forged a Magistrate Judges signature ?
You idiots on the left are completely devoid of the ability to think Critically.
You rant about due process – but you are clueless about ALL the elements of Due process.
An attorney is not turning over records without a warrant – yet your looney claim requires not only that he did, but that he waited until now to object.
A magistrate Judge is not signing off on an indictment unless the proper process has been followed.
The transcript that you have at best cherry picked a few clauses from has the Judge doing what Judges do and going through an entire colloquy with the GJ Foreman and Halligan before the Magistrate Judge signs off on the Indictment.
Due process is not just a set of rules that must be followed – it is a massive amount of documentation that proves step by step that the rules were followed.
Attorneys do not turn over evidence without properly produced warrants.
Magistrate judges do not sign off on GJ indictments without verifying that the correct processes were followed.
In the past 10 years we have ONE instance in which we have documented a lie or falsification of a warrant – and that was Klinesmiths alteration fo the email from CIA that said that Cater Page was a CIA asset to change it to say that he was NOT.
And more recently we have ONE instance were a judge blindly singed warrants without verifying that they were lawful – and that was Judge Boasberg’s signoff on the Arctic Frost Warrants.
Due process is not something that is the subject of oppinon. A DA can not go to court and say – Yes there was a warrant for this search, But I did not bother to put it in writing and the judge granted the warrant purely orally.
Real documents exist to prove every little bit of the requirements of due process.
We almost never have claims that there was improper due process in the course of ordinary criminal prosecutions.
Claims – particularly successful claims occur under extra-ordinary circumstances.
When the police gather evidence when they come to an actual crime scene, or when the crime happens right in front of them.
From CNN
“Federal investigators first gathered evidence related to Comey and Richman years ago, getting warrants to access Richman’s iCloud account, digital devices and work email at Columbia University, where he is a law professor.”
Is CNN lying – did FBI not get warrants ?
Is is possible for you to ever stop lying ?
“ James leaves the scope of what would be considered “discriminatory, harassing, or bullying effects” lingering without any clear definition. It is the same vagueness in standards that we have seen used in higher education where administrators have succeeded in getting students to self-censor to avoid the unknown lines of speech regulation.”
Translation: AG James is did not give us the courtesy of defining exactly what she meant so that we could excoriate her for violating the 1st amendment.
Does Professor Turley think so little of board members not being able to figure out for themselves that certain rhetoric,comments, and conduct is….uncivil, perhaps unbecoming a public servant?
How awful it must be that people should be able to figure things out for themselves without being told exactly to the “t” what would define bad conduct or inappropratiate speech. Damn, those civility rules, right?
Actually, James, under the 1st Amendment and Supreme Court case law, infra, must define “exactly what she meant” and board members do not get to “figure out for themselves that certain rhetoric, comments, and conduct is…uncivil, perhaps unbecoming of a civil servants….”
Coates v. City of Cincinnati (1971): Struck down an ordinance banning sidewalk assemblies that were “annoying to persons passing by,” finding it unconstitutionally vague because “annoying” is subjective and lacks clear standards, allowing for discriminatory enforcement.
Smith v. Goguen (1974): Voided a Massachusetts law prohibiting “contemptuous” treatment of the flag, as “contemptuous” wasn’t clearly defined, failing to give people fair notice of prohibited conduct.
Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967): Invalidated New York’s laws targeting “subversive” teachers, broadening First Amendment protections and highlighting vagueness issues in loyalty oath statutes.
Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie (2000): While upholding an adult entertainment zoning ordinance, the Court stressed that regulations must not be vague or overbroad, even when content-neutral.
Your comment is irrational, unsubstantiated by the law, supra, ignorant, and obviously you are no lawyer. I hope they are paying you enough that you don’t mind sounding legally ignorant on a legal blog.
If school board members could resolve the issues themselves – then no guidance would be necessary
YOUR argument is proof that James letter is to direct School Boards with respect to something that was either NOT obvious or with respect to how to circumvent what was OBVIOUSLY a first amendment right.
John Say, nope. The AG can remind board members of certain rules and laws. The Texas AG does it all the time to Texas school officials.
Paxton has sent letters to 3 school districts directing them to stop violating election laws.
That is not reminding them vaguely of laws and rules and making things up about the first amendment.
It is a clear THREAT to prosecute if you do not follow the LAW.
AG’s enforce LAWS – not whatever wierdity you think are “rules”
Unsolicited Letters from AG’s are at the weakest implied threats of prosection.
More often they are overt threats of prosecution.
That is the AG’s job when the law is being violated.
But an AG that threatens a criminal prosecution – even implicityly – that rests on unconstitutional violation of the first amendment is violating the law and constitution.
TX AG Paxton’s letters to school districts ARE just as James – a THREAT of prosecution.
That is perfectly appropriate if there is reasonable suspcion of a crime.
In fact it is their job.
What is the Crime that AG James has reasonable suspicion of here ?
“How awful it must be that people should be able to figure things out for themselves without being told exactly to the “t” what would define bad conduct or inappropratiate speech. ”
Absolutely – as YOU note – School Boards can navigate the First Amendment constraints on their actions themselves – they do not NEED james guidance. Therefore the only purpose James guidenace can serve is to evade complying with the first amendment.
In a conflict between free speech and govenrment imposed civility rules – Free speech always wins.
Letitiia should be frying chicken in the State prison kitchen
*. End times- it’s what is left after the rapture. You’re here, too. Disease, famine most likely nukes… 20% will be left. It’s attributable to low IQ and those unable to recognize murder. They focus on motive.
Rabies kidney donations? Lots of money if they hadn’t been caught.
Merry Christmas and thanks AI and ITs creator.
*. PT or anyone, link to the letter, please.
Thank you
In other words, the letter is giving these boards guidance on how to run their meetings by implementing civility rules and clarifying what behavior is unacceptable. Parents are still free to oppose and express their views. What they cannot do is engage in derogatory or inflammatory rhetoric that is unrelated to policies. Parents can still raise concerns about LGBTQ and transgender students as long as they do so respectfully and civilly AND respect the privacy of students. That’s reasonable. Professor Turley consistently emphasizes this point when discussing protests and opposing public speakers. Ironically, Turley’s civility rules explicitly state that overtly racist comments will be removed. How is that not a violation of free speech?
The Democrats have finally learned it was inappropriate to suggest Sen. Lindsey Graham is secretly gay. ..
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j0k3Yh-U-nA
Who cares….
You must have issues dg
Major issues dude .. .
A song is the best restore you have dg?
Shame-full
Did you read the article? You comment makes clear you either 1) didn’t read it, or 2) didn’t understand it. Or I guess you just haven’t taken the time to follow nationwide school board meetings the last 5 years (we don’t need to mention how Biden’s FBI said those who spoke against the agenda were domestic terrorists).
Turley clearly states that this is a letter than can be used as political cover. They are very common. A suit would be difficult if not impossible. The troubling part is the timing and content of the letter.
I will say your regular ignorance is appreciated. It simply reinforces the logic and reason that clearly evades you.
Cheers!
The problem is that far too often these suggestions give the boards cover to interpret civility rules in such a way that any criticism, no matter how mild, of a trans or lgbt policy as automatically derogatory, harassment, or bullying. I remember when a parent displayed a pro-lgbt book obtained from a school library to criticise it. The complainant was ejected for displaying obscene pornography in a school board meeting. (The book continued to remain available to children in the library, of course)
The left also uses pronouns, for instance, to implement this. If you don’t agree with the pronoun policy, they automatically consider that derogatory and thus eject you and your opinion.
If you complain about a male in the female locker room, you have violated the derogatory/harassment policy, because they have declared the male student to be female. Any disagreement is misgendering, and therefore is automatically uncivil.
Injury does not have to occur first. New York has a declaratory judgments act. This seems like a prime candidate to seek a declaratory judgment. The problem is, will you get a left wing-nut judge like in NYC? Maybe sue in the saner precincts of NY State.
Oldmanfromkansas,
NY Courts can only render a declaratory judgment if there is a real, immediate, and substantial dispute between parties with genuinely adverse legal interests. Courts cannot provide merely advisory opinions.
This guidance letter issue does not meet the requirments for a declaratory judgement. Good point though.
It seems to me that people who want to speak at school board meetings, whose speech is likely to be shut down under the guidance letter, could meet that description.
But can you cite a NY statutory provision or judicial decision to back up the standard you gave?
“NY Courts can only render a declaratory judgment if there is a real, immediate, and substantial dispute between parties with genuinely adverse legal interests.”
Violating constitutional rights ALWAYS meets that requiremnt.
“Courts cannot provide merely advisory opinions.”
This guidance is revoked because it violates the first amendment is not advisory.
“This guidance letter issue does not meet the requirments for a declaratory judgement. ”
Again violating constitutional rights ALWAYS meets the requirements.
The guidance letter is 9 pages long and it details why some speech AND conduct will not be allowed. It’s essentially setting expectations and civility rules which are perfectly fine. That is not anti-free speech or seeking to silence those parents and educators. They are telling everyone that inflammatory remarks and conduct will not be allowed. They are telling everyone that civility will be enforced. A concept Professor Turley understands fully. Painting this as some attempt to silence parents is pretty disingenuous. Even in the letter it says parents wanting to discuss these topics are welcome to do so, but warn against using rhetoric that is inflammatory or denigrating. It’s talking about making sure discussions remain civil.
“It details why some speech…will not be allowed” followed by “that is not anti-free speech”. This is the level of discourse that one must devolve to in order to be Mr. Opposite. Pretzel Man is making a fool of himself defending the indefensible again.
Professor Turley is like a religious fanatic when it comes to free speech, sometimes going even further than I would go, but to argue that the ATTORNEY GENERAL of a state can offer a paper that “details why some speech will not be allowed” is just a blatant attack on the First Amendment and only a contrarian weirdo would argue in support of her.
Hullbobby, wrong again. Speech CAN be limited in public hearings.
The letter is NOT saying parents cannot bring up LGBTQ or transgender issues. Turley is insinuating it by omitting the fact that the letter makes a point of allowing parents to raise those issues. What they are NOT allowed to do is engage in inflammatory rhetoric, denigration, and outing students by mentioning them by name. The letter is literally telling boards that they CAN enforce civility rules on parents or educators who wish to raise those issues. That is perfectly legal. Turley supports this kind of speech control ALL THE TIME. Even when students protest at campuses, he emphasizes the importance of engaging in protests… civilly, and schools are perfectly within their rights to demand or enforce it.
Ensuring civility is maintained does NOT prevent those parents or educators from bringing up LGBTQ or transgender issues at these meetings. They are still allowed to bring them up and express opposition to any program or policy, as long as they do so civilly and respectfully.
Turley is just using this letter as a dig against the AG because he cannot bring up the DOJ case, and the fact that Trump’s DOJ is so incompetent. So this is the most he can do to issue a dig against the AG for an “anti-free speech attack” against these parents and educators. It’s not even close to that.
This article is designed with your ignorance in mind. So you can get enraged about the left and the AG, and you are gobbling it up like a glutton.
Again, NOTHING in the letter states these parents are prohibited from bringing up opposition, criticism, or complaints about LGBTQ and Transgender issues. What they cannot do is engage in inflammatory, derogatory rhetoric or violate student privacy by outing them by name. Having a public meeting does not mean it’s a free-for-all. Even Turley knows that enforcing civility rules and conduct is perfectly constitutional with plenty of precedent.
You cannot stop yourself can you? No one is enraged. This is a purely political act (as mentioned in the article) to limit speech. The ill-defined guidance can be interpreted however the listener wants. So speech can be limited while hiding behind this letter. It will then take a Court to rule on it. At that point the speech has already been quashed.
It has been happening for years. A simple google search shows it is the norm, not the exception.
X, just get better at logic. Perhaps even educate yourself. None of what you wrote is attached to any rational thought or current reality. A for effort I guess…
Cheers!
george
Hullbobby, wrong again. Speech CAN be limited in public hearings.
___________________________
Yet, as usual. You fail to post what speech you are talking about.
“Speech CAN be limited in public hearings.”
False, SOME speech can be limited.
“The letter is NOT saying parents cannot bring up LGBTQ or transgender issues. ”
So say you.
It is clear this is an effort by James to offer school boards a way to avoid adressing Trans policies and issues entirely.
But even if the objective is merely to control how they are presented – that violates the first amendment.
As an example requiring that you refer to people by their prefered pronouns or by their chosen gender – is compelled speech and that is the most egregious violation of the first amendement – but those of you on the left think that is perfectly acceptable under the cover of “Civility”.
In a limited public forum government can have neutral civility rules – but ONLY if those allegedly nuetral rules do not themselves violate the first amendment. Compelled speech ALWAYS violates the first amendment. Restricted speech violates the first ammendment 99.999% of the time.
Contra your claim – Inflamatory speech can not be barred.
Non-Government speakers are permitted by the first amendment to offend you, to attempt to inflame you.
“What they are NOT allowed to do is engage in inflammatory rhetoric, denigration, and outing students by mentioning them by name. ”
And each of those is a violation of the first amendment.
And you are either too stupid to get that or a liar.
I find this outing nonsense particulrly bizzarre. People likely have a 4th amendment right to privacy in their sexual orientation – but only if they do not choose to make it public. Once you share something with others – you no longer have a right to privacy in that.
Further there is no right to privacy in your hair color or your sex, as an example. Nor do you have a right to privacy in your “gender” – if we accept that as distinct from sex and pretend that it is something you can choose, unless you keep your “gender” secret.
There is a right of privacy in how you present yourself at home. There is no right to privacy in how you present yourself in public – such as at school.
Put more simply – you do not have the right to control who is allowed to know something about you.
The moment you share anything with others – you have outed yourself.
You can HOPE that those you have told will not share what you have told them.
But you can not control information you have shared with others.
I also find your claim that students might be “outed” as hillarious.
The entire claim regarding Trans is that you have a RIGHT to present yourself publicly different from what you are biologically.
BTW I dully support that right. I do not care if you wish to publicly present yourself as a Dolphin
Nor do I care if others choose to call you a dingbat for doing so.
There is no right not to be insulted for the choices you make.
Regardless the core to the concept of Tran sexuality is about publicly presenting yourself.
Trans sexuality is NOT about private sexual conduct. As the LGBTQ+ community demands the rest of us accept – Trans is not gay. It is independent of sexual orientation.
Homosexuality is about something private – orientation.
Trans sexuality is specifically about how your present publicly. If you are a closeted Trans – your not Trans.
You can not out someone who is trans – and if you did – arguably you are supporting them.
“The letter is literally telling boards that they CAN enforce civility rules on parents or educators who wish to raise those issues. ”
And those rules MUST also meet the requirements of the first amendment.
They can NOT compel speech.
They can not require conforming to a veiwpoint.
The rules must be viewpoint neutral
and they must not be a pretext for censorship masquerading as neutral.
YOU specifically say that inflamatory language can be barred.
But Government can NOT bar inflamatory language without violating the first amendment.
“That is perfectly legal.”
It is NOT and you have been told that every single time you argue this nonsense that somehow you are allowed to restrict free speech.
You have made these arguments over and over.
You have been presented with case law – including numerous supreme court decisions demonstrating that you are wrong.
“Turley supports this kind of speech control ALL THE TIME.”
Only in private contexts – like his blog.
Private schools can do as James wishes – though James can not ask them to do so.
Private actors are only required to conform to the first amendment if they are govenrment actors.
As an example they are receiving money from government.
” Even when students protest at campuses, he emphasizes the importance of engaging in protests… civilly, and schools are perfectly within their rights to demand or enforce it.”
When civility means not violent – you are correct.
When civility means constrained speech you are wrong.
Nearly all of the country outside the wing nut left was offended by the protests on college campuses supporting Hamas terrorists and slandering Jews. But to the extent those protests remained non-violent and limited solely to inflamatory and uncivil speech or inflamatory but non-violent conduct most of us held our noses and defended the right of those protesting to do so.
It is when those protests violated the rights of others. When they seized and destroyed property. When they employed violence against other students – particularly jews and when they used illegal activities to attempt to extort colleges that we supported actual sanctions against rioters.
“Ensuring civility is maintained does NOT prevent those parents or educators from bringing up LGBTQ or transgender issues at these meetings. ”
Not True and also not the first amendment standard.
The first amendment protects us from idiots like you who try to say – you can speak about whatever you wish – but only in our approved language.
“They are still allowed to bring them up and express opposition to any program or policy, as long as they do so civilly and respectfully.”
I have already repeatedly addressed your idiocy about civility – when rules on civility run into the first amendment the first amendment wins.
Respect is entirely different. You can not require respect – respect is not something ANYONE is entitled to.
Respect is something you earn.
John Say, the 1st amendment is not absolute. You continue to treat it as such because you don’t get it. School boards CAN enforce civility rules. Speech can be limited by time, place, and manner.
Board members are not exempt.
“John Say, the 1st amendment is not absolute. You continue to treat it as such because you don’t get it. School boards CAN enforce civility rules. Speech can be limited by time, place, and manner.”
[citation needed]
“the 1st amendment is not absolute.”
Correct – but the bar the government must meet to infringe on it is incredibly high.
And you do not get that.
” School boards CAN enforce civility rules.”
Again – if “civility means – rules restricting actual violence – absolutely.
If civility means controlling the language used to discuss an issue – ABSOLUTELY NOT
“Speech can be limited by time, place, and manner.”
FALSE, SOME Time place and manner restrictions stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
I have provided examples repeatedly
ALL Time place and manner restrictions are not constitutional.
I gave you a reductio ad absurdem example – limiting speech to sunday’s acter minnight in the shower standing on 1 foot is not constitutional – that means that ALL time place and manner restrictions are NOT constitutional.
Only SOME are.
“Board members are not exempt.”
More accurately Board members and other public figures and elected officials has the same free speech rights as everyone else.
George Svelaz completely missed the boat, fell in the water, and is totally wet. The Attorney General’s authority is to enforce the law, not to create it. When the AG applies pressure or intimidation without a legal basis, the AG is acting outside that authority. Such conduct is improper and potentially unlawful.
Religious schools are by their nature exempt from James’ law? People will flee public education until only the disadvantaged remain. The upper 50% fled long ago.
DJT is importing 86, 000 east Indians who understand math, physics etc. He had to.
The actual number of genetic trans disorders is very rare. It’s a very serious problem for those people and should be treated with compassion. IMO.
Hey X, the letter from the AG was directed at members of school boards, not the speakers or the parents. It threatened removal of a school board member from a school board for allowing proscribed speech, as defined by the AG, at public school board meetings. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that school board members, to avoid their removal, will be inordinately strict with regard to what topics and speech they will not permit at school board meetings.
Vicente, you’re right. However, the main point still is that school board members are expected to follow civility rules that also apply to everyone. Apparently, some school board members have been making derogatory comments, encouraging parents to be nasty, allowing inflammatory rhetoric, and violating students’ privacy.
Again, nothing in the letter is telling board members to avoid discussing LGBTQ or transgender issues. What it *is* telling them is that there are civility rules they must follow because they are public officials expected to conduct themselves and express opposition to policies or programs in a respectful manner.
Nothing about that is unconstitutional or a violation of their free speech rights. Professor Turley always points out that there are limits to free speech that the government can impose, such as time, place, and manner restrictions. In this letter, the AG is reminding board members that they are still bound by civility rules as public officials and are expected to behave accordingly. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Because as been repeatedly seen, for the most part school board members are notoriously squid-like and spineless. In response to this “guidance letter” they will more likely than not over overcompensate and preclude speech that would, were they to allow it, threaten their removal. Where is the AG’s guidance about the consequences to school board members were they to prevent speech that is permitted at school board meetings, or is that too difficult a concept for you?
“the main point still is that school board members are expected to follow civility rules that also apply to everyone.”
No X, the point is that School board members are expected to impose constraints on the speech of others.
Regardless, you are both totally unfamiliar with the first amendment and lggically challenged.
A rule that applies to everyone is NOT inherently not a violation of the first amendment.
Would a rule requiring everyone to call Trump – “your highness” be constitutional ?
Of course not.
Rules requiring the specific language to be used for Trans people – or anyone else would violate the first amendment.
“Apparently”
I.e. I just made this up. Which is typical of the left.
“some school board members have been making derogatory comments, encouraging parents to be nasty, allowing inflammatory rhetoric, and violating students’ privacy.”
It is virtually impossible for a school board member to violate a students privacy. There is no right to privacy in public conduct – School is public. A students only right to privacy with respect to government would be remarks made in private outside the classroom to teachers.
And even there – there is no right to privacy for a minor from their parents.
X – your civility nonsense has been dispensed with long ago.
You can not use civility rules to game the first amendment.
You also can not require people to be respectful.
You do not seem to grasp that the first amendment does not exist to protect civil respectful or noninflammatory speech.
It exists to protect uncivil, disrespectful and inflammatory speech.
It exists to prevent government from engaging in creative ways to restrict speech.
It exists SPECIFICALLY to prevent all the things that you think are OK.
The first amendment exists to prevent EXACTLY the kind of restrictions you are seeking to impose.
“What it *is* telling them is that there are civility rules they must follow because they are public officials expected to conduct themselves and express opposition to policies or programs in a respectful manner.”
And that is unconstitutionl.
“Nothing about that is unconstitutional or a violation of their free speech rights.”:
Of course it is, it is just as unconstitutional as saying you can not burn flags.
John Say, your long running rants are pure nonsense.
AG James’ guidance letter is no different than what Texas AG Paxton does on a daily basis, warning school boards about engaging in DEI discussions. NY has anti-LGBTQ and Transgender discrimination laws just as Texas has anti-DEI laws. AG Paxton is always reminding school boards of the law. AG James is doing the same.
The guidance letter IS reminding school board members that there are rules and the law which they are bound to follow. None of that is a violation of their 1st amendment rights. Sorry, but you’re still wrong.
You keep using “civility” as a 1984 newspeak term to try to hide the fact that you are trying to restrict speech.
Sorry – does not work.
Your meaning of civility violates the first amendment.
Absolutely school boards can have civility rules THAT DO NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
I would separately note that – School Boards can have Rules regarding speech at School Board meeetings – so long as those rules do not violate the first amendment.
But the STATE can not. States have LAWS – James does not enforce Rules – she enforces LAWS.
A rule would be – each speaker has 5 minutes, there is 1 hr for public commment. Comments must be on subjects relevant to the school, and speakers speak in the order they signed up.
There are no state laws to that effect, and the local rules are NOT James business.
Regardless James does not enforce local rules, civility rules,.
She enforces LAWS.
What NY law is she enforcing ?
Again local rules are NOT her business.
Turley says the rules are vsgue while X says the rules are precise. I’m going to take the professor’s word over an anonymous internet poster’s.
“The guidance letter is 9 pages long ”
When you take 9 pages to say something that takes 1 sentence – obviously you are trying to go way beyond what you can legitimately.
“it details why some speech”
There is very little speech that can be barred by government at a public school board meeting.
“conduct will not be allowed.”
Some rules regarding conduct are allowable – but even some conduct has first amendment protections.
YOU constantly evade What speech and what Conduct James is recomending to ban.
YOU do that because identifying the speech or conduct makes it clear that you are violating first amendment rights.
“It’s essentially setting expectations and civility rules which are perfectly fine.”
Again – you make vague and broad statement, that are false – specifically because they are vague and broad – which is the entire point here.
Expectations and civility rules are NOT “perfectly fine”, Rules that abridge first amendment rights are NOT fine.
James is not advising these boards to have rules barring putting bubble gum under chairs.
“That is not anti-free speech or seeking to silence those parents and educators.”
If that were true – then school boards would not need the vague guidance that you claim is so obvious as to be unnecescary.
Eitehr school boards are smart enough they do not need guidance, or the absence of direction to protect the first amendment is evidence the purpose is to thwart first amendment rights.
” They are telling everyone that inflammatory remarks and conduct will not be allowed. ”
And that violates the first amendment.
The domain of speech that can be prohibited by govenrment is far more limited than “inflammatory”
Burning flags is “inflamatory” – it is also protected.
“They are telling everyone that civility will be enforced. ”
And that violates the first amendment.
“A concept Professor Turley understands fully.”
Private actors not being directed by govenrment are free to have whatever rules they want.
Turley can require that all posters on this blog Start their posts with “To his satanic majesty”
” Painting this as some attempt to silence parents is pretty disingenuous. ”
X – everyone – including YOU know that is exactly what it is.
Will the Voters of New York ever rid us of this troublesome (and malignant) AG?
She reminds me of Reinhard Heydrich.
GEB, the man with the iron heart.
Oh geez. Really, Professor? Sigh. It’s amusing that the professor chose to bring up this issue knowing full well the lawsuit is likely to fail for obvious reasons to him, but not to MAGA readers. The article, as usual, seems designed to foment ire and rage among the MAGA faithful and social conservatives.
Professor Turley admitted this is a guidance letter, but by putting it in quotation marks implying it’s not a genuine guidance letter he wants his readers to assume it’s about an attempt at denying free speech to those parents and educators. This is the same tactic that was employed by that student in Oklahoma claiming the essay she wrote as part of an assignment was singled out for a bad grade from a trans professor because she was a Christian. Turns out her essay was atrocious and nowhere near good enough to pass as good essay. She deliberately created the situation gain attention and have the professor fired. Her attempt at making a scene brought her derision and mockery for her awful essay and students at the Oklahoma University rallied around the professor. These kinds of baiting tactics are all too common among conservatives looking for an excuse to play victim and gain sympathy with manufactured incidents as part of culture wars.
This lawsuit seems like just another one, but Professor Turley seeing skeptical about the chances of success nevertheless proceeds to push the assumption that there is a “legitimate” attempt to silence these parents and educators.
There are legitimate reasons for limiting discussions in these meetings. There are genuine privacy concerns to be considered, especially when there may be just one or two trans students or faculty that may be outed or targeted.
Gotta give Professor Turley some credit for at least trying make hay out of this issue while ignoring the collapse of the case against AG Letitia James by the DOJ. Perhaps he should revisit the case and explain why the Trump DOJ failed so spectacularly.
George Costanza strikes again. Mr Opposite.
Latitia was trying to intimidate, and the student wrote a fine essay; the teacher is just a heterocidal maniac.
The left “hates” normal people.
DustOff,
Well said. When you have a group of people who want biological males in not only women’s sports but women’s locker rooms, bathrooms, tampons in boys restrooms, of course they are going to hate us normies.
Once again we have a moronic defense of the indefensible with Mr. X using 100 words only to be embarrassed by great comments from Diogenes, Dustoff and Upstate Farmer eating his lunch while only using one sentence.
HullBobby,
It is not hard. I dont even bother reading his crap and by using common sense, own him.
That students wrote a sh*t essay. Everyone who has read it knows it’s an awful essay. It did not even meet the requirements of the assigment. It was really, REALLY bad. That is why she’s being mocked mercilessly.
The TRANS teacher told the students they had to write an essay on an article about, “how people are perceived based on societal expectations of gender.” To me, that’s a loaded question in this context.
The student responded with a traditionally religious POV. She was frank, but she clearly did not intend to be insulting. The teacher gave the student 0 points and scolded her for being “bullying” and “insensitive.”
That teacher was grossly unprofessional, and is now on administrative leave from the university, pending investigation.
Let me correct my own record: I do not actually think the teacher is a “heterocidal maniac.” I do think that when the teacher throws litmus tests at students and then harms them for being honest (instead of grading their opinions on their own merits), the teacher is acting unprofessionally, and that’s the kindest way I can describe it.
The purpose of college is to teach young people how to think critically and communicate effectively. Litmus-test assignments are not that.
I heard of a professor at a local university who forced his students to write essays on why Donald Trump is awful, so I know this is willfully belligerent stuff that is often intended to provoke and intimidate students. In that instance, the professor was never reprimanded, but some students resented it.
“who forced his students to write essays on why Donald Trump is awful,”
I would play on the words, awful / awe-full.
Donald Trump is awe-full in the positive sense because his sheer force of personality reshapes every political space he enters, and his record includes major achievements such as tax reform, a reshaped federal judiciary, and historic Middle East agreements. Whatever one’s assessment, the scope of his impact is analytically undeniable.
Agreed 🙂
“The article, as usual, seems designed to foment ire and rage among the MAGA faithful and social conservatives.”
You don’t need to be MAGA or even conservative to want to discuss these issues at school board meetings. The vast majority of Americans want to make sure that their children are not exposed to trans ideology in the public school system.
You keep repeating the same nonsense over an over.
I and many others have dismembered your lunatic claims in replies to other posts.
In fact there is nothing you are saying here that has not been proven false by others here YEARS ago.
Can you atleast come up with new bad arguments ?
“the same nonsense over an over. I and many others have dismembered your lunatic claims ”
Why does X (George-Svelaz) repeatedly do those things?
A dog barks because it is a dog.
A cow moos because it is a cow.
X repeatedly acts the way he does because he is a lunatic.
+100
“Turns out her essay was atrocious and nowhere near good enough to pass as good essay”
X here is a link to Samantha Fulnecky’s paper.
It is not what I would have written. But it is actually well written even if I disagree with parts.
It is also directly responsive to the assignment.
What it does not do is offer the answers that the Professor wanted.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qxnVi_yaJ-Fb9u1-A1Vy2vQT3Aiw8Nix/view
I know this is hard for you left wing nuts, but everything you disagree with is not poorly written, fascists, white supremacist or ….
The “guidance” letter on its face is intended to chill free speech over a controversial issue that involves the welfare of children. As JT states it is likely that the court will find that a suit will be dismissed until someone is willing to bear the injury that will come if they attempt to express their concerns in a public forum. If the guidance letter is successful at preventing anyone from speaking up to challenge the government then the harm to the public may never be litigated. I understand in lawsuits a claimant must show injury to sue for but in this instance the damage is done if no one speaks out.
Turley knows this will be dismissed because the plaintiffs lack standing. He could have just said that, but he needed a reason to flog this into a narrative about anti-free speech and hanging it around AG James’ neck for MAGA to rage about.
He doesn’t want to talk about the collapse of the Trump DOJ case against her and the following no-bill from another grand jury when they attempted to indict her a second time. He should be chastising or criticizing the shoddy handling of the case by the Trump administration. He had no problem doing that when it was the Biden administration. Seems he may be prevented from doing so by Fox News. Any negative coverage of Trump’s administration is frowned upon it seems.
Teaching “trans ideology” should subtitled “Teaching a Delusion”.
Child abuse would be appropriate. Not so long ago exposing children to this content would be a prosecutable offense.
There is nothing more authoritarian than far-left fascists that squelch debate that they don’t want to hear, usually becuase they don’t have reasoned or reasonable opinions on a given topic. Letitia James can’t restrain her authoritarian tendencies. Now she gives local boards the green light to suppress speech they don’t want to hear. She would fit right in in 1935 Germany.
Why 1935, the bulk of Nazi policies restricting citizen rights didn’t kick in until after 1938.
Democrat Party is openly Fascist….and The Republican Party is the Party of Neville Chamberlain….gutless!
Fascist you say? Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology that emerged in early 20th-century Europe, characterized by dictatorial power, centralized control, suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
100% MAGA.
The tactics and many objectives of today’s leftists match those of the Nazis. One only needs to put the anti-semetic bullies in “Brown shirts” to get a near perfect match.
And you just pointed out all the examples of how the Democrats are authoritarian, centralized control, suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society.
“dictatorial power, centralized control, suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”
Sounds like the Democrat Party platform to me.
Own this one,
A new “children’s book” called Abortion Is Everything is being marketed to 5–8 year olds to “speak directly” to them about abortion.
Yes, you read that correctly.
And the book is downright evil. pic.twitter.com/PRwc36BNbN
— Jenna Ellis ? (@realJennaEllis) December 3, 2025
War by golly that’s the answer!
Here come Mr, George Costanza, X, to say that threatening board members with their position for even discussing an issue that 80% of Americans agree with and find threatening to their daughters well being is fine and that James is right to do so.
HullBobby,
The slow and dumb one is a perfect example of far left wing ideology we have to fight against.
Why is the content of James’ letter unexpected from a woman who, on a mortgage application, reportedly listed her father as her husband? Did they at one time sleep together in the same bed?
It’s interesting how theres more concern on school tranny’s and very little on the areas kids are failing, reading, math, science.
It’s interesting that you don’t seem to care about boys playing in girl’s sports and changing in their locker rooms.
Maybe playing moronic games with gender contributes to the lack of time and effort spent on math.
Makes one wonder why this is the policy of the Left. Can’t be for votes since there are so few trannys to pander to. Only possible answer is that they are truly laser focused on destroying our culture, our national stability and unity and our nation itself. That is really a declaration of war and should be treated as such.
Wiseoldlawyer,
I think it is a mix of forced conformity, dumbing down Americans, as they would be much easier to control, destroying the Constitution and everything that made America in the first place to replace it with their socialism/Marxist society. We need to fight against these ideologies at every turn.
Wise
The left just wants to create hate & discontent.
Both are important. It shouldn’t be “either / or.”. Many of our public schools are failing our children both academically and morally. That this is intolerable is probably another 80:20 issue.
Oh, reading, writing and arithmetic! Let’s get on with the important stuff like DEI and tranny rights. Get with it, will you.
Anonymous says:
It’s interesting……
You’re absolutely right, again New York kids are failing in subject matter, that is far more important. While they attempt to suppress parental rights at school board meetings, kids are lacking in basic educational skills. In Orange County Fla, public schools are closing because parents are sending them to private and charter schools as well as home schooling. They’ve even hired an outside agency to encourage students to return to public schools.
“ Orange County Public Schools is considering closing seven schools due to a significant decline in student enrollment, which has resulted in a $41 million funding deficit. The schools identified for potential closure include Union Park Middle School and several elementary schools, with a decision expected after a school board meeting on December 16.”
“ Several factors contribute to the enrollment decline, including demographic changes and a shift of students to private or charter schools. The district is working with a recruitment company to help boost enrollment numbers.”
Margot,
Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Be interesting to see in a few to several years the difference in performance between those in FL and those in NY.
Upstate, NYC has charter schools as well. The improvement is drastic, but the teacher’s union would like to close them down.
Go to: https://www.hoover.org/research/economist-looks-90-tom-sowell-charter-schools-and-their-enemies-1?utm_source=chatgpt.com Transcript of Sowell discussion and video through the link provided. This is the most comprehensive discussion of charter schools in NYC. The book has all the numbers of all the charter schools involved in the study.
S. Meyer,
Thank you for the link. That was a very interesting read.
S. Meyer–
Yes, thank you!
If students’ names are used in discussion, I would agree with the privacy issue. Absent such infringement, privacy appears to be a specious argument for what is obviously a political move on the part of Letitia James. Heaven knows, it wouldn’t be the first time she allowed her personal / political feelings to dictate her professional actions.
Agree completely. If names aren’t mentioned no breach of privacy. If students out themselves discussing the issue in general isn’t attacking any individual.
Transgender spectrum including homosexuals and simulants. The former are believed to transition as babies… fetuses and the latter as persons through environmental corruption. #HateLovesAbortion
It is increasingly obvious that using public schools anywhere, and almost all private schools, is parental malpractice.
A fraudster give “guidance” over “trans issues”? Is this satire?
It’s an outrage and a wake up call for New Yorkers to finally rid the state of both Letitia James and Kathy Hochul. Letitia James has squandered taxpayer dollars for way too long.