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.
“. . . view-neutral rules . . .”
So a school board dictating: “Sorry. No trans discussions here.” is “view-neutral?”
The Democratic party has become the Party or Petty Dictators.
Oh course, of course. Says the anon MAGAOT.
The Left is doubling down on men can become women, women can become men. They don’t realize that most people correctly understand that as insane. It has no bsis in reality. Most people live in reality, and abject demonic fantasy is not a viable political position. Right along with “open our borders to tens of millions of unvetted aliens,” and “defund the police.” The modern American Left is totally insane, they need to be committed to psychiatric institutions.
Yes, anon, it’s bizarre. Move to red states and build fortresses. If your children are in government schools go straight for class action lawsuits. Alternate lifestyles and human sexuality aren’t in the curriculum.
Classic literature only. That is 80% of the population in the class action, 1A. They’ll have to pay your alternate tuition in compulsory education required by law.
most people? Define most people.
Jasmine Crockett/Snoop Doggy Dog 2028!
Crockett won’t fly Texas wide. She’s history.
The DHS has no right to remove these people from the country. https://www.dhs.gov/wow
*. Remove emotionalism from your speech and you’re fine. This is a distraction so more robbery can happen. Run for Board. Certainly if possible remove your children from government schools. What has scotus ruled on the catholic virtual charter?
Keep filing for removing child with ADA. It won’t get better except in red states. This all falls in the categorical basket of adultery. Religious people can’t have it. The remainder us absolutely medical and no one’s business except they’re in faces with it.
Get out of government schools until they’ve changed.
^^^ class action 1A suffered real harm due to tuition. Move first to private schools.
^^^^ move to red state, real harm. Uprooted life and cost. Remove all sex ed from curriculum, curricula. Reinstall classic lit only. Study biology reproduction of living organisms. Humans biology high school.
This is an atheist idea pushed. True genetic damage is rare, Medical and private.
Anti 1A, religions. Real harm, property.
^^^ the topic is REPRODUCTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS not alternate non reproduction. Just how stupid is this?
Why not teach 1st graders whips and chains.
I get why people are upset about the Attorney General’s letter, but Turley’s argument jumps too fast from “here is some legal guidance” to “the state is shutting down debate.” The letter is basically saying school boards need to avoid violating student privacy laws and anti-discrimination laws. That seems pretty normal, because talking about individual students’ gender identity in a public meeting really would be a privacy problem.
Turley says the letter is about silencing disagreement but he never shows that the state is actually punishing anyone. It’s all hypothetical. “Could,” “might,” “seems designed.” His argument is lame. If school boards abuse the guidance to shut down debate, then that’s a problem, but you can’t automatically blame the AG for every possible misuse.
Also, saying the guidance is vague doesn’t automatically mean it’s censorship. A lot of school rules involve judgement calls, because real situations are messy. And polls about what the public thinks don’t change the fact that students still have rights. Turley is reading a worst-case scenario into something that could just be a reminder to follow existing laws. If there’s an actual case where someone gets removed or silenced unfairly, then there’s something to argue about. Turley sounds like a political hack, not a legal expert.
Precisely!
Turley’s argument? Turley wrote an opinion piece.
“. . . vague doesn’t automatically mean it’s censorship.”
For censors, “vague” is a feature, not a bug. It allows them to decide capriciously, after the fact, that they don’t like your opinions. If you look at the sordid history of censorship, you will see that those power-lusters scrupulously avoid clear, objective definitions.
Rabble:
George the Stupid sure is active today. I haven’t seen much significant news over the past 48 hours except for Tim Pool being shot at. Is there anything in particular we think he is trying to distract from?
The New York Times has a story today reporting that Trump intervened to get the Tate Brothers out of Romania. Most women would be horrified to know that.
NOT QUITE OT
This is a superb short comment by UV law professor, Xiao Wang, who argued Ames v Ohio before the Supreme Court and won, 9-0. It basically holds that if you are in a majority cohort [in this case white heterosexual] and you sue for discrimination you are NOT held to more stringent standards than one of the ‘protected, classes.
He comments on the hostility directed against him by faculty and students for even taking the case and, like Professor Turley, he calls for civil discourse and free discussion rather than rage.
I would very much like to see this brilliant and classically liberal thinker on the Supreme Court.
I posted here because he sounds so much like Professor Turley.
With professors like Turley and Wang I despair a little less for the state of American law.
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/uva-law-where-outrage-trumps-reason
*. It’s apparent the United States is not returning. What this land mass is is unknown.
It is no wonder people are opting out of having children in the lower econ strata.
Best wishes
they may be opting out since they cannot afford chidden
All you had to say was, ‘Letitia James’. This is all so stupid. So very, very stupid. The only thing more stupid is her. 30 years ago we’d be seeing this on Jerry Springer, not the national stage, sigh. Just, sigh. That goes for the modern left in Congress, too.
The left has gone plum crazy; my goodness they have ventured so far away from decorum and legal understanding of our Law’s it makes my head spin. I was taught that Insanity was not contagious, but it seems there are many exceptions to rule filling the blazing chambers of oppression now offered by the insane.
Discussing issues does not inherently violate the right to privacy.
Further there is no right to privacy of a minor student with respect to their parents – only the public.
Finally the ONLY thing that would be subject to 4th amendment right to privacy would be a students private communications with a teacher.
The conduct of Teachers and students in a school is Public conduct and does not have 4th amendment protection.
Absent clearly defining the limited domain that is actually protected by the 4th amendment – which would absolutely NOT be school polices and would absolutely NOT be students conduct in classrooms, James letter is an attempt to chill free speech.
A school board meeting is a limited public forum – but it absolutely is a public forum. School boards can limit speech to issues related to the school.
In SOME instances it can limit speech to agenda items – but that would primarily be for special purpose meetings not regular board meetings.
But there is pretty much no circumstance in which a school can silence discussion of shool policies at an ordinary board meeting.
I would further note that NYS has already lost a major free speech case for leveraging 3rd parties to supress the free speech rights of the NRA – the 9-0 oppinion was written by Sotomayor.
John – 4A does not protect anyone’s privacy from the actions of a private person, who is not acting as an agent of the government. Just because the government creates a forum, or a limited forum, if private individuals use that forum to speak in a way that reveals something private about another person, there is no way in which that implicates 4A protections. It was the private person speaking, who was not acting as an agent of the government. Even if the school board members possess private information about an individual, 4A only addresses whether they came into possession of that information through an unreasonable search or seizure. If not, i.e., if they came into possession of the information through lawful means, then 4A says nothing about whether and how they publicize it. I’m not saying there isn’t some other legal limitation on publication, just that 4A has nothing to do with it.
AG James’ 9 page ‘guidance letter’ is about as clear as mud .. . much like what passes for legal analysis/guidance around here./
I’m nut even sure what Prof Turley is complaining about here. .. ?
*look, the important thing is Trump, through his recent NSPM -7, has instructed the full force of U.S. gov. resources to root-out any lingering ‘adherence to radical gender ideology’, among other things .. . subject to extermination with extreme prejudice.
He just took the opportunity to take a dig at the AG because she was involved. He can’t bring up the failed case against her because it would require him to point out just how bad that case was handled by the Trump DOJ.
So you admit she’s guilty of fraud?
Guilty? The evidence against her does not prove she committed mortgage fraud. That is why the grand jury no-billed the second attempt to indict. They don’t have anything to prove she committed a crime.
Rabble:
And yet, every case against Trump has been no-billed, appealed away, or quietly dropped, yet you all still call him a 34-felon predator rapier with 7 bankruptcies.
So, by your logic, LJ is still a mortgage fraudster skink
We all heard that tape of Trump’s call to Georgia. It was a quid-pro-quo if ever there was one. “I just need eleven thousand votes.”
Trump should have made his comment more clear by saying, “Out of the 30-50,000 illegal/invalid votes, I just need eleven thousand.”
That would have shut you up.
So now even Georgia is counting ‘illegals’..?? Well if facts aren’t needed, talk is cheap.
That’s merely quantifying the proportional election effort necessary.
Nice try, Karl.
Now we know why they kicked you out of Germany, France, and Belgium.
AnonTDS George Svelass etc etc etc
We all heard that phone call and those of us not subject to terminal TDS, inferred it quite differently. Do you remember Al Franken, Minnesota (D) the comic writer dimwit later caught groping women was the deciding vote for Oblamo care? Coleman had won the election and Franken subsequently “found” just enough ballots in the trunk of a car to (steal) win the election.
Trump was telling him as a Republican Governor to scour the precincts to throw out fraudulent ballots and look for miscounts, count and recount etc. to push him ahead, all legal maneuvers.
As you are a Socialist Democrat, I understand that you would immediately think everyone is a cheat, because a preponderance of Socialist Democrats are cheats, liars, fraudulent and thieves, it’s common among reptiles.
X You’re a moron
So-presumed “affected” students are not of the age of majority and enjoy no citizen’s right to privacy.
The 1st Amendment freedom of speech, which shall not be abridged, is superior to the 4th Amendment right to privacy by way of numerical order…
You might say the 4th is Trumped by the 1st.
The First and Fourth Amendments are not in conflict. 1A protects against speech restrictions, while 4A protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the police or any government agent. They have little to do with each other.
The numerical order has no bearing on constitutional interpretation. If you disagree, cite a judicial decision that says it has some meaning in terms of one amendment “trumping” another.
Anonymous, here’s a list of the people you are defending. https://www.dhs.gov/wow.
You defend these sexual defenders along with your trans groomers. Thanks.
James is correct that students have a right to privacy – that is NOT conditioned on their age.
But that right is limited to private speech or conduct. There is no right of privacy with respect to conduct or communications in public – such as a classroom.
Further discussions of Policies have absolutely no connection to individuals privacy rights.
To the extent a right of privacy might be an issue here that would be that a School Board can not force a teacher to disclose something a student told them in confidence EXCEPT to their parents – students do not have privacy rights with respect to their parents.
Any communication that a School Board already knows about would not be subject to a right of privacy – because if the school board knows – it is public not private. Nor would it apply to anything that the public raises at a school board meeting – because again if the public raises it – it is not private.
There is no right to privacy in policies.
There is no right to privacy in conduct or speech in public.
“ Any communication that a School Board already knows about would not be subject to a right of privacy – because if the school board knows – it is public not private. Nor would it apply to anything that the public raises at a school board meeting – because again if the public raises it – it is not private.”
No, that’s not how it works. Just because a school board “knows” does not make what they know public information and not subject to privacy laws. They are still prohibited from dicussing things like names, addresses, or medical information.
There is certain information that a public board is not allowed ot divulge even if they “know” unless it is by court order such as a student’s personal information.
Any freak of nature who “comes out” making demands has opened himself to free speech, including criticism; he has no expectation of privacy and no privacy.
If this is the extent of its prevalence: namely, the interpretation of laws by those in authority according to their own discretion, then no law possesses binding authority, and I will not engage in such matters.
The word “interpretation” does not exist in the Constitution. Your first mistake is to allow the corrupt judicial branch to arbitrarily, capriciously, and de facto amend the Constitution through “interpretation,” which means to change or alter for the purpose of clarification.
The legislative branch makes laws, the executive executes them, and the judicial branch declares the law.
In order to declare, it has to first do some interpretation to figure out what the words mean. This is because interpretation is basic to understanding anything put down in text, whether poetry, literature, or law.
Huh? Declares law? No. The judicial branch interprets law. They determine meanings of words, phrases, questions, intents, etc. They don’t declare anything.
Sounds like semantic quibbling to me. Declaring what the law means vs. interpreting what the law means is a distinction w/o difference.
Yes, the judicial branch interprets. That’s exactly what I said. Then the judge(s) declare what it means, they don’t just keep it in their heads for nobody else to know about.
Have you ever read a judicial opinion. That’s precisely what’s going on. You should try at least a little not to come across as completely ignorant.
“Yes, the judicial branch interprets. That’s exactly what I said. ”
LOL!
This is what you said,
“The legislative branch makes laws, the executive executes them, and the judicial branch declares the law.”
Why u lie man?
What an idiot. Read my whole comment, stooge.
Seriously, why are liberal commenters so amazingly stupid?
OT
‘”BALANCING PRIVATE RIGHTS WITH PUBLIC WELFARE.”
– The Judicial Branch
________________________
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Rights and freedoms are absolute in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They are not qualified and are absolute; they are the possessions of American citizens.
The courts have illicitly and antithetically insisted that they have the power to “interpret” law; “interpret” does not exist in the Constitution.
Change is inherent in “interpret,” and the judicial branch has no power to legislate, modify, amend, or modify by “interpretation” fundamental or statutory law.
In the early 20th century, communist justices began “interpreting” private rights, such as the absolute right to private property, to no longer be absolute.
From that point, the Constitution was incrementally nullified by the judicial branch.
The severe limitations and restrictions on government in the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property have been deeply eroded if not completely destroyed.
The communist American welfare state has been illicitly and unconstitutionally established by the judicial branch.
Below, read that justices like Justice Louis Brandeis “emphasized balancing private rights with public welfare.”
That is not dissimilar and is most similar to Karl Marx’s maxim, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
One of the best examples of the diminution of rights is the decreasing ability of the owner of private property to determine wages, prices, rents, tenants, buyers, customers, services, products, etc.
Another is the corrupt, anti-American, and wholly unconstitutional regulatory state.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
While no single justice definitively declared property rights non-absolute in a famous quote around that time, the evolving understanding, especially with cases like Muller v. Oregon (1908) and New Deal era cases (1930s), saw justices like Justice Louis Brandeis, who often emphasized balancing private rights with public welfare, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who championed judicial restraint and legislative supremacy over economic matters, chipping away at absolute property interpretations in favor of social regulation, though specific quotes on “not absolute” are hard to pinpoint to one person.
Please cite the Constitution for any power to interpret, which requires altering or “clarifying” the law.
Of course, you won’t because you cannot.
_______________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
You disregard and nullify the constitution; you make it up as you go along to suit your personal goals and desires.
The word airplane doesn’t appear in the Constitution either. Not sure the appearance or non-appearance is dispositive
The judicial branch enjoys the power to “judge”; it does not have any power to amend or modify the Constitution through “interpretation,” which is always the result of judicial branch “interpretation.” See above, the constitutionally absolute right to private property was “interpreted” into optional private property rights to make way for “public welfare” by “justices like Justice Louis Brandeis, who often emphasized balancing private rights with public welfare.” The judicial branch simply ensures that actions comport with law through the exercise of judicial power, or the power to judge.
___________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
judge
verb
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Not to put too fine of a point on it or to confuse the peanut gallery, the judicial branch enjoys the “judicial” power from the Constitution while it is provided no power to “interpret,” aka alter, modify, and “clarify.” Please cite the Constitution, not personal opinion, as you “interpret.”
No. Nada.
SCOTUS has the final say on “interpreting” the Constitution or other laws. From the mouth of the very horse, SCOTUS, says this about its own powers, excerpted from its own website:
“The Supreme Court is ‘distinctly American in concept and function,’ as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.”
“In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution.”
And by the way, “clarify” definition: “to make (an idea, statement, etc.) clear or intelligible; to free from ambiguity.”
This is precisely what SCOTUS does in many cases.
I “interpret” your words as coming from one not well versed in law, constitution, or an understanding of either.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
You did not cite the Constitution.
You cited some inane power-hungry charlatan with no power other than the “judicial” power.
I would award myself power too. The SCOTUS’s problem is the only power vested in it by the Constitution is “judicial,” which means to judge.
To wit,
Merriam-Webster
judge
verb
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
What the SCOTUS and judicial branch mean by interpretation is rewriting, aka amending, or modifying the Constitution to suit their personal goals and agenda as was the case with this account of Brandeis et al. from the early 20th century:
‘”BALANCING PRIVATE RIGHTS WITH PUBLIC WELFARE.”
– The Judicial Branch
________________________
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Rights and freedoms are absolute in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They are not qualified and are absolute; they are the possessions of American citizens.
The courts have illicitly and antithetically insisted that they have the power to “interpret” law; “interpret” does not exist in the Constitution.
Change is inherent in “interpret,” and the judicial branch has no power to legislate, modify, amend, or modify by “interpretation” fundamental or statutory law.
In the early 20th century, communist justices began “interpreting” private rights, such as the absolute right to private property, to no longer be absolute.
From that point, the Constitution was incrementally nullified by the judicial branch.
The severe limitations and restrictions on government in the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property have been deeply eroded if not completely destroyed.
The communist American welfare state has been illicitly and unconstitutionally established by the judicial branch.
Below, read that justices like Justice Louis Brandeis “emphasized balancing private rights with public welfare.”
That is not dissimilar and is most similar to Karl Marx’s maxim, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
One of the best examples of the diminution of rights is the decreasing ability of the owner of private property to determine wages, prices, rents, tenants, buyers, customers, services, products, etc.
Another is the corrupt, anti-American, and wholly unconstitutional regulatory state.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
While no single justice definitively declared property rights non-absolute in a famous quote around that time, the evolving understanding, especially with cases like Muller v. Oregon (1908) and New Deal era cases (1930s), saw justices like Justice Louis Brandeis, who often emphasized balancing private rights with public welfare, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who championed judicial restraint and legislative supremacy over economic matters, chipping away at absolute property interpretations in favor of social regulation, though specific quotes on “not absolute” are hard to pinpoint to one person.
You did not cite the Constitution.
Your first mistake was not having an actual profile instead of being an anonymous person
INTERPRET IS TO CONSTRUE
CONSTRUE IS TO CHANGE SOMETHING IN ORDER TO MAKE IT UNDERSTANDABLE
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH CHANGES THINGS TO FIT ITS GOALS AND AGENDA
interpret
verb
1: to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
interpret dreams
2: to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : construe
__________________________________________________________________________________________
construe
verb
transitive verb
1: to understand or explain the sense or intention of usually in a particular way or with respect to a given set of circumstances
construed my actions as hostile
Her frustration was construed as anger.
AI Overview
Yes, “interpret” can mean to change, specifically when translating spoken words between languages (e.g., “to interpret for someone”) or when a performance or explanation brings a new, personal meaning to a work (like an actor interpreting a role), but its core meaning is to explain or understand something, which sometimes involves shifting from one form to another…
I have reviewed the multi-page “guidance.”
I could not agree more with the good professor in characterizing this nine-page “guidance” as having a chilling effect on speech.
Its intention could have been accomplished with a short memorandum and a singular paragraph that “guides” board members in controlling truly harmful statements a/o conduct at school board meetings with the public.
Instead, we have a nine-page diatribe carrying a tone of threat and authority, and manifesting as having a “chilling effect” on some protected speech.
A key component of an improper “chilling effect” is when/where the conveyed message or threat is “overbroad.” SOMEwhere in that nine-pages, the “guidance” could easily have inserted an example or two of what would be considered worthy of containment or control.
Instead, the “guidance” preloads its message with disparaging generalizations of “attacks” when in fact, MOST parents and participants merely wish to express their concerns for school policies involving sports participation, locker rooms, showers, restrooms, proper pronouns—and whether this coddling and placating is actually encouraging attention-seeking students to act out as “being transgender.” Must we officially recognize self-declared “gender identity” under all circumstances? THESE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.
“And politicized school boards and taxpayer-funded administrators should be the last people we entrust with directing young people’s decisions that go far beyond educational or professional development.” https://www.city-journal.org/article/leon-county-florida-school-board-gender-identity-littlejohn-case
^^I encourage anyone reading my comment to read my cited article discussing the LittleJohn case.^^
I get it. Kids (and parents) can be mean.
But what alternative forum is available if not at school board meetings to discuss such policy?
It would be very very easy for boards to limit attendance restrictions to adults/parents (no students or children) for certain scheduled controversial topics, -and then let ’em go at it.
Apologies for lengthy comment.
>”THESE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.”
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
It’s been already pointed out to you that Bondi’s request is limited to “a list of groups or entities engaging in ACTS that may constitute domestic terrorism.”
Exactly.
*there was no need for anyone to point that out to me.
Rabble:
Oh, suddenly its different from when the 44 admin went after the Tea Party, or 46 went after catholics, parents, or tourists, or knew a guy who knew a guy who spit into the wind in the direction of the capitol on a certain day. Or when Clinton’s VP went after science, industry, and energy in pursuit of climate hoax. or Bush declaring the war on terror. Or Roosevelt’s Japanese internment camps.
Just admit you are only posting this tripe because you can’t actually formulate a reason to hate the current admin beyond just hate.
Rabble rouser: We must be talking cross-purposes again.
We could debate the scope, scale and potential for harm of past presidents, I suppose .. . but Trump’s erratic, demented and outrageous malefaction is anything but ‘sudden’.
*it was a no-brainer .. .
Rabble:
If your standards weren’t doubled…
Rabble rouser:
It’s you whose standards have apparently changed.
*I reject 44, 45, 46 and 47 .. . don’t get me started.
Lin, Turley is jumping to conclusions about the intent of the letter. So what if it’s long and vague. Perhaps the AG would expect boardmembers to be smart enough to know what is and isn’t appropriate or a privacy issue. Given the litigitious nature of the far right. I would make sense to ‘remind’ board members that even for them there are civility rules. If the rules are meant to discourage inflammatory or deregagtory rhetoric or comments then there is a legitimate reason to temper their views or rhetoric as public officals. The threat of removal is only aimed at those who violate student privacy rules.
We know Professor is a stickler for civility rules and civil conduct.
“Board members are smart enough to determine what you can say and don’t say”
George the useful idiot, quoting one of his favorite lines from Animal Farm.
I have not read the guidance – but what Turley has cited is already a clear violation of the first amendment.
The right to privacy is limited to private communications and private conduct.
There is no right to privacy in
public policies.
public conduct
public speech.
The speech and conduct of a student in a school in almost all circumstances in NOT private speech or conduct that would be protected.
Further 4th amendment limits on discusions of school policies in a public forum would be limited to ACTUALLY private speech or conduct of students that the public is not aware of.
Once the public is aware there is no right to privacy.
Even the awareness of the school board themselves of conduct or speech that was not witnessed solely by board members and in private would not be protected.
Put differently – if the school board has learned from others of private conduct or speech – it is no longer private and no longer protected.
The MOST guidance that James could make to school boards is that, they can not compel teachers to reveal in public what they learned from a student in private. And even that limitation would not apply to parents.
John Say,
“ I have not read the guidance – but what Turley has cited is already a clear violation of the first amendment.”
You should read the guidance. Because it does not say or do what Turley claims. Instead of making an assumption out of ignorance perhaps you should read the guidance letter in its entirety.
It’s basically a set of reminders that school board members are still subject to civility rules and professional conduct. Warning them that violating privacy laws and rules are grounds for removal.
Turley complained about the vagueness and lack of specific definitions from the AG. That is because there shouldn’t be a need to spell out everything in exact detail to grown adults about what would constitute inappropriate statements, rhetoric, or conduct regarding LGBTQ or transgender policies or programs. It seems someone has been making inappropriate comments or deregatory comments in expressing opposition to those programs. They are not being told not to discuss the programs or their opposition to them. They are being reminded that there are civility rules and rules of conduct. Things Professor Turley is always emphasizing and supporting. Why he thinks this letter is a threat to chill speech of board members is a mystery.
You did not read the entire 9page guidance either, before you started to impose your conclusion on us. Where in the world do you come from? At first I thought you were an ignorant lawyer. Then I decided you could not possibly be a lawyer and be that ignorant. Now, because of your ignorant expressions AND your attempts to discredit Turley and the people on this blog, I have concluded that you are nothing but an unfulfilled, impotent nobody raging with jealousy, whose strikes against others get uglier as they call you out. Go away and get your own blog.
Lin – no apology needed for the length. You read the whole document, identified several troubling features of it, and expressed reasonable conclusions about its pernicious nature from those aspects of its contents. You are not “jumping” to any conclusions, as someone else has disparagingly, and falsely, said of your comment.
“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled quickly. Quickly. I will get the problem solved and I will get it solved in rapid order and it will take me no longer than one day. I know exactly what to say to each of them,” Trump proclaimed in a March 4, 2023 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Is trump Preszident?
“I had a lot of people from, very religious people, come up to me tonight, from Ukraine, and they’re asking me for help. So, so sad to see so many people have been killed in Ukraine, and we’re going to get it — we’re going to get it settled up if we win. As I’m president-elect, I’m going to get that done. I’m going to do it before we ever get there,” Trump said at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York on October 17, 2024.
Trump began efforts to find a peacefull resolution as soon as he was elected.
I do not think left wing nuts should be complaining that it is proving difficult to end something bad that the left created.
Trump campaigned of the promise that the conflict in Ukraine should have never happened and that he would end it in 24 hours.
*iirc, Trump funded/armed the raging civil war in Ukraine during his first term in office. .. and, then, the idiot Democrats impeached him for asking Zelenskiy to look into Joe/Hunter Biden corruption.
Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not litterally.
Trump’s detractors take him litterally but not seriously.
The Messes that those of you on the left made is proving incredibly difficult to clean up.
That does not alter the FACT that YOU MADE THEM, not Trump.
No one voted for Trump because he promised to end the Russia Ukraine conflict in one day.
Many voted for him because he promissed to work towards ending it rather than continuing the killing.
He is trying to do that.
“ No one voted for Trump because he promised to end the Russia Ukraine conflict in one day.
Many voted for him because he promissed to work towards ending it rather than continuing the killing.
He is trying to do that.”
Cognitive dissonance?
Many voted for him because he promised to end the war within 24 hours saying it would be so easy. His “work” towards ending it is a joke. He has no idea what is going on and why Putin is so hard to deal with. He’s waffled back and forth with “deals” and “agreements” that have been nothing but BS.
Anyone with half a brain and reasonable ability for reading comprehension would know that Trump was speaking CONTEMPORANEOUSLY about the state of the conflict AT THAT TIME. And he may have been quite successful at that.
But you might recall that the war rapidly escalated after he was elected. It is only the likes of certain media and sour anti-trump democrats who keep bringing this up. ad nauseam. I guess that includes you, because you get all your information from them.
Trump was making a declarative statement. He wasn’t speaking contemporaneously. He literally meant it because that’s how he sees himself. As some sort of savior able to do the things he thinks he’s capable of.
Perhaps it was his senility or usual BS without thinking boasts. Nobdy takes him seriously anymore, even MAGA is having problems figuring out what the heck he is doing?
he was speaking contemporaneously. And you know it. “Nobdy takes you seriously anymore.”
Rabble:
How about the declarative statements made by the left regarding “reeducation camps for the right,” calling for the death, imprisonment, and unpersonment of anyone they do not like? Should we take them at their word, or are we misconstruing Biden’s SOTU with the blood red Reich background, him shouting into the mic about how half of the population are the threat to peace and the Union?