Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Do you even know how your team works?

And, as a government institution, is governed by the First Amendment, which has considerably more force than an Executive Order, which has almost no force and in this case is no more than a statement of opinion.

That pesky Constitution - always getting in the way! 

Posted
On 9/10/2025 at 11:28 AM, Texas Fight said:

I think that the EO does say any institution taking federal money, or as promulgated by the State, state money, that promoting anything other than 2 genders is a violation. I’m not the finder of fact. 
 

As you probably picked up in my last response, taking this issue to a federal court in Texas and then on to the 5th circuit (en banc) you know the answer to your question as well. 
 

You're making some weird, partially informed legal statements.  Sup with that?

What does the finder of fact have to do with a legal interpretation of an executive order?

Why do you mention Amarillo, in the Northern District of Texas, when eaTme is in the Southern.  Other than the presiding judge there?  Why mention Tyler and Marshall, when one has a Trump appointee and the other Obama?

You seem to suggest if there's a legal cause of action for this and there probably is, that it should be resolved in the most ideological courts in the nation.

Posted
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Do you even know how your team works?

And, as a government institution, is governed by the First Amendment, which has considerably more force than an Executive Order, which has almost no force and in this case is no more than a statement of opinion.

When Garrett gets overturned you may be right. Until then, the highest court in the land says you are wrong.
 

 The Court ruled that statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties may be disciplined by their employer.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Texas Fight said:

When Garrett gets overturned you may be right. Until then, the highest court in the land says you are wrong.
 

 The Court ruled that statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties may be disciplined by their employer.

Autocorrected. Garrett should be Garcetti.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Texas Fight said:

Autocorrected. Garrett should be Garcetti.

More facile legal analysis.

 

   Second, Justice Souter suggests today’s decision may have important ramifications for academic freedom, at least as a constitutional value. See post, at 12–13. There is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court’s customary employee-speech jurisprudence. We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You're making some weird, partially informed legal statements.  Sup with that?

What does the finder of fact have to do with a legal interpretation of an executive order?

Why do you mention Amarillo, in the Northern District of Texas, when eaTme is in the Southern.  Other than the presiding judge there?  Why mention Tyler and Marshall, when one has a Trump appointee and the other Obama?

You seem to suggest if there's a legal cause of action for this and there probably is, that it should be resolved in the most ideological courts in the nation.

Are you not aware of the term "finder of fact"?  In my post, this is what i said a finder of fact would conclude:  I think that the EO does say any institution taking federal money, or as promulgated by the State, state money, that promoting anything other than 2 genders is a violation. I’m not the finder of fact. 

According to you this issue could only be filed in Southern?  I must have missed it when they stopped allowing cases to be filed in the district of residency (for college students that is their permanent residence).  And for all those that posted the student was a plant from the some conservative think tank, must not think that they chose a student from a district where they would face the easiest pathway.  

I didnt QC the judge in Marshall, but my point still stands, that this would have already been determined if the student was a plant.

 

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

More facile legal analysis.

 

   Second, Justice Souter suggests today’s decision may have important ramifications for academic freedom, at least as a constitutional value. See post, at 12–13. There is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court’s customary employee-speech jurisprudence. We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.

 

As the dissenting opinion?  JFC.....

More basic, surely you do not think the First Amendment is absolute?  Or as a government employee, the First Amendment gives you absolute freedom of speech without consequnce?

Edited by Texas Fight
Posted
9 minutes ago, Texas Fight said:

When Garrett gets overturned you may be right. Until then, the highest court in the land says you are wrong.
 

 The Court ruled that statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties may be disciplined by their employer.

This makes sense.  It is not saying they can be disciplined based on personal statements made as a private individual, but statements made when speaking, or appearing to speak, as a representative of an organization.

In the military I was clear that I could participate in political or other rallies or events, but I had to do so as an individual.   Except for approved events I could not do so as a uniformed, or even identified service member, as it implied organizational support.  Doing so would potentially open me to disciplinary action.

Posted
1 hour ago, Texas Fight said:

And for all those that posted the student was a plant from the some conservative think tank, must not think that they chose a student from a district where they would face the easiest pathway.  

I don't know w/o going back and rereading if anyone posted that the student was a 'plant,' as far as I know she was a legitimately registered A&M student enrolled in the summer course for credit. I do think the student (and if I recall correctly there was more than one initial complaint in the first(?) week of class) went up the chain (as one should do after consulting with the instructor) and then as this issue was discussed outside of those directly involved and time passed either acting alone or with encouragement achieved the desired result; the instructor was removed from teaching the class permanently.  This was likely the way it was going to go from the outset and I do know I stated as such. However, I'm not sure where a lawsuit would've come in exactly? As a lecturer, that professor had no protections beyond the minimum for employment; I was not aware whether the student entertained a legal remedy but it wouldn't make sense to me to do so. But I'm not close enough nor familiar enough with the situation nor the law to know.

Posted
45 minutes ago, ABSR said:

This makes sense.  It is not saying they can be disciplined based on personal statements made as a private individual, but statements made when speaking, or appearing to speak, as a representative of an organization.

In the military I was clear that I could participate in political or other rallies or events, but I had to do so as an individual.   Except for approved events I could not do so as a uniformed, or even identified service member, as it implied organizational support.  Doing so would potentially open me to disciplinary action.

Under Clinton, he used a Department of Defense Directive (not even an executive order) to establish Don't Ask Don't Tell.  13,000 servicemembers were kicked out of the military from 1994 to 2011 under DADT.  As it relates to First Amendment, the servicemember didn't even have to be LGBTQ.  Just making the verbal statement (sometimes unintentionally) was grounds for separation.  Plenty of examples to go google.

 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...