Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Walter Kehowski?"Get off my emails!"
I noticed the author gave Judge Kozinski a sex change.
Too bad Kozinski won't get on the Supreme Court. He's Learned Hand...with soft porn! And I mean that as a complement.
@EDH LOL. Thanks. I was just talking about that character and trying to remember his name. Walter Kowalski! He had a huge impact on my life. Linked showing extreme importance here.
This was key!
Isn't the 9th Circuit the activist one that conservatives rail against? Fairly solid opinion on this one.wv: eurin...endless possibilities on that one.
So, the 9th Circus finally gets one right. And under this administration.Whoda thunk?PS Somehow, from that exchange, I take it Meade was promising not to wear shorts?
"Those offended by Kehowski's ideas should engage him in debate or hit the 'delete' button' when they receive his e-mails," Kozinski wrote. Exactly what I tell the tea bagging wing nuts here...who whine incessantly about how wrong I am or how horrible my "liberal" views are.Just do as I do: Ignore comments that you don't give a rat's ass about...and move on...no pun intended.
Did anyone ever tell him WHY the district was sponsoring a racist event? Seems a fairly reasonable question to me.
edutcher said..."So, the 9th Circus finally gets one right. And under this administration."So on this case, can we assume you and others are in favor of "activist" courts?Hypocrisy...alive and well on the Queen's site...as usual.
This was key!Ha. It was fun looking back to see if anyone was paying attention. Looks like knox was the only one to notice.
As long as he was not using campus computers and campus email to send out what ever opinion he has, I agree with the decision
Tags: free speech
Hey, a California community college? Is this like they one you teach at Jeremy?And Jeremy, for about the 15 millionth farkin time: A court is activist if it strikes down a law by pulling what the Constitution means out of its ass. If it strikes down a law (or a lawsuit) using the plain meaning of the constitution, that's doing its job.
Did anyone ever tell him WHY the district was sponsoring a racist event? That's Spanish for "Indigenous People's Day." All was blissful and peaceful in the Western Hemisphere (barring the occasional virgin sacrifice or internecine conflict) until Whitey showed up.
Walt Kowalski and his 12 various lessons should be made a mandatory freshman curriculum course. Those were nice memories of the romance days. An HBO film may be made of your romance soon.
His third e-mail lashed out at critics who called him "racist," saying, "Boogie-boogie-boo to you too! I'm sorry, but that's hilarious.
As long as he was not using campus computers and campus email to send out what ever opinion he has, I agree with the decisionWhy should that matter? My campus email is my personal email. Contrary to what I might think, I am not the spokesman for the UW; my opinion is not the official Campus opinion. If I say something that stimulates interesting debate (as if), then the University should be happy.
Harsh Pencil Dick said..."Hey, a California community college? Is this like they one you teach at Jeremy?"For the 15 millionth farkin time...other than Pogo and few other morons on this site, no one I have ever known in my life would understand what the fuck you're talking about. I-DO-NOT-TEACH-AT A-COMMUNITY-COLLEGE...dumb-ass.And..."And Jeremy, for about the 15 millionth farkin time: A court is activist if it strikes down a law by pulling what the Constitution means out of its ass."That's bullshit, and you know it. All any court has to do is make decision or reverse a decision...that you and the rest of the local tea baggers don't agree with...and they fall into "you're own special category" of "activist courts."When the Supreme Court stepped into the 2000 election...did YOU think that was a form of "activism?"We ALL know the answer to that one...don't we?
It is possible that the suppression of speech by a government is more offensive and outrageous than every offensive and outrageous thing ever said by man. Offense and outrage fades..
Lem said..."It is possible that the suppression of speech by a government is more offensive and outrageous than every offensive and outrageous thing ever said by man. Offense and outrage fades.."So deep.Really deep.Amazingly...deep.Deepest of deep.
La libertad de expresión es una flor con muchas espinas.
Madison Man, my understanding from various emails is that we are not to use our UW emails for political purpose for for soliciting funds etc, but yes of course we can post witty comments on various blogs.
Too bad Kozinski won't get on the Supreme Court. He's Learned Hand...with soft porn! He's lucky he's not in jail. He was sharing out child porn on his personal computer. If he wasn't connected, wasn't a judge, wasn't "protected" he would be in jail with the rest of the pedophiles.
@JeremyIt's not how wrong you are or how horrible your liberal ideas are on their merits. You use awful, insulting terminology with a lot of people on this board and indulge in a lot of gratuitous profanity. There are people here who make solid arguments and stand their ground without suggesting their rhetorical opponents indulge in obscure sexual acts.
"Exactly what I tell the tea bagging wing nuts here...who whine incessantly about how wrong I am or how horrible my "liberal" views are."We have every right to whine about your liberal views.What you call "whine" we call "speech."Nobody wants to shut down your ability to express your views. We merely want to shut down your ability to fucking foist them on us.You have every right to think and say what you believe but that right stops the moment you try to implement.Then, we get a say. And we say no.
"Did anyone ever tell him WHY the district was sponsoring a racist event?"Isn't it interesting how that key question was lost in all the lawsuits?Look ... the left has a strategy. It is to sue people to get them to squelch their own speech. They are using the courts and the cost of defending against a lawsuit as their preferred method of censoring speech.They know they will lose. Doesn't matter.The message gets sent: If you speak truth to their power, it will cost you. You will be sued. They will use their friends the judges in the courts to intimidate you.They don't care if they lose, since they face no sanctions for filing these frivolous lawsuits and the courts deliberately won't impose sanctions - since the courts are in on the entire scam.It will cost you thousands in lawyer fees to secure your free speech rights and they know it. It's part of their strategy.Many leftist judges want people on the right to be sued frivolously, even if they'll rule against the lefty plaintiffs, and so they deliberately don't impose sanctions against individuals suing people for merely exercising well-known Constitutional rights.It's the judges and the courts which are crooked here.Our court system is completely corrupted.
Jeremy trolling the boards looking for cock to suck. Pathetic. No, Libtard. You still cant suck my balls.
The article says, "His colleagues claimed he sent three e-mails to all employees in the school district touting European whites as superior."But the article quotes nothing that supports this assertion. The closest thing Kehowski wrote was, "Today's Columbus Day! It's time to acknowledge and celebrate the superiority of Western Civilization." Aren't we, as the benefactors of Western Civilization, living in a society founded on its principles, permitted to tout the superiority of them? Is this the same as saying "whites are superior"? There are millions of non-whites who have adopted the principles of Western Civilization in organizing their societies, so I don't see how this is racist unless anything that praises anything associated with whites is racist.
"The article says: His colleagues claimed he sent three e-mails to all employees in the school district touting European whites as superior. But the article quotes nothing that supports this assertion."That's the whole point!They filed a frivolous lawsuit, knowing in advance they could never prove what they were alleging.Doesn't matter.The strategy is to tie people's lives up. To make the expend money on lawyers. To fuck with them.That's the beauty of this strategy ... it doesn't require any factual basis. It's very costly to defend yourself even against the most frivilous of claims. The left knows this. But they have an entire bar association that will work pro bono for the left side ... so it costs nothing really to file lawsuits to chill speech.That's the beauty of their strategy!You can't defeat these people. They own the judges. The lawyers are all donating to Democrats. They're all members of the same association. It's their club!If you think you have free speech rights in this country, you had better fucking think again.You don't. Unless you have a shit load of cash to fight for your rights in court.Otherwise, you're fucked.
FLS:That's Spanish for "Indigenous People's Day." All was blissful and peaceful in the Western Hemisphere (barring the occasional virgin sacrifice or internecine conflict) until Whitey showed up. Shocking to hear you admit that.
The strategy is to tie people's lives up. To make the expend money on lawyers. To fuck with them.This is why we need tort reform BAD.
His third e-mail lashed out at critics who called him "racist," saying, "Boogie-boogie-boo to you too!Shanna said: I'm sorry, but that's hilarious.Totally. That's my new comeback.
"This is why we need tort reform BAD."Here's the tort reform we need: ban government employee donations to politicians and political parties.Lawyers are part of the government. They are in the judicial branch of government. The government should not be allowed to donate money to sustain itself.Teachers, firemen, lawyers, policemen ... they're all part of the government. They're all also largely Democrats ... amazing coincidence isn't it?And their unions negotiate themselves exorbitant salaries (2x what people in the private sector make) so that they can pay kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions to the politicians to ensure a steady supply of more raises and pension bumps.Our entire society has been corrupted by allowing members of the government to donate to our politicians.
Given the frequency in which 9th circus has had its decisions overturned, I'm only surprised this time they made one that will probably stick.As most here know, I'm not a fan of judicial review and the second constitution created by it.
The left detests freedom, fears liberty. Its first impulse is to crush non-normative speech.Our resident community college fruit bat fellatist can confirm that.[cough>Jeremy</cough]
@ New "Hussain" Ham...most lawyers are conservative Republicans, except for a small number that practice in the civil justice arena and try to collect damages money from careless and arrogant conservative Republicans and their businesses when they have seriously harmed innocent people and lied about it and laughed. The legal system primarily protects wealthy men, real estate wealthy by inheritance Banks, Railroads, Public Utilities and friends of the politically powerful...only then do a few attorneys also work for a traditional Democrat client base. Most of us are like CPAs with a license to draft legal documents.
"Ham...most lawyers are conservative Republicans"Bullshit. They're 90% liberal Democrats.But that's beside the point anyway. Even if they were Republicans, I'd still want to cut them off.They're the government. They are members of the Judicial branch. It is horribly corrupted to have members of the Judicial branch donating re-election funds to members of the Executive branch of our government.No government employee should be allowed to donate money to any government official. It's that simple. Otherwise, it's a recipe for corruption (after all, it's frequently members of the Executive branch which decide the pay of members of the Judiciary branch).We can either eliminate this practice, or it really doesn't matter if America survives frankly. I don't want to be a member of this society as long as government officials are the primary donators to other government officials.The game is rigged at that point. And we're at that point.(BTW: The corruption will continue. Neither the Judicial Branch, nor the Executive, has the proper incentives to change. That will only come with Revolution.)
New "Hussein" Ham said... That's the whole point!I agree with you entirely. Well stated.
"The article says, "His colleagues claimed he sent three e-mails to all employees in the school district touting European whites as superior."But the article quotes nothing that supports this assertion. The closest thing Kehowski wrote was, "Today's Columbus Day! It's time to acknowledge and celebrate the superiority of Western Civilization.""Hey, you noticed that too, huh.
Maricopa Community College in Glendale -- that's AZ, not California. AZ has been in the news a lot lately. The press has been excoriating us, but the people aren't, so overall, it's a win. I bet the same thing happens with this case, if they decide to make anything of it.
I've met Walter Kehowski (though not in a context that was at all political.) Though even before I met him, I wrote this:I wrote a post three years ago defending Kehowski.What I wrote about it at the time was this:Glendale Community College is claiming that he is being fired for violating the district's electronic communications policy, which prohibits using district e-mail for private or personal matters. Fair enough, if it were a private or personal matter. If he were sending out emails touting his side business or exchanging raunchy emails with a hooker in Hong Kong then they might have a point.However, this email propounded a political viewpoint. Whether one agrees with it or not is irrelevant. It is hard to argue that it is either private or personal. It is instead an academic argument. What this amounts to is an attack on academic freedom. Academia is supposed to be a place in which ideas can be exchanged freely, debated and responded to (there's a thought-- why didn't they just send out an email rebutting his?).As I said, when I wrote it I hadn't met him. I have since but during a presentation on using tangent lines to solve cubic equations.I'm sure I don't agree at all with him politically but in this case Ann is exactly right.The fact is that either we all have free speech or nobody does.
It is instead an academic argument. Excellent point. I was looking for that put couldn't put my finger on it.
The linked article left out two amazing things from the opinion:1. Sandra Day O'Connor was on the panel! (sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 294(a)).2. Judge Kozinski cited to Wikipedia!!!! 1See Wikipedia, Columbus Day, at http://en.wikipedia.org/Columbus_Day (last visited March 19, 2010).http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/05/20/08-16073.pdf
Judge Kozinski cited to Wikipedia!!!!Surely not the first time that's happened?
Post a Comment