It's true that there are liberal judges and conservative judges. But to say they all are there pushing a very particular agenda is rather unfair. These aren't random politicians off of the street. These are legal experts that have had decades and decades of experience, have built up a reputation worthy of being nominated and approved for higher courts and ultimately have had the blessing of our congress to be appointed to the highest legal seat in the land.
Wisconsin supreme court to Marquette: Reinstate conservative professor Ed MorrisseyPosted at The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered Marquette University to reinstate conservative poli-sci professor John McAdams immediately and restore all his privileges.
The ruling encompasses both free-speech and contract considerations, ruling that the Jesuit school committed a breach of contract in firing him for sharp criticism of another instructor who attempted to shut down a debate over gay rights: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday that embattled Marquette University political science professor John McAdams was improperly suspended after he publicly criticized a graduate student by name on his politically conservative blog, leading to threats against her.
The court ordered the Jesuit university to immediately reinstate the professor and sent the case back to a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge to award damages, including back pay. McAdams with unimpaired rank, tenure, compensation, and benefits.
That was when McAdams posted an article on his personal blog, the Marquette Warrior, criticizing graduate student instructor Cheryl Abbate for shutting down a classroom debate in her poli-sci course over gay rights.
Marquette at first suspended then fired McAdams, and argued in court that it was his identification of Abbate and publishing of her professional contact information that provided the necessary cause to fire McAdams.
Abbate had to leave Marquette after getting death threats and other unpleasant feedback. The court firmly sided with McAdams, but the ideological split was predictable.
The court ruled that it breached its contract with McAdams and the expectation of academic freedom by getting it backwards: With the benefit of hindsight, the University reverse-engineered its conclusion that Dr. Instructor Abbate suffered harm because she received offensive communications from third parties; the communications were prompted by Dr.
So quod non erat demonstrandum. Performing the analysis in the correct direction leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the blog post has nothing relevant to say about Dr. Nor do blogging faculty members have a general obligation to ensure every statement they make in a post is accurate.
McAdams drafted the blog post in such a way that it would subject Instructor Abbate to public contempt. We do not understand the University to argue that an extramural comment that causes such responses is beyond the pale——an extraordinarily unusual argument for an educational institution to make——so we perceive its concern to be about the responses that go beyond the realm of reasonable criticism.
But the University did not identify any aspect of what Dr. McAdams actually wrote to support its charge. Instead, it used third-party responses to the blog post as a proxy for its allegedly contempt-inducing nature.
Here again, the University demonstrates that reverse-engineering a conclusion is not the most reliable method of conducting an analysis.
Just because vile commentary followed the blog post does not mean the blog post instigated or invited the vileness. The University must identify which part of the blog post is supposed to have been responsible for eliciting the offensive remarks.
It did not even attempt to do so. Our review of the blog post reveals that it makes no ad hominem attack on Instructor Abbate, nor does it invite readers to be uncivil to her, either explicitly or implicitly.
McAdams wrote the blog post to subject Instructor Abbate to contempt, we must reject it. McAdams reached out to Abbate for comment, but Abbate declined the opportunity to respond. The blog post did not contain a call to action or make any demands inciting violence or attack.
She drafted a formal letter of complaint insisting that Marquette discipline McAdams for the blog. Two weeks later, Abbate threatened to sue Marquette and subject it to adverse publicity, unless the University acceded to her demands that the University fire McAdams, punish J.
The majority errs in conducting only half of the academic freedom analysis. It fails to recognize, much less analyze, the academic freedom of Marquette as a private, Catholic, Jesuit university.
An educational institution, here a private, Catholic, Jesuit institution, possesses the academic freedom to operate in accordance with its principles as long as it does not violate governing laws. Such a right should be given some consideration, rather than the silent treatment the majority offers.
This … is a curious assertion, one which Bradley extends to the disciplinary process as well. That exemption would extend to the disciplinary process regardless of whether it seems unfair or not, which would certainly be a major change in direction for American courts.Jun 29, · The Supreme Court announced its decision Wednesday to uphold the individual mandate in the health care law.
The ruling declares that the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine, is constitutional as a tax. Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment:Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India. If you want to make your own mind up about whether Supreme Court Justices are "unbiased and bipartisan", then look at the way they actually split on decisions (don't even look at what the decision is and which sides of it are liberal or conservative, just look at how they divide).
The Supreme Court was designed to be unbiased and make it’s choices purely based on what the law says. The nine people who are appointed to the Supreme Court are called Justices. They are elected to .
This is a discussion of the various abuses of power which have been exhibited by the US government, often under the guise of 'fighting terrorism' or some other popular goal.
Includes news articles about the abuse of power and the perpetuation of government agencies which have too much power, too little restraint, and too many bad ideas. The U.S. Supreme Court does need a full complement of nine justices. I think we all agree on that.
It would not be okay to have ties. The Constitution says the president “shall” appoint.