Posted on 12/15/2015 4:38:48 AM PST by markomalley
Several college professors unleashed vulgarities at conservative Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas after they were offended by some of Scalia’s comments during oral arguments in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which has to do with the constitutionality of affirmative action policies in college admissions.
The professors took umbrage with one of Scalia’s comments, in which the jurist asked the counsel for UT to respond to an argument made by opponents of affirmative action, pointing out that “there are those who contend that it does not benefit African ÂAmericans to–to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a less  a slower Âtrack school where they do well. One of – one of the briefs pointed out that  that most of the — ÂÂmost of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.”
Apparently believing Scalia’s comments to be offensive, several college professors took to Twitter to show their contempt for both Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.
Ben Carrington, an assistant professor of Sociology at the University of Texas, called Justice Thomas a “dumb f***” for something he imagined Thomas doing.
I can imagine Clarence Thomas nodding as Scalia says blacks should stick to "slower track schools". He's talking about you, you dumb f***.
— Ben Carrington (@BenHCarrington) December 9, 2015
Jesse Goldberg, an assistant professor of Neurobiology and Behavior at Cornell University, simply tweeted “f*** you, Scalia.”
f*** you, Scalia. https://t.co/UqrrvWJK10
— Jesse Goldberg (@KempoJesse) December 9, 2015
Alexander Ibe, a professor of Life Sciences at Weatherford College, called Scalia an “Ass Hole Racist.”
#SCOTUS Scalia is just an Ass Hole Racist
— Dr. Alex Ibe (@DrAlexIbe) December 11, 2015
Angus Johnston, a professor at the City University of New York’s Hostos Community College, claimed Scalia was “reveling in being an asshole.”
Scalia reveling in being an asshole. He's getting worse, right? Feels like he's getting worse.
— Angus Johnston (@studentactivism) December 9, 2015
Despite his own vulgarity, Johnston has been an ardent defender of “trigger warnings” for college students.
“Trumpskis disparage Ronald Reagan now too.”
Please show me the report if you could.
-—Ben Carrington, an assistant professor of Sociology——
There is no lower level of academic being than an assistant professor of sociolgy
After he wasn't. Btw, I was once pro-abort. I changed when I was 24 years old. How old was Trump when he saw the Light?
Trump is likely on record for just about every position.
When you are populist which flaps in the wind, your record of positions is quite extensive. Romney and McCain had similar records.
The only difference of course is they actually stood up and attempted to do something about it. Trump on the other hand just has his rhetoric and decades of supporting Democrats to show for it.
Well thank you for admitting that. As he did on ethanol and on Cruz being a maniac (something McCain and Graham no doubt LOVED). In fact, if you'll step back and examine the bottom of his shoes....you'll see that he's stepped in a LOT of piles over the past 3-4 years.....even the past 3-4 months.
Apparently, reasoned arguments are no longer tolerated in the Ivy League.
No, not a cheap shot, its the truth.
Have you seen the thread that was on here last week them getting all excited that even liberals are supporting Trump ?
Or the well known talk and rethoric here that Trump has broad appeal ? Even with Democrats.
That Trump will win the general election with the support of the cross over Voters ?
No, its not a cheap shot, its what they have been talking about for months here on FR.
While your concern about Trump and Judiciary is valid and accurate, it’s a question of whether you believe what he has been saying since August:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3330070/posts
[Repeating your link ...]
Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a ‘phenomenal’ Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.”
So back in August, he had to rule it out. He is opposed to HIS OWN SISTER being a SCOTUS.
Why? I suspect that the Planned Parenthood exposes had a lot to do with Trump’s position on abortion.
Boy, it takes real bravery to call someone out on twitter.
Liberals refuse to accept a genetic component for intelligence.
Any “professor” who can’t address his objections to a fact statement in terms of opposing facts should be flipping burgers instead.
Pay attention, America. Send your children to trade school, and put these cretins out of work.
Do they even realize he was paraphrasing another argument?
“Have you seen the thread that was on here last week them getting all excited that even liberals are supporting Trump?”
He excites the left not because of anti-conservative issues but because of BORDER SAFETY and Islamic Terrorism against the US.
Now I begin to see Pollster1’s point of view. Trump is shrewd to not make a big deal about his judicial considerations because he can get a more fraud-proof majority.
That makes this blunder that much worse though. Can he finesse this mess?
I wouldn't go so far as to disparage fell FReepers.
Even for those who don't support Trump, we have to recognize what tremendous good he has done for the campaign and for conservatives. Without Trump (and the wall), the flood of invaders coming across our borders would have been ignored across the board. Without Trump, it's likely that none of the candidates would have pushed back on the State Run Media and their narrative. Without Trump, we wouldn't have seen the actual liberal content of a Kacich or a Bush or a Gramnesty come out as clearly and unambiguously as their real personalities did.
Fact of the matter is, on many of the issues that actually matter to conservatives, Trump is unafraid to come out and say what most of us think. And say it very, very plainly (in fact, one could say bombastically). Face it, without Trump, the media-advocated Giant to be slain would be Bush.
It's just too bad that he has some schizophrenia in the issues that he supports.
But regardless of whether you support him or not, I think the appropriate reaction is to be thankful that he is in the campaign. And while it might be appropriate to say that some FReepers have stars in their eyes, I don't think that makes them faux FReepers.
Any ‘professor’ who can’t address his objections to a fact statement in terms of opposing facts should be flipping burgers instead. [unquote]
Absolutely. That is why professors should not object to a constitutional amendment that requires each of them to engage in a mandatory debate once a year.
Professors should relish the challenge of debating someone [the debates planned by someone collectively chosen by the states and term limited to one year].
Actually, if you accept "affirmative action", you are buying into the "genetic component for intelligence, as you're making the claim that a person with a certain genetic makeup will need preferential treatment.
Many professors are employees of the states, so this requirement could be imposed by state legislation. Those employed by private institutions could be so directed by orders of the trustees.
It would be simple enough to have each professor face off against someone in his own or a closely-related field with whom he strongly disagrees.
Trump was openly outraged against Planned Parenthood. You obviously assume he has ice water running through his veins. I don’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.