When Yale students do it? (Whose actions are attributed to the school administration because, sure, why not? Or is it just that collective punishment of students is allowed when the reasons for the action don't sit well with a federal judge?)But he also emphasized the need for substantive measures—above and beyond simply “speaking out”—to fight back.
— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) September 29, 2022
“We’re not just citizens,” he said. “We’re also customers…I wonder how a law school would feel, if my fellow federal judges and I stopped being its customers.”
Or when a sitting Supreme Court Justice does it?Alito lashes out at critics: 'Questioning our integrity crosses an important line' https://t.co/Y1EOihs6n5
— Raw Story (@RawStory) September 29, 2022
“It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. “But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line.”
Seems to me Justice Alito is plainly stating that "disagreement with our decisions" is fine, but questioning the court's legitimacy and/or integrity "crosses an important line." So disagreement reaches a limit beyon which you shall not pass? Is that not "cancel culture," Judge Ho? Pray, explain the difference, please.
Because I can't see it. You're telling Yale Law students to shut up if they want to have careers or a reason to pay the costs of a Yale Law degree. Alito is telling critics, any critics (he doesn't specify anyone, like another sitting Justice), to watch their ass, because they could go too far. Which threat is actually the more ominous? And isn't the power of the threat what "cancel culture" is all about?
And if it isn't, just what the hell is "cancel culture" about? Inquiring minds want to know!
No comments:
Post a Comment