US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been selected to speak at Augustana University this coming March, and already liberals are attacking and trying to pressure the school to rescind the invitation:
Scalia is known for interpreting the Constitution with what he believes the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it, as opposed to the more modern and arguably more popular belief that the Constitution is a “living document” that changes with the culture. This philosophy is called originalism, and, according to Center for Western Studies Executive Director Harry Thompson, it will be the topic of Scalia’s talk in March.
Scalia also has very clear opinions about where the lines of power should be drawn. He is not only concerned about what the Court decides, but how they decide it and whether it is its place to make a ruling.
And…Sophomore Rachel Polan sees it differently.
“He rubs a lot of people the wrong way,” she said. “I think they should have chosen someone less controversial.”
And outside of the Augie community, Obama campaign manager Steve Hildebrandt was on Facebook this weekend trying to paint Scalia as a racist, also campaigning for the invitation to be yanked:
I hope Augustana University here in Sioux Falls will retract their invitation to Scalia after his hateful and bigoted comments about African Americans.
In case you haven’t heard what he said, here it is: “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans 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 slower-track school where they do well,” Scalia said.
And..
Please contact Augustana and encourage them to take the invitation back.
(Steve Hildebrand, Facebook, 12/12/15)
I have not looked at the context of the comments, but I sincerely doubt that a Judge of his stature is a raging racist as they seem to be trying to portray.
The call to deny him an invitation seems more designed to whip students into a frenzy by yelling racism to deny a conservative an appearance on campus as they have been doing across the country, as an atmosphere of campus political over-correctness has been popping up nationwide.
I think we should count ourselves as fortunate that one of our country’s top judicial officials would come for a visit and lecture at one of our states universities.
Unless there are those whose grasp on their worldview is so tenuous, they might be forced to curl up in a ball when it’s subjected to a challenge.
So much for Liberals and free speech, oh wait… they are only for free speech when it pushes their agenda….
In his comments, Scalia was referring to several amicus briefs supporting the University of Texas in Fischer v. University of Texas, the latest case on affirmative action and race consideration as a factor in admissions. He was referring to those briefs in his comments. This has been left out of most of the news coverage.
Liberals get bugged by that pesky first amendment when it’s used for something like the free exchange of ideas – that they don’t like. Already have my tickets, looking forward to hearing the Justice.
By the way, the speech is funded from an endowment by former Governor Nils Boe, who’s love dor the free exchange of ideas that he funded, probably conflicts with the left’s narrative, since he was a Republican.
Hey, look! Something we can all actually agree on! Attempting to “silence” a supreme court justice goes against everything we as Americans stand for – regardless of political stripe. What Justice Scalia has to say is important, and weighs on all our lives. Attempting to blacklist such an important and influential personage only makes us look childish in that we obviously can’t handle what the man has to say so we shove our fingers in our ears and shout, “lalalalalalalalaicanthearyoulalalalalala!”
Seriously. How the hell does this create a well-informed citizenry if we don’t let controversial opinions enter our thoughts? Friggin’ idiots.
It’s embarrassing that my campus is being so juvenile. The liberals on my campus are ignorant of the judgical proceedings. Justice Scalia was asking a tough question based off of an amicus brief. Liberals would rather have the process change than deal with tough questions they don’t like the answer to. They’re all moral crusaders, open and accepting and tolerant until they don’t like what’s being said. Then, they demoralize and dehumanize and demonize who’s saying it to make it ‘morally right’ to discredit them. The first amendment protects everyone, until they don’t like what’s being said. It’s embarrassing, laughable and hypocritical. The epitome of hypocrisy, at its finest. I’ll be attending Justice Scalia. I’m honored Augie can bring a sitting SCOTUS Justice. I’ve been studying and reading Scalia for about 10 months now and if his invitation is revoked, I’ll raise hell. Thanks for the post.
Please be more specific. Liberals is a very broad term for democrats and their republican enablers. If it is democrats doing the whining, please call them democrats, as liberal is almost meaningless these days.
As a liberal alumna, I am disappointed at the title of this post. When I heard that Augustana had secured a sitting justice to come speak I was thrilled. What a great opportunity for students to get to hear from the longest sitting and most out-spoken justice on the court. Do I disagree with almost everything Scalia has ever said? Yes. However, that doesn’t take away from the value in hearing challenging opinions. We are not all unreasonable.
–Do I disagree with almost everything Scalia has ever said? Yes.
–We are not all unreasonable.
To disagree with much or most of what Scalia has written would be unreasonable, per se.
So does Rachel want to go to her “safe space” where there is never anything said contrary to her beliefs and it is like Cloud Cuckoo Land in real life (for those of you who saw the Lego Movie, this makes sense)? Grow up, kid-life isn’t always going to be fair and you are going to have to put up with some discomfort. Aren’t your teachers at Augustana teaching you that? If not, maybe go somewhere that will introduce you to real life.
And to Steve Hildebrand-get a life, doofus. An idiot like him will try to twist anything to their liberal advantage.
I think Augustana should be glad to get someone who knows more about the Constitution than the nitwit Obummer-who supposedly is a Constitutional scholar. Obummer may have studied the Constitution, but he sure doesn’t believe it.
Grow up, kiddies, we’re not all here to protect you from controversy your whole lives!
To Steve
Anonymous 12:01 and Augie Alum:
You are disappointed with the title of the post? Really? Not Hildebrandt and not the liberals on campus who want the invite yanked? Talk about “shooting the messenger” when you supposedly agree with the thrust of the post.
What was your Augie Major? A permanent reserved seat at the Crow Bar? Walking Taco “cook” at Elmen?
–What was your Augie Major? A permanent reserved seat at the Crow Bar? Walking Taco “cook” at Elmen?
That’s absolutely uncalled for.
Its; one thing to disagree withe the views of others, but to respond like a spoiled SOB is unchristian.
Grow up.
Get a sense of humor. It was a joke.
You’re correct. I shouldn’t generalize liberals. The liberals I have encountered on this issue is who I was addressing.
I hope this blog will spend as much time reporting what Scalia said in his speech as it has explaining why some liberals might not be interested in listening to it. Judging by the kinds of decisions he makes (some I agree with, some I don’t) I have a hunch that Scalia himself doesn’t really believe his “originalist” baloney. It is literally impossible for any one person to have the same mindset as a person born before the industrial revolution and the information age, let alone 9 people. Nor can I think of a single good reason why anyone in their right mind would want them to.
–I have a hunch that Scalia himself doesn’t really believe his “originalist” baloney.
He’s a textualist, not an originalist.
From the text of the post above:
“Scalia is known for interpreting the Constitution with what he believes the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it, as opposed to the more modern and arguably more popular belief that the Constitution is a “living document” that changes with the culture. This philosophy is called originalism, and, according to Center for Western Studies Executive Director Harry Thompson, it will be the topic of Scalia’s talk in March.”
_______
You don’t really believe the Constitution is a “living” document do you? If you do, let’s play poker with my “living” poker rules.
Stupid comparison, dugger. Surely you’re smarter than that. Two words: women voters. Four more: Article V, 27 Amendments. It’s not just living, it was written to live. (*royal flush-clears money off table*)
Justice Scalia is a perfect speaker for Augie and SoDak Conservatives. His values are your values and it’s important to growth to know where you sit before telling where you stand.
And, Mr. Powers. Politically correct and political correctness are terms embraced by bigots trying to shield themselves from valid criticism. Correct is correct. no matter what qualifier is put in front of it.
Porter,
Correct from who’s point of view? Yours?
Ouch Porter.
With Scalia coming to town, Dennis, John, Mike and Kristi might want to bone up on their conservatism !
This has nothing to do with “free speech”. You guys are nutz. I wouldn’t care who is speaking but saying you want someone else doesn’t mean you are against free speech. Sounds like you are all exercising your right to freedom of speech just fine. Quit crying wolf.
It does, though. Students on campus are circulating a petition to revoke Justice Scalia’s invitation to speak, which would stifle his opinion and similar ones on campus. Unfortunately, students think that Augustana is endorsing his views (which could not be more false). Part of going to a university is to be exposed to opinions we disagree with. Attempting to prohibit him from coming stifles Justice Scalia’s opinions (and knowledge on so much more than policy) form being heard on this campus. No one is concerned with the actual scheduled topic: A Living Constitution (not gay marriage, affirmative action, foreign policy, etc.) If students don’t want to hear it, they simply can avoid attending. It’s that simple.
Their ability to petition and protest someone speaking is about as American as it can get. Forcing those beliefs or restricting someone’s rights is when things become un-American. Augustana has every right to allow or not allow that speaker, and everyone else has a right to attend or not attend. We also have every right to vocally agree with that or not. None of those actions are unfairly restricting someone’s rights. Even if Augustana were to choose another speaker, no one’s freedom of speech is being denied. IF the students don’t want to hear it, they simply can avoid attending or demonstrate their disgust. Both sound like something we should support their right to do, because that is exactly what our soldiers have died for.
–Their ability to petition and protest someone speaking is about as American as it can get.
Actually it’s not.
In a civil society, allowing others to speak in public forums IS the American way. Augustana does not a “right” to be uncivil or disrespectful, especially after inviting him. Students who do not like the choice have no “right” to petition for a change–no one has a “right” to uncivil and disrespectful.
–demonstrate their disgust
No. No one has a right to be disrespectful in a civil society by “demonstrating their disgust.” Besides, this man holds a position of respect within our society, and has said or done nothing that any reasonable person could possibly construe as deserving of disgust.
The “right” that Auggie and it students have is for the gov’t not to interfere with their choice of speaker.
This is about civility, not “rights”.
But liberals have little respect for civility or rights when it interferes with their agendas.
This isn’t a public forum. This is a private group which can give anyone the privilege to speak or not. Augustana can do as they please, regardless of whether you think that is disrespectful or uncivil through your warped definitions.
Claiming they can’t be “disrespectful”, even though they aren’t, is the biggest load of crap. You can’t claim they are mad at someone violating their safe space and then do the same thing because you are offended. They have every right to make their voices heard whether your or I agree with it.
I don’t see government interfering at all. Care to point that out?
You guys have no idea what freedom of speech is, nor do you understand that people can publicly proclaim their support or disgust without being silenced. That is your right whether you agree with it or not, or whether you are offended by it or not. Get over it.
Sounds like you need to get over it, or go to your “safe place” on campus. Angry much?
–This isn’t a public forum.
Well it is:
“Tickets are open to the public and…”
Events open to the public held on private property are “public forums.” For example, store owners literally own the sidewalks to the middle of the street (and pay taxes on all of it)–since the sidewalks & the street are open to the public, they remain “public forums” and the store owner cannot restrict the content of the speech of folks on the sidewalks.
–They have every right to make their voices heard whether your or I agree with it.
I agree that they can invite anyone that they want–but that’s not a “right”.
–They have every right to make their voices heard whether your or I agree with it.
Again, I agree that they can “make their voices heard”, but there’s no “right” involved in that activity under these circumstances. I questioned the PROPRIETY of whether they should “make their voices heard” when in reality, it’s none of their business and they have no control over it. It’s akin to me “making my voiced heard” that you put too much syrup on your pancakes at home. I can say whatever I want about it, but I have no “right” to do so, nor do I have any control over the amount of syrup you choose to use.
–I don’t see government interfering at all. Care to point that out?
I don’t either and that’s why I’m pointing out that there are no RIGHTS involved. The First Amendment protects rights against GOVERNMENT action. There’s no gov’t action here so there no one’s “rights” are involved.
–You guys have no idea what freedom of speech is, nor do you understand that people can publicly proclaim their support or disgust without being silenced.
Who’s trying to silence anyone, let alone commenting on such a thing? No one, except you. No one has mentioned “freedom of speech” except you. Why all the anger, Daniel?
Read the first comment you anonymous coward: “So much for Liberals and free speech, oh wait… they are only for free speech when it pushes their agenda….”
No one’s rights are being violated. Voicing your opinion on a speaker has nothing to do with being against free speech. Augie can restrict anyone’s speech on their own property, whether the public is invited or not.
I was not responding to the first comment–I was responding to yours–that’s why it was indented under YOUR comment, not the first.
–No one’s rights are being violated
That we agree with. Nor does one have a “right” object to what Auggie is doing or express their disgust or supoprt, etc.
— Voicing your opinion on a speaker has nothing to do with being against free speech.
Agreed, but having an opinion on an Auggie speaker is not a ‘”right” or a constitutional “freedom”.
–Augie can restrict anyone’s speech on their own property,
Not quite. Sidewalks along public streets that go through or border the Auggie campus are regulated by the city (by state law). Moreover, areas open to the public on Auggie property (plazas, sidewalks, sculpture gardens…) are very likely considered “public areas”, unless Auggie regularly restricts access in order to assert its control over those areas.
“Agreed, but having an opinion on an Auggie speaker is not a ‘”right” or a constitutional “freedom”.”
Yeah it is. I can express any opinion about an Auggie speaker and the gov’t can’t tell me to shut my mouth. Now, if I wonder onto Auggie property outside of areas where a public easement is obtained, Auggie can stifle my speech.
“Nor does one have a “right” object to what Auggie is doing or express their disgust or supoprt, etc.”
I also have every right to do that without fear of being imprisoned. Our constitutional first amendment allows us to criticize anything we damn well please.
Other than you, only one person has mentioned “free speech”; no one else has mentioned “freedom of speech” besides you.
Isn’t it nutz to go off on a rant based on misunderstanding what most commenters are saying?
Why don’t you look at the first comment posted……
To quote:
“Other than you, only one person has mentioned “free speech””
Can you read? What are you so angry about?
Apparently, you can’t read because you missed the first post and then the 3rd as well: “Liberals get bugged by that pesky first amendment when it’s used for something like the free exchange of ideas – that they don’t like.”
As we can all see, your copied quote…
““Liberals get bugged by that pesky first amendment when it’s used for something like the free exchange of ideas – that they don’t like.”
does not contain the words “free speech” or “freedom of speech”.
You started arguing about “freedom of speech” when no one else was.
It’s called a strawman.
yeah…because the first amendment has nothing to do with free speech.. /s I’m sure Pat Powers could use a few shills like yourself.
Staying on topic, Justice Scalia is probably right. Conservatives shouldn’t be able to lean on affirmative action just to get into Vermillion when they’d do much better on a slower track at Augustana. What say y’all? 🙂
Porter, we Augie alumni promise to talk slow and use small words in discussions with you. We’ll do our best to make you feel comfortable. What color crayons do you favor? 😄
So Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, Vicente Fox, Pervez Musharraf & Madeleine Albright are acceptable, but Antonin Scalia is not?
Typical tactics of the liberals of today. I sincerely hope that Augustana does not cave in to these self-righteous, bigoted (yes, it is bigotry to paint someone as a racist just because you do not believe in his/her policies), narrow-minded, etc people.
The coolest Boe lecture, in its historical context, has to be when Barbara Bush spoke on campus the morning after she became the only mother in American history to have two sons elected governor on the same day. $10 bucks says somebody in charge of schedules got fired when she found out she had to get up at 7AM to go to South Dakota when her family was still celebrating in Austin and Tallahassee 😆
Anonymous 9:30:
You are not anonymous to me. Why don’t you sign your name? Do you mind if I do? Why are a large percentage of your posts an insult to me personally?
yeah, yeah, yeah–we all know that you’re always the victim, not the abusive poster.
We heard it all before… .
Don’t bother Troy. They are small little boys who need to hide behind a screen name because their testicles never dropped.
Daniel, should I assume since he didn’t answer my questions, I can use my judgment to disclose his name?
Haha! Threatening to dox someone because you don’t like what they’ve said? Remind me what this thread was about again?
Please do. They have no integrity, much like the man who lets them post their crap here without signing their name.
‘Daniel, should I assume since he didn’t answer my questions, I can use my judgment to disclose his name?’
That would make you a malevolent bully.
Crossgrain, the guy just stalks my comments and attacks me personally. I just want people to know what a putz he is (sometimes pretends to be a woman).
Why let it bother you? Doxxing the guy won’t do squat except probably make his alleged harassment of you even worse.
Meh. Whatever its worth, I’m all for anonymous posting. I prefer to remain that way myself, but on the upside, I do always use the same name so you’ll know it’s me 😉
Who put you in charge of judging who and who is not a putz?
Maybe your the putz, even with a name?
I’ve red over much of this and I cannot believe that this guy thinks someone is stalking him when just the opposite seems to be true. Whenver he is corrected, he seems to fall into personal attacks and threats. He questioned a person here about how much time they spent at a bar and if they were just a taco cook (racist) in order to put him down.
I also read a lot of his posts where thinks he is some christian scholar or something. But he doesn’t correct the vulgar and sexualized words Daniel used here, but choose to talk about pretenders. What a pretend christian!
Is there somthing wrong here?
“Is there somthing wrong here?”
Cowards acting as if anyone wants to read their statements put on a public forum that required the testicular fortitude of a toddler. Grow a pair.