Oh and the “who can abuse this” line of thinking is an important one, especially considering who stands to benefit from broad executive order powers. Live by the Obama sword, die by the Trump sword. I’m not trying to empower him one iota.

I just wanted to add that your first substantive paragraph about defanging protections based on sex is an excellent point that I’ve yet to hear from anyone. Thought that’s a very good point that should be considered.

I agree as to academically, disagree as to applied. Academically, #2 is a much better statutory interpretation analysis.

Fellow lawyer. I agree with your assessment but wanted to be clear about what the substance would be.

It’s going to come down to how much a court should defer to an agency interpreting a statute that is ambiguous (and it’s going to be a close question). Not whether trangender students should be free to use the restroom…

She’s free to publicize her side of the story.

Wouldn’t bother with that poster. Well know to be a self rightous, grandstanding asswipe of the highest order. Deliberately misundersting you now proves what a cockgoblin they are.

I am not a lawyer and I don’t know how legit his legal case is; however, I don’t want colleges/ universities handling what should be criminal cases. I also don’t think any proceedings that can result in the suspension or expulsion of a student should be sealed.

Well he is claiming in the WP article that the investigator “did not interview witnesses he believed would support his case.” and that“Officials failed to advise him that he was entitled to assistance in defending himself and to a student representative, albeit not a lawyer, to help him out.” Those seem like…

I’m explaining what I think his argument is, not agreeing with it. I’m not defending him at all.

I don’t disagree about the effectiveness/usefulness of college courts, but his argument reeks of “if you weren’t so biased, if you had approached this matter with any sense of objectivity, you wouldn’t have punished me because you would have believed me when I said we had consensual sex and not her when she said we…

I think his argument is that he had consensual sex with a woman and that she “changed her mind” and reported him for assault, and instead of approaching the matter “objectively,” they unfairly chose to believe the female victim and kangaroo-courted him because of said “pro-female, anti-male” bias. I.E., they only…

Except, he was not tried in a criminal court & found guilty of a crime. These private investigations by colleges/universities are a horrible way of handling assault cases.

What court of law found him guilty of a crime? This was all internal to Columbia by my reading of it, so he didn’t have any of the rights we expect of someone being charged with a crime, including not being allowed a lawyer, or it appears call witnesses. The lack to “due process” in these cases should raise questions.…

Do you think it’s possible his lawsuit has merit? Can one believe that sexual assault is under-reported, and we live in a society that doesn’t do nearly enough to stop it while also believing it’s possible that a guy could be innocent of what he is accused, and therefore have a legitimate beef with the university?

It is really the only definition a young child would accept.

I don’t call myself a progressive, but there is no definition that would be compatible with Hillary’s neoliberal agenda. “Better than Trump!” is all she has, which is enough, but still gross.

My favorite definition of “progressive” is “agrees with me on all issues that I consider important to being a progressive”.

I don't give second chances. You're dismissed.

I agree with her sentiments 100%, but SCOTUS members shouldn’t comment on partisan political issues like this. That Scalia did it is no defense.

If you can divorce yourself from well deserved admiration for RBG and equally well earned revulsion for Trump then, yeah, she probably shouldn’t have said it.