June 6, 2013

More on Judge Edith Jones

A friend writes:
I was at the speech.  Unfortunately, she actually didn't say half the things she is accused of saying.  No one there seemed particularly shocked.

16 comments:

  1. The "friend" absolutely has to be Amy Wax, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ann Althouse had someone send in a summary of the presentation. Don't know their position (student, faculty, staff?), but their description certainly sounds far less explosive than what was alleged.

    Much like Trayvon Martin. I'm sure that there are other examples.

    http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/06/frankly-whenever-i-see-complaint.html#more

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I don't know Amy Wax."

    Darn, I figured between it being Penn Law and you being only one degree of separation away via Derbyshire:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/upennlaw.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lefties lying?

    I'm shocked!!! And now for this amazing late breaking story about fish swimming ...

    ReplyDelete
  5. their description certainly sounds far less explosive than what was alleged.



    Really? What was alleged was as about as "explosive" as a fire-cracker that got left out in a thunder-storm. "She said blacks commit more crime than whites!!! OMG!!"

    Like the Richwine witchhunt, what's striking is that what was said to provoke so much faux outrage was so banal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I interviewed for a federal judicial clerkship with her and also Jerry Smith in Houston back in '98. I was throughly encouraged by a copy of the Bell Curve up on her bookshelf!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve:

    You don't know Amy Wax? Really?

    Get acquainted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve:

    You don't know Amy Wax? Really?

    Get acquainted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. holy shit, the derb himself?

    ReplyDelete
  10. In re Amy Wax. She and Glenn Loury debate the black crime problem.

    http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2752

    ReplyDelete
  11. I second Geoff Matthews recommendation of the attendee's summary over at the Althouse blog. Pretty much confirms what I suspected about the allegations of racism and religious nuttery. (The latter of which I noticed some iStevers, who should know better, were willing to accept on faith.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. It would be unfortunate if she didn't say the things of which she is "accused". Since they are true statements, her the finding that "she didn't actually say Those Things" as the basis of her "acquittal" carries with it the subtext that she should she have said "Those Things" she should have not been "acquitted".

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was at the speech. Unfortunately, she actually didn't say half the things she is accused of saying. No one there seemed particularly shocked.

    Funny, I typed up a response to the first Judge Edith thread, but never posted it. The gist was that there's no point to this without a recording of some kind, because the Judge would manhandle her accusers in court without one, and eyewitness' recall of things with thought-warping taboo effect fields around them has roughly zero credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Her comment that Hispanics are prone to commit more crimes is an example of stereotypes making your stupider.

    Unz has proven Hispanics don't commit more crime than whites. They are just younger than whites so that's why there's more Hispanic crime not because they are prone to it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Her comment that Hispanics are prone to commit more crimes is an example of stereotypes making your stupider.

    Unz has proven Hispanics don't commit more crime than whites. They are just younger than whites so that's why there's more Hispanic crime not because they are prone to it.


    Right. Blacks aren't more prone to crime. They're just more prone to poverty. It's poor people who are more prone to crime.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated, at whim.