Partisan articles in the LHL are common. They are usually reprints from national opinion writers from other newspapers.

 

This one, that is very strong, comes from a UK Professor. It is a pure attack piece. It is personal its attack and completely subjective.

 

Is this OK coming from a faculty member of a state supported university?

 

 

Ky. Voices: 'Tea Party 5' brings high court down with partisan alliances | Op-Ed | Kentucky.com

 

https://history.as.uky.edu/users/rform2

Yes.

Are you advocating professors from UK not be allowed to writer letters to the editor or expression opinions in the paper?

A pointy-headed professor has a liberal bent.

 

In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

Which of the statistics quoted were subjective?

I don't know if there is an answer to it but I am put off a bit by Justice Thomas' wife's actions.

The Truth Hurts and the good Professor Speaketh the Truth

A pointy-headed professor has a liberal bent.

 

In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

 

I'm not a professor and my head is as round as Charlie Brown's, but what the good professor had to say is right on the money. This court is as activist as anything the Warren court ever thought of.

I didn't read the story and I don't care what they argued. The implication that the government should be disciplining opinions or that professors should espouse only government approved beliefs is terrifying.

I'm not a professor and my head is as round as Charlie Brown's, but what the good professor had to say is right on the money. This court is as activist as anything the Warren court ever thought of.

 

Oh, I agree 100 percent.

 

I was just trying to do what I thought could never be done. Me - getting a "like" from FBD.

 

To quote someone, "Mission Accomplished".

I didn't read the story and I don't care what they argued. The implication that the government should be disciplining opinions or that professors should espouse only government approved beliefs is terrifying.

 

Scary, ain't it?

 

For some strange reason, names like Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler keep popping in my head.

Funny he didn't mention Kagan's ties to the bill. Oh, I guess that wouldn't help his point.

 

So he obviously feels the bill will be struck down and instead of writing a piece stating why the SCOTUS would be in the wrong to vote against it he resorts to discrediting the conservative justices.

Funny he didn't mention Kagan's ties to the bill. Oh, I guess that wouldn't help his point.

 

So he obviously feels the bill will be struck down and instead of writing a piece stating why the SCOTUS would be in the wrong to vote against it he resorts to discrediting the conservative justices.

 

Sounds like he'd fit in pretty well in P&R. :lol:

Funny he didn't mention Kagan's ties to the bill. Oh, I guess that wouldn't help his point.

 

So he obviously feels the bill will be struck down and instead of writing a piece stating why the SCOTUS would be in the wrong to vote against it he resorts to discrediting the conservative justices.

 

Now, now, now, those justices this guy agrees with certainly can't be political or partisan, can they?

 

As to whether or not it's ok for a UK professor to write such a blatantly partisan article, sure it's ok. It's an opinion piece.

A pointy-headed professor has a liberal bent.

 

In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

 

88% chance of being right on the first part.