> but so are consequences and context. The context is that students invited him to speak about topics unrelated to his controversial rulings (which for the rec

> but so are consequences and context. The context is that students invited him to speak about topics unrelated to his controversial rulings (which for the record I think are terrible). The students who wanted to hear him speak are the one's who faced consequences here. As are any students who may disagree with him, but will one day have to argue in court in front of Federalist judges and would be aided by better understanding those same judges. The Judge himself suffered no consequence other than inconvenience and perhaps frustration. It is unclear how the mao-maoing of the judge before he spoke imposes any consequence on him or accomplishes anything other than undermining free and open intellectual exchange. EDIT for those down voting, I'm curious to hear your specific disagreements.