"I know nothing of Judge Duncan’s jurisprudence but" -- I understand that your critique is structural, so the substance of Judge Duncan's jurisprudence doesn't matter to it.
However, you go on to state that "Because it’s a rejection of your fundamental commitment as a lawyer - your agreement to advocate your cause within the boundaries of our legal system, and not engage in external threats to it, whether explicit or implicit."
Given this, what do you make of Judge Duncan's media tour after the fact? It seems he used his access to a larger, non-judicial megaphone to make his case in the court of public opinion. Is this more or less acceptably within the bounds you describe above?
Furthermore, to the substance of the event itself, what do you make of Judge Duncan's apparent unwillingness to answer questions when asked (yes, I've listened to the full audio, and this is my assessment, although there are plenty of opinion pieces on both sides of that argument)? Was his duty to engage meaningfully discharged when decorum was breached? It's not obvious Judge Duncan was prepared to engage in good faith with opposing view points at any point in this process -- is he entitled to a platform free of challenge or question when invited to speak?
"I know nothing of Judge Duncan’s jurisprudence but" -- I understand that your critique is structural, so the substance of Judge Duncan's jurisprudence doesn't matter to it.
However, you go on to state that "Because it’s a rejection of your fundamental commitment as a lawyer - your agreement to advocate your cause within the boundaries of our legal system, and not engage in external threats to it, whether explicit or implicit."
Given this, what do you make of Judge Duncan's media tour after the fact? It seems he used his access to a larger, non-judicial megaphone to make his case in the court of public opinion. Is this more or less acceptably within the bounds you describe above?
Furthermore, to the substance of the event itself, what do you make of Judge Duncan's apparent unwillingness to answer questions when asked (yes, I've listened to the full audio, and this is my assessment, although there are plenty of opinion pieces on both sides of that argument)? Was his duty to engage meaningfully discharged when decorum was breached? It's not obvious Judge Duncan was prepared to engage in good faith with opposing view points at any point in this process -- is he entitled to a platform free of challenge or question when invited to speak?