The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
NYT article on law school at Falwell's Liberty Univ
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 21st, 2004 10:43 PM Author: Pearly Place Of Business Rehab http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/national/22law.html?hp (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686712) |
 |
Date: November 21st, 2004 10:45 PM Author: hot histrionic stock car hell You mind pasting it? I don't feel like filling out that stuff. Thanks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686721) |
Date: November 21st, 2004 10:49 PM Author: chestnut queen of the night Subject: quotation from the article "Patrick J. Schiltz, a law professor who helped found St. Thomas, said in a speech there that the school does not want to produce "nameless, faceless lawyers who populate the giant law firms in New York and Washington and Chicago, grinding out thousands upon thousands of billable hours, often toward no end other than getting rich and determining whether one huge insurance company will have to write out a check to another huge insurance company."
No need to worry about that. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:02 PM Author: autistic very tactful sex offender corn cake no, it'll just produce nameless, faceless, unemployed wife-beaters, i suspect (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686805) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:05 PM Author: Razzmatazz frozen address priceless (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686821) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:33 PM Author: talented grizzly set Hey, isn't that the guy who wrote that Vandy law review article about how BIGLAW was the most soul sucking profession???? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686946) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:39 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook yup it is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686984) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:11 AM Author: talented grizzly set The value of that article just decreased by several orders of magnitude. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687137) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:15 AM Author: insane misanthropic spot correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687156) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:20 AM Author: Crimson Menage Indirect Expression Reading the article against this new (to many of us) info might be interesting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687184) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:29 AM Author: Twisted vermilion nibblets sneaky criminal I don't know what's so surprising about that. The guy was a professor at Notre Dame and there are veiled references to religion in the article, if I recall. Anyway, he's a professor at some new Catholic law school, not Liberty. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:48 AM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook When you read that article, you realize that he himself was an obsessed attorney, working ungodly hours and all that. So I think he's a man who swings to extremes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687330) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:35 PM Author: electric crotch Nice email tag. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688715) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:38 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye He clerked for Scalia. He's obviously very intelligent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688744) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:53 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point I don't think that was the basis for the skepticism about the article. It purports to give advice (much of it probably fairly sound) on how to manage one's life and career based partly on the author's own experiences, and it's not that surprising that some people would tend to give those recommendations less weight if the author has attitudes or priorities very different from their own. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688795) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:54 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye His priorities had nothing to do with his political ideology. He just wanted to spend more time with his family. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688812) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:01 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point His article also deals with ethics, giving back to the community, and personal satisfaction from legal work as well. His views seem to be both religious and political - I think most people feel that shapes the way a person might view such topics.
I suspect most of his article is relevant to most law students, but I don't think any article which draws its conclusions from the author's experiences is immune from criticism that the author's experiences or his reactions to those experiences differ from those of the majority. A person's priorities and attitudes about how to live one's life do play some role in that. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:05 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye None of those things are incompatible with modern American liberalism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688872) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:10 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point What does that have to do with it? People with various views might support those things but have different feelings about the ways in which they should be put into practice - people assumably differ in their views on what sort of work is satisfying and the extent to which giving back to the community is important. Law students might hold views other than those of the author or modern American liberalism.
And I don't see why any of this should prevent someone who finds the author's values very dischordant with their own from rereading the article - if it is free of bias, it should stand up to a more skeptical read. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:15 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Liberals are most often those who discount the views of conservatives, even when they have no reason to. Like here, you haven't pointed to a single reason why someone might discount the guy's article except that he's a conservative. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688928) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:23 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point Given the information provided, he seems to have strong religious views. He may or may not be what people would consider a traditional conservative - he seems to be Catholic and religious Catholics sometimes split along odd lines.
I did reread the article and found it to be relevant and fairly applicable to a wide range of students, so I won't offer any criticisms of it. A hypothetical article of the same type might have put more emphasis on having parents who stay home with children than the average law student would, had views of the sorts of work that would be personally satisfying that conflicted with some readers', or professed views about the social utility of representing corporations as opposed to charity or political organizations that differed from those of the average student.
And yes, a liberal could have written an equally biased article. I suspect you would at least give a piece offering you career and personal advice a second look if you realized it had been written by your least favorite liberal politician, even if you ultimately concluded the piece was good. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:26 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye I might if it was written by my least favorite liberal politician. But, I read law review articles a lot, and the vast majority are written by liberals whom I've never heard of. I don't automatically discount anything they say just because I know they're liberal. But, that's what it's like being a conservative at law school. You're per se more tolerant of other people's views than the average liberal.
And, I don't mean to say you're intolerant of other views. But, I don't think you're the average liberal either. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:32 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point Did people automatically discount it? The initial suggestion was only to reread the article, followed by a comment remembering there had been vague religious references in the article (there are a few), and one of a person who found the article different upon a second read (which I would disagree with, but don't feel is automatic).
I also think that this differs slightly from the average law review article. It's an article on how to be happy. That's generally open to a very different sort of criticism than is the average law review article.
I've always wondered about the perpetual claim that conservatives are more tolerant of other people's views. They seem to be so in very large groups in which they are the minority. Experiences with groups in which conservatives are the most widely represented have been a different story - I don't think it counts if you're only tolerant of other people's views when you're the minority. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:36 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye At least one poster automatically discounted it.
You're right that academic, urbanite conservatives are forced to be more tolerant. But, that doesn't change the fact that they are more tolerant. There are plenty of liberals at my law school who won't engage in any form of intelligent debate because their views have been reinforced by huge majorities around them. Maybe the same goes for rural conservatives. Can't say I actually know too many of them though. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:40 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point Even among academic, urbanite conservatives, tolerance diminishes when they are the majority in a discussion and they're met with liberal dissent. The dynamics change considerably for both liberals and conservatives. I grew up in a rural conservative area and the opposite took place - liberals were more tolerant than conservatives in wider discussions but far less so in the few opportunities they were mostly amongst themselves. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689184) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:45 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye I'm entirely open to the possbility that tolerance is a completely social phenomenon. But, most young conservatives who might attain power in the future will have been educated in a place where they were a distinct minority and probably won't forget that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689210) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:51 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point My point is not just that I think that tolerance is a social phenomenon, but that I think that it's also a trait that changes rapidly in response to particular social situations. If conservatives shift between tolerance and intolerance depending on the group they're in, they'll behave the same way liberals do when they have power. They'll probably remember being educated in a place in which they were a distinct minority, but that doesn't necessarily translate into an urge to treat those same people better when they're the minority. I have yet to see anything in the behavior of classmates that indicates otherwise - small groups leaning either way can be pretty vicious to those who disagree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689248) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 2:00 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye That's what I meant by social phenomenon. But, if you've spent long periods of time in a setting where your views are dismissed out of hand routinely, then you're not likely to forget that. That doesn't mean that conservatives in power will yield to liberal policy, but they might be more open to a hearing of opposing views. I could be wrong though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689311) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 2:02 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point I agree that people don't forget such things. I just think that a lot of them get a certain amount of glee from being able to get back at the other guy by doing the same thing. Yes, this means liberals too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689324) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 2:04 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye There's that too. Like I said, I'm not sure. But, if I'm ever elevated to some position of importance, I'll hear people out. Just because I know how difficult it is to raise your hand and say something most of your classmates will hate you for. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689337) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:58 PM Author: Twisted vermilion nibblets sneaky criminal If you read the article, he thinks lawyers should not hurt themselves and hurt their families by working themselves to death, and he thinks padding your billables is not just a bad idea, but immoral. Even if those convictions are religiously motivated, they seem pretty moderate to me. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:03 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point I've read it (I think most people in law school have) and I agree with most of its conclusions. I simply think it's acceptable for people to consider whether the motivations of the author might have shaded his perceptions. I don't think they do in this case, but I think it's unreasonable for people to use personal experiences to support their points without any evaluation at all of whether they are sufficiently representative to be of use to readers. I also don't think the fact that the author is highly intelligent excepts him from any analysis of whether his experiences are representative. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688860) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:29 PM Author: amethyst parlor which article is this, and where can I find a link to it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689103) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:33 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point 52 Vand. L. Rev. 871 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689136) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 10:51 PM Author: bull headed aromatic plaza puppy "The school, part of Liberty University, whose chancellor is the Rev. Jerry Falwell, is for now a makeshift affair in a vast industrial building that used to be a cellular phone factory. Its students compensate for the surroundings by dressing well - many of the men wore jackets and ties" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686746) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 10:56 PM Author: Razzmatazz frozen address Subject: Like the Crosses on Mt Calvary... ttt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686771) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:21 PM Author: Racy Abode Chad "180" is far too faint praise for this post. Magnificent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686891) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:31 PM Author: Pearly Place Of Business Rehab Oh my God. This is incredible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686938) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:35 PM Author: insane misanthropic spot one-fucking-eighty. magnificent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686960) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:48 PM Author: Twisted vermilion nibblets sneaky criminal Holy shit. Classic. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:54 PM Author: Crimson Menage Indirect Expression In your honor, I have changed my e-mail line. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687042) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:55 PM Author: Pearly Place Of Business Rehab your representation misses part of the funny. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687047) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:01 AM Author: Crimson Menage Indirect Expression Alas... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687073) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:03 AM Author: Pearly Place Of Business Rehab There you go. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687084) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:09 AM Author: Insecure big-titted bbw orchestra pit Heh? Is that like the gentile Mt. Sinai? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687127) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:32 PM Author: ivory cerebral casino Yeah, I'm lost, too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688702) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:34 PM Author: bronze charismatic tattoo base silly jews (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688707) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:11 PM Author: Insecure big-titted bbw orchestra pit I am assuming there are three crosses, and crosses look like the letter T. I'm just wondering what Mt Calvary is. Is it something that only fundies attach significance to? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688899) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:31 PM Author: slap-happy senate its where you fuckers killed poor jebus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689116) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:35 PM Author: Insecure big-titted bbw orchestra pit that troublemaker had it coming (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689149) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:46 PM Author: insane misanthropic spot calvary was the execution mount in jerusalem where jesus was crucified. he was cricified between two thieves, so there were three crosses on the hill. thus, ttt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689218) |
|
Date: September 26th, 2005 10:27 PM Author: Pea-brained persian range Superb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#3912810) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:21 PM Author: Racy Abode Chad "The prevailing orthodoxy at the elite law schools is an extreme rationalism that draws a strong distinction between faith and reason," said Bruce W. Green, Liberty's dean.
"Extreme rationalism." Call me an extremist, I guess. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:48 PM Author: Crimson Menage Indirect Expression I have faith that your client owes my client a hefty settlement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687016) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:02 PM Author: infuriating blathering wagecucks Wow. So faith and reason are actually kinda the same thing? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689561) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:23 PM Author: contagious hunting ground point "If our graduates wind up in the government," Dr. Falwell said, "they'll be social and political conservatives. If they wind up as judges, they'll be presiding under the Bible."
I don't really have any problems with this school otherwise, but the idea of judges who preside under the Bible is damn scary. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:07 PM Author: infuriating blathering wagecucks At the moment, even Alabama seems to reject the notion, but who knows what'll happen next. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689584) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:37 PM Author: Pale elite market famous landscape painting The Erie decision, which is viewed as uncontroversial in much of the legal academy, represented a disastrous wrong turn, Professor Tuomala said. In ruling that federal courts may not apply general principles in some cases but must follow state laws, he said, the Supreme Court denied the possibility of "a law that's fixed, that's uniform, that applies to everybody, everyplace, for all time."
Wasn't that what Erie tried to fix? |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:41 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook Tuomala is talking Christian-based natural law, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1686989) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:49 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook Tuomala lost a tenure fight:
3 REGENT PROFESSORS LOSE TENURE LAWSUIT JUDGE ALSO RULES THAT OFFICIALS MISLED ABA IN 1989 Three Regent University professors who claimed they had lifetime tenure learned Tuesday they were wrong.
A judge ruled that the school's old system of rolling employment contracts was not a tenure system, even though certain school officials touted it as such to outsiders.
That means the three professors, who sued Regent and refused to sign contracts under Regent's new tenure system, will be out of work in May, when the academic year ends.
``If you listen hard, you can hear the sound of resumes going out,'' said one of the professors, Clifford W. Kelly, in an interview after the ruling.
Circuit Judge Edward W. Hanson Jr. also ruled that Regent officials misled the American Bar Association about the school's tenure system in 1989, to win accreditation for Regent's law school.
Hanson ruled that the professors were not guaranteed lifetime employment under the old system. He said the professors had rolling three-year contracts that ensured they could not be ``put out in the cold'' for three years.
``This contract, however, was not tenure,'' Hanson said. ``Tenure was anathema to Regent University from its inception and until 1993.''
The ruling probably will not affect other professors, all of whom signed contracts last year under a new tenure system.
The three professors who sued Regent - Kelly, Jeffrey Tuomala and Elaine Waller - argued that the new system offers less security than the old one. They said the new system lets Regent fire them for almost any reason. The judge did not address that issue.
After the ruling, the three professors sat silently in the courtroom for a while, looking stunned. Two thumbed through a worn black Bible. Outside the courtroom, Kelly and Waller said they were shocked and disappointed but did not know whether they will appeal.
``We'll be serving out the final year of our contracts,'' Kelly said. ``We're going to pray and talk with our lawyers.''
Regent Provost George Selig said the three professors cannot return in fall 1996. ``They exercised the right to reject the (new) contract,'' Selig said. ``We hold no malice toward the plaintiffs at all. We wish them the best.''
Tuesday's ruling may hurt two former law professors, Roger Bern and Paul Morken, who are suing Regent, alleging breach of contract. They were fired last year. Hanson is scheduled to preside over their trials in February.
Regent's attorney, Thomas Lucas, said he will ask Hanson to dismiss their cases based on Tuesday's ruling.
The Regent controversy began in 1993 when trustees fired law dean Herbert Titus. That provoked widespread revolt among faculty and students. Titus claimed he had tenure, and professors feared that if Titus could be fired, so could they.
In response, school officials said Regent never had tenure.
But if that were true, the faculty asked, why did Regent tell the American Bar Association in 1989 - and continue to tell the ABA - that professors were protected by a tenure system, which is required for ABA accreditation of any law school?
Eventually, Regent changed its tenure system and fired three law professors who had supported Titus. That was in 1994.
In June, during the tenure trial, Regent officials blamed Titus and then-president Bob Slosser for intentionally misleading the ABA about tenure.
On Tuesday, the judge agreed.
``Mr. Titus and Mr. Slosser made representations to the ABA at variance with what the court found to be the policy of the university as represented by the board, and unbeknownst to the board,'' Hanson said.
The judge said this was mainly Titus' doing, for while Slosser was nominally Titus' boss, the law dean really ran things. ``The real power there was not Mr. Slosser,'' Hanson said.
The judge said he believed Regent founder Pat Robertson's testimony that school officials would rather close the university than grant professors lifetime tenure. Other trustees gave similar testimony.
The entire controversy stemmed from disagreements over Regent's unique Christian mission, the judge said.
``To the court, this was an ever-evolving and changing university,'' Hanson said. ``Its mission was clear in the beginning,'' but as the school struggled to survive in a secular world, its mission changed.
Earlier this year, the ABA found that Titus and the three law professors were fired because of their extreme religious views. The ABA still has not fully accredited the law school, citing religious freedom as one issue.
Despite Tuesday's ruling, Selig said the ABA is no longer concerned about being misled. ``I think,'' Selig said, ``the ABA is pleased we've resolved this in an appropriate way.''
The ABA does not publicly comment on individual accreditations. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:03 AM Author: Free-loading pervert "After the ruling, the three professors sat silently in the courtroom for a while, looking stunned. Two thumbed through a worn black Bible."
priceless. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:05 AM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook Yeah, great image of the impotency of "natural law." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687102) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:52 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook Here's a good example of Tuomala's legal analysis: under Canadian law, all personal rights derive from God.
"Demers and his lawyers argued that the scientific evidence proved that children before birth are human beings. As such, like any other human, they should be granted the same respect accorded others. Speaking for Demers, American Professor of International Law at the Jones School of Law, Jeffrey Tuomala pointed to six international human rights treaties to demonstrate that the separation of legal personhood from living human beings violates international law. Addressing the Charter's preamble which states that "Canada is a nation founded on principles which recognize the supremacy of God, and the rule of law." Tuomala said that at the very least this means that the fundamental rights of Canadians are not "gifts from government" but rather granted by God. As such, he argued, every human being in Canada is entitled to respect for their inherent rights." |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:56 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Read the Declaration of Independence. The Founders thought it wasn't worth debating the fact that God gave all men certain rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688819) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:25 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook I've read it and am aware of it. And I'm not 100% opposed to all forms of natural law. What I am trying highlight about this guy is that his unvarnished version of Christian-based natural law is dangerous stuff, imho. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689078) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:28 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Why are his views more dangerous than Jefferson's? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689101) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:39 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook Jefferson was a Deist who felt that God had largely removed himself from the scene. Jefferson went so far as to cut up the NT and paste together a new version. Jefferson was an empirical scientist.
Tuomala belongs to that breed of natural law theorists who, imho, pay insufficient attention to the dangers of that approach. They can derive God's position on a particular agricultural tarriff. They can pronounce the only natural and just view of what many of us view as a difficult moral dilemma.
Take homosexuality, for example. A natural law theorist could say, "we see homoerotic tendencies across all cultures and across all times. Some of those tendencies appear to be firmly fixed and deeply held. Those tendencies appear to be in the nature of human beings, even if the majority do not exhibit them. Any natural legal position must grapple with that natural aspect of humanity."
Another natural law theorist might say, "we know, because we are told by God, that the nature of a human being is to be heterosexual and that homosexuality is a grave sin and moral failure. Therefore any law not condeming homosexuality is an unjust law."
It's that brand of natural law that is scary, and when I read Tuomala's stuff on the web, he exemplifies more of that unvarnished kind of natural law. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 2:02 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye From the passage you posted he sounded far more Jeffersonian than anything else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689325) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 2:13 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook Have you read his piece defending Judge Moore from Alabama? In that one, he suggests that Moore should be loyal to natural law and not to the orders of higher courts.
Now, there are some extreme situations where I'd agree with that notion. I reach for natural law myself whenever I say or think "that may be the law, but that law is unjust ...." But, for my money, Tuomala's brand of natural law is way too strong, too self-confident, and too firmly rooted in what is really the positivist approach of reading ancient scriptures. For example, imho, it is not a violation of natural law to rule that Judge Moore's statue come down.
I'm not too sure you and I are far off on the deeper question, and I could be wrong about Tuomala on the specific question of his approach, but that's where I see the guy. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 2:17 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye If he advised Moore to disobey higher courts, that's a little crazy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689387) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:43 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Before Erie, federal courts applied their own common law. Many federal judges back then believed in natural law, i.e. that there was one true and correct law out there. With Erie, that all went away and the federal courts had to follow whatever the states did. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688766) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2004 11:50 PM Author: Crimson Menage Indirect Expression [said Prof. Jeffrey C. Tuomala, quoting Psalm 19. "The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple."]
The Jews really fucked up, didn't they? |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:02 AM Author: Crimson Menage Indirect Expression [Christian lawyers should counsel clients not to walk away from oral contracts even where the law allows it. / "The civil government will give you a defense," Professor Bern said. "In God's judgment, I don't know that you're coming off well, making a promise and then breaking it."]
You think God with sign off on efficient breaches? Mutually beneficial ones? |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:10 AM Author: Insecure big-titted bbw orchestra pit This country is moving in a frightening direction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687131) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:11 AM Author: Crimson Menage Indirect Expression Start your own orthodox Jew law school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687138) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:15 AM Author: Insecure big-titted bbw orchestra pit Cardozo already fills that niche
|
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:19 AM Author: Crimson Menage Indirect Expression They aren't hard core Jewish are they? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687177) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:28 AM Author: Insecure big-titted bbw orchestra pit a lot of people are. its one of the reasons i didnt want to go there (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687234) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:52 AM Author: Exhilarant Mentally Impaired New Version Frankly, I take comfort in knowing that, when these hot-button social issues come before courts, the evangelical position will be represented by people who couldn't get into a real law school.
Sticking feathers up your butt will not make you a chicken, and putting on a tie and jacket and going to class in an abandoned factory will not make you a lawyer. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:45 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Why is it frightening that someone who disagrees with the academic culture in this country opens their own law school? It's the height of 1st Amm freedom. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688778) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:09 PM Author: Out-of-control dashing national security agency shrine no, but the fact that these people own the Republican party right now is... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688890) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:20 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye They don't own it any more than a number of other groups responsible for this year's election.
And, I'm not sure what calling their views scary does, other than show you have the proper emotional reaction to dissent. They merely believe in natural law. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:11 PM Author: infuriating blathering wagecucks If, as Rev. Falwell stated, he intends to produce American judges who preside "under the Bible," that's plenty scary to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689602) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:27 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Falwell isn't a lawyer and the gist of the article stated that the law school was fairly conventional. I really doubt they're teaching their students to argue that the Bible rather than the Cons't is binding. I think they'd like to create good lawyers whose arguments will win the day in real courts, not presided over by Falwell.
And, although some ideologies are legitimately scary, natural law isn't one of them. I have a great distaste for those who go around telling others what ideas they fear. It's just a way of telling the world that you recoil at the right things. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:32 PM Author: infuriating blathering wagecucks Falwell is in charge of this school. His statements about his goals for its graduates are relevant to our speculation about what its graduates may someday do. IMHO, judges presiding "under the Bible" has nothing to do with natural law, the prospect of it is scary, and I already know that you have great distaste for me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689687) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:39 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Yeah he's in charge, but he's not a lawyer and I seriously doubt that he has control over the classes. The article even said that there are no clases on religion and the law. If he's at all a rational actor, he'll train good lawyers to go out and fight under our law.
Nobody is overturning the Cons't here and you're hyperventilating over one comment in article that suggested the law school was pretty normal.
But, I know you think it's scary, so that's enough to condemn it. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:37 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook Let me turn it around, then.
Would you go so far as to say that natural law approaches have no intellectual, political, or moral downsides? If not, how would you describe the downsides? |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:42 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Everything has a downside. Where did I say natural law didn't?
I was merely expressing my distaste for those who go around proclaiming how much a particular idea scares them. Such statements only serve to inform those around you of your emotional reaction to an idea, which I think is pretty useless, unless of course you're the type of person who likes to huddle together with those who are similarly scared. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:50 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook I asked the question, rather than attribute a specific opinion to you. It seems to me that you are aware of the downsides but I was curious as to how you'd characterize them.
I am particularly wary of evangelical Christian approaches to natural law, I admit it. I thing that, by and large, their view of human nature (the first step in any natural law theory) is very thin, and that their confidence in their natural law theories is very thick. I think that breaking the back of Christian views of natural law was the major advance that permitted our modern world.
I have great respect for Christians, by the way. It's just that a Christian natural law would be a huge step backward, imho. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 3:59 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Any tendencies that I have towards natural law are not rooted in religion. My principles mostly derive from classical liberalism.
And, I'd agree that the rigidity with which some approach natural law is a serious problem. I don't like Falwell much, but if his law school ends up producing more decent conservative legal scholars, I think that would be a net good for the legal community. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 4:02 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook Thanks. I don't think you and I are too far off on the use of natural law in general, but perhaps we disagree on how likely his school will produce decent scholars. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689823) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 4:06 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye That certainly remains to be seen, but I can say for sure that the status quo in the legal academy is not producing enough conservative scholars. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689842) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 4:18 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook What makes you say that? The Federalist Society seems to be doing quite well. There are young, hip conservatives; there are stodgy old ones too. The liberals are bemoaning how effective the conservatives are. Do you agree with them? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1689937) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 4:30 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye There are plenty of conservatives in politics. I'm talking about in colleges and law schools. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1690004) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 4:32 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook I meant LS profs, actually. There are almost none in LAC, as all the studies have shown. But I thought they did OK in most LS. Maybe that's just in comparison to LAC. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1690017) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 4:46 PM Author: Spruce stimulating round eye Oh, maybe I'm poorly informed. I really haven't had any conservative profs though, maybe one, but he was teaching an apolitical subject. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1690116) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 4:55 PM Author: Medicated chrome immigrant travel guidebook actually i am probably wrong on this one. the LAC stats are really clear, but i don't know about LS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1690181) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 1:16 PM Author: Concupiscible Light Party Of The First Part it really is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1688933) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:12 AM Author: insane misanthropic spot Jeffrey Tuomala, who argues against principles of precedent and stare decisis.
"It isn’t difficult to understand why those persons who believe that a public display of the Ten Commandments is the greatest threat to liberty since “In God We Trust” was placed on our money would attack the Chief Justice for failure to remove the monument. To their way of thinking, the federal judge has issued a lawful order. If a display of the Ten Commandments violates a provision of the Constitution, albeit one that the federal trial judge can’t define, then it must be a lawful order to have it removed. What is difficult, especially for the layman, to understand is why those who supported the Chief Justice’s decision to display the monument as a lawful exercise of his authority would now turn on him.
The reason for this is that most American lawyers and judges, be they “liberal” or “conservative,” hold false views concerning certain fundamentals of our legal system. While liberals and conservatives may hold differing opinions as to particular rules, such as whether a display of the Ten Commandments is lawful, they share the belief that the opinion of judges about the meaning of the Constitution, and not the Constitution itself, is the law of the land. For them Judge Thompson’s order, not the First Amendment, is the applicable rule of law. As a result, these officers believe that their oath of office is, in effect, one of allegiance to the judiciary rather than to the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant to it.
There is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that nearly every American lawyer seems to forget somewhere between his high school civics class and his graduation from law school – Congress has the power to make law while federal courts have the power only to apply law in particular cases and controversies. The Constitution vests all legislative powers therein granted in Congress. Judicial powers are vested in the courts. Despite the clear language of the Constitution, nearly all lawyers now days mouth the platitude that courts make law.
An error that necessarily follows from the false view that courts have the power to make law is the assumption that the law is not what the Constitution says but rather what judges say about the Constitution. Through a distortion of the common law principles of precedent and stare decisis, a court’s holding in a particular case is converted into a law binding on all persons within the court’s jurisdiction and all inferior courts. The proper use of the principles of precedent and stare decisis is that holdings in past court decisions serve as a compelling guide in subsequent proceedings, but they do not bind unless they are themselves consistent with the law."
http://www.morallaw.org/Text/jtuomala_article.htm |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:19 AM Author: insane misanthropic spot he is also a graduate of the illustrious capital university school of law, which resides in the same tier (4) as cooley, touro, and florida coastal.
he is lacking in prestige. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:30 AM Author: Insecure big-titted bbw orchestra pit it counts derek meeker as an alum (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687248) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:36 AM Author: insane misanthropic spot the gay porn star? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687275) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 12:39 AM Author: Insecure big-titted bbw orchestra pit the very same! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1687294) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 10:41 PM Author: Crimson Menage Indirect Expression "nearly all lawyers now days mouth the platitude that courts make law."
Common law works that way. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 10:47 PM Author: Razzmatazz frozen address crazy, huh? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=109417&forum_id=2#1691977) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2004 11:04 PM Author: Turquoise Soul-stirring Trailer Park Twinkling Uncleanness "We've had Jewish applicants. We might have had a Muslim applicant."
What a quote on diversity!!! |