It's Gotta Be Those Darn Catholics!

So suggests Professor Geoffrey Stone on the University of Chicago Law School's Faculty Blog, blaming our "faith based justices" for the Gonzales v. Carhart partial birth abortion decision correctly upholding the ban. After making his own factual assertions (including, amusingly, that partial birth abortion procedures are taught at many law schools) meant to show that the bi-partisan legislation enjoying overwhelming public support was completely irrational, he said:

"What, then, explains this decision? Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling, to ignore.
***
"By making this judgment, these justices have failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality." (emphasis added)

That's right. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the five justices very correctly believe that Congress as a whole is better equipped to make factual findings than 9 lawyers, or that the "settled precedent" is hardly as iron clad as he claims, or that the entire line of abortion cases were wrongly decided from the start. It was the people of the United States, through their representatives in Congress across the political spectrum, who overwhelmingly came to the moral and factual conclusions - not just five justices who happen to be Catholic.

How typical. If a judge doesn't follow the reasoning of a most learn'd professor, it can't be that the professor is wrong, or even that there could be two legitimate but different interpretations of the existing law. No! There must be some nefarious motive! Perhaps the Court's opinions are now being routed through the Vatican for approval. Maybe the Freemasons have something to do with it. Wasn't it Justice Scalia holding the camera in the studio where they faked the moon landing?

When called out on this absurdity by many comments on his post, other bloggers, and even Professor Rick Garnett on the same blog, Professor Stone responded by resorting to what may be the most tired and dishonest meme in academia - "I was just trying to make people think."

"I also acknowledge that the fact that all five Catholic Justices voted together in this case to make up the 5-to-4 majority might have nothing to do with their religion. These five Justices often vote together on matters having nothing to do with religion. Perhaps Carhart was just coincidence. Perhaps it was a reflection of their common approach to constitutional law that has nothing to do with their religious convictions. The point of my post was to pose the question and to invite people to think about it." (emphasis added)

How good of him to so "acknowledge." But with respect to the Professor, that was not the point of the post. The point, made clear in the title "Our Faith-Based Justices" and made even clearer in the direct statement that "these justices have failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality," was to answer a question, and make an (untrue) accusation - that the majority intentionally ignored settled law to make a decision based on their personal policy preference. How ironic that a defender of Roe v. Wade would be upset by such a thing...

Accusations like this seek not to inform the debate over how to use and interpret our Constitution, but to stifle that debate by making it illegitimate. "Limited government or a well documented history of judicial restraint isn't their motive, their real goal is to institute a papal theocracy! No reasonable person could have come to the majority's conclusion, this is what happens when we let those ignorant religious nuts vote!"

This attitude is intellectually bankrupt and profoundly un-democratic. Sadly, neither intellectual rigor nor respect for democracy are de rigeur in academia these days.

Terrorist Abettor Lynne Stewart to Speak in Seattle

According to the announcement in The Crier (the Law School's official newsletter),

Celebrate International Women's Day with special guest Lynne Stewart speaking on “My fight for justice in Patriot Act America”

Acclaimed for defending poor people, radicals of color, and controversial figures, Stewart, a civil rights attorney, was sentenced to 28 months in prison on charges of abetting terrorism in a trial described as “a triumph of fear over reason” by Mumia Abu-Jamal. Stewart will discuss her appeal and the inspiration she draws from the legacy of female resistance to repression.

Co-sponsors: Radical Women, Seattle University Departments and Programs: Anthropology, Sociology & Social Work, Criminal Justice, Political Science, Pre-Law, Women’s Studies; the Black Panther Party Reunion Committee, National Lawyers Guild - Seattle and SU Law School Chapter.

This free event is at Seattle University, Pigott Auditorium. Enter campus on East Marion at 12th Ave. Continue straight past the visitor parking lot. The auditorium is in the Pigott Building, the first building on the right. For more information call 206-722-6057 or email RWseattle@mindspring.com.

The sponsors of the event are radical socialist groups and an otherwise respectable University down town. She's endorsed by a cop killer. But she's simply a "civil rights attorney," "acclaimed for defending the poor." There's no mention of the crime her legal defense fund is attempting to defend her against, nor of the 60 dead people she helped to kill in the name of world-wide imposition of Sharia law and the oppression of all women. That the "Radical Women" are one of the prime sponsors of this is a sick joke.

Here's some background on Stewart I put together last year, from a side comment thread on this blog on another topic.

Loan Repayments for the "Public Interest"

We're currently being spammed by E-mails from the official law school E-mail distribution list urging us to lobby our state legislators on behalf of HB 2024/SB 6039. The efforts are complete with a slick, fluffy, and misleading policy paper that we're supposed to cut-and-paste to our local law makers. This bill creates a fund to repay the loans of any student who works for either a non-profit or the government out of law school. That means that tax dollars support the ACLU, extreme environmental groups like the Sierra Club, religious organizations, abortion advocacy groups, etc. I find this unacceptable, even where the funded non-profits are for conservative causes.

I'm also annoyed as hell that, in spite of the ethical hot water our Dean has found himself in recently with regard to using University resources for private use, and the admonitions we've received against using those same University resources for political lobbying, I'm getting several E-mails a week blatantly doing just that. Have we learned nothing?

Well, I took the advice of the E-mail and wrote my legislator - just not in the way they probably intended. My arguments against this absurdity are contained there. My opposition letter is reproduced below in the comments section.

I also intend to write to the Dean, registering my irritation with the Law School's role in this purely political lobbying effort. Maybe I can get some equal time...

(As always, the opinions are my own. The Federalist Society itself does not lobby for particular policies, nor does it endorse or oppose any specific legislation.)

What Flags Are OK To Desecrate?

What do you call it when a group selectively uses the mechanisms of the State to suppress expression of a point of view they find politically objectionable?

If you're the San Francisco State University administration, the SFSU student council, Students Against War, the International Socialist Organization, or the General Union of Palestinian Students, you call it "protecting diversity," "preventing violence," or "promoting tolerance."

This story starts with an "anti-terrorism rally" held last October on campus by the College Republicans. To emphasize their point, students stomped on Hezbollah and Hamas flags. According to the college paper, the Golden Gate (X)Press, members of Students Against War and the International Socialist Organization showed up to call the Republicans "racists," while the president of the General Union of Palestinian Students accused the Repubs of spreading false information about Muslims.

In November, the Associated Students board passed a unanimous resolution, which the (X)Press reported, denounced the California Republicans for "hateful religious intolerance" and criticized those who "pre-meditated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence."

Now you know that there are students who are opposed to desecrating flags on campus -- that is, if the flags represent terrorist organizations.

But wait -- there's more. A student filed a complaint with the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development. OSPLD Director Joey Greenwell wrote to the College Republicans informing them that his office had completed an investigation of the complaint and forwarded the report to the Student Organization Hearing Panel, which will adjudicate the charge. At issue is the charge that College Republicans had walked on "a banner with the world 'Allah' written in Arabic script" -- it turns out Allah's name is incorporated into Hamas and Hezbollah flags -- and "allegations of attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment," as well as "actions of incivility."

At an unnamed date, the student panel could decide to issue a warning to, suspend or expel the GOP club from campus.

***

The university's response? [SFSU] Spokesperson Ellen Griffin [said], "The university stands behind this process. [...] I don't believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag. I believe that the complaint is the desecration of Allah."

So what if it is? If a student put a crucifix in a jar of urine, they probably would have gotten a scholarship from the art department. And if people will be uncontrollably driven to violence because someone expresses disgust with a terror organization who acts in the name of Allah, maybe they aren't ready to be Americans. At the very least, they should have had to re-take high school civics.

I oppose American flag burning legislation, because, as much as I'm offended by such action, real Americans respond to expression with either expression of their own, or by walking away. That's what it means to live in freedom. I imagine the SFSU folks also oppose laws against American flag burning, but considering the flag-selectivity of the administration and the complaining student organizations, I have to wonder if their reasons for that opposition have more to do with an approval of the message than any free speech principles.

Alas, this isn't limited to the rarefied atmosphere of San Francisco. At our own institution, the College Republicans had their "Affirmative Action" bake sale shut down by the University. Minute Men and their supporters were shouted down last October and ousted from their speaking event at Columbia. And speakers who violate the campus orthodoxy often face pies, disruption, and threats. At some law schools, new students are publicly warned away from the Federalist Society, and no faculty member will serve as their advisor.

None of this is new or surprising. But this kind of thuggery deserves to be exposed and mocked again and again and again. As often as it takes.

Law School - A Waste of Time (And Anti-Competitive)?

Maybe it's just the malaise of being a 3L, but this piece arguing just that struck quite a chord with me.

I've argued since law school began that the actual schooling portion should be about half the time, with some kind of apprenticeship/"residency" requirement at an approved training firm (some sufficient breadth of practice area, and training for the partners in the firm). And the monopolistic self-appointed ABA gatekeeping has always troubled me. But the investment in the status quo by the academics-in-chief has always left me with the conclusion that things aren't going to change any time soon.

But who knows? Maybe this report is the start of something new...

It Could Be Worse...

...we could be the University of New Mexico School of Law's FedSoc Chapter. Whatever irritations do come up, it's nice to be treated with respect here at this school. All the more evidence to show how a strong Federalist Society - and faculty encouragement of it - benefits all law students.

Immigration, Precision, and Casebook Authors with Agendas

In my Immigration Law class, the author of our casebook, Stephen Legomsky, has an agenda. That's probably not surprising, but I don't know when I've seen it quite so blatent, or done with such potential for misunderstanding the subject matter because of it.

Specifically, I find it very troubling that in the very first pages of the book, anounces that he will henceforth refuse to use the term “alien,” except in direct quotes, as he feels it “str[ikes] a disturbing chord,” and that it (even without the “illegal”):

"...connotes dehumanizing qualities of either strangeness or inferiority (space aliens come readily to mine), and that its use builds walls, strips human beings of their essential dignity, and needlessly reinforces an ‘outsider’ status. Some believe that its constant use and repetition also solidify racial and cultural stereotypes." Stephen H. Legomsky, Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy, 4th Ed. (2005), Pg. 1-2.

Ridiculous. And remember, this is even without the “illegal.”

“Alien” is a term of art with a precise legal meaning. It is central to the language of our statutes and our case law on immigration. It has nothing to do with racism, ethnocentrism, “basic human dignity,” or any other euphemism for “bigot” people use to vilify their opponents when the facts aren’t in their favor. Instead, he uses the term “noncitizen,” which he fully acknowledges to be less precise. Political Correctness just won another battle against Academic Integrity.

To refuse to use a term which describes a legal status that is central to the topic of the book you are writing does a grave disservice to those of us who are more interested in understanding the current state of the law than in the author’s policy preferences. It is like refusing to use the word “husband” in a family law class, because one thinks gay marriage should be legal.

Even worse is the refusal to use the term “illegal alien,” and the attempt to demonize those who do. Logomsky complains it is a “pejorative, irritating, and technically meaningless term,” ironically complaining that it has no “statutory or legal warrant.” He even stoops to the meaningless “no-person-is-illegal” meme – not that he insists on calling them “criminals.” Legomsky at 1192.

Again, “alien” is a legal term of art which refers to a certain legal status, not unlike the word “husband” in that sense. “Illegal” isn’t modifying the person, but the status descriptor noun “alien.” Their status is indeed illegal, as they are here in contravention of the law. Just as one could accurately be described as an “illegal husband” for marrying a girl too young to consent, the term is both useful and accurate.

With accuracy as the goal, compare “illegal aliens” to “undocumented migrants,” Legomsky’s preferred euphemism. A “migrant” can refer to anyone. It doesn’t tell you if they’re coming or going. It doesn’t tell you if they’re moving across state lines or international ones – citizens can be, and are, migrant farm workers. It doesn’t even tell you if they’re an alien – not all aliens are “migrating.” It has no “statutory or legal warrant,” which is so selectively important to the author. And it implies that people move all over international boundaries all the time, almost as if there’s as many Americans sneaking into Mexico as the other way around.

As for “Undocumented,” it can have so many meanings that it’s meaningless. Does it mean you don’t have documentation with you, or never got it at all? De minimus immigration violations? The implication certainly is that it’s merely a technical violation. “Undocumented” makes me think of driving with my license and insurance information at home, as opposed to “illegally” driving after never having obtained a license in the first place. The second is far worse, and is far more analogous to the situation of people sneaking across the border.

What’s more, there are plenty of illegal aliens who are documented to the nines – it’s just forged or stolen documentation. And there are plenty of perfectly legal undocumented aliens, such as those commuting back and forth from Canada or Mexico, or people awaiting status determinations.

If “Illegal” has pejorative or negative connotations, it’s because it should. We live in a society that respects the rule of law, and looks down upon those who ignore it. That’s part of American culture. It’s a reason people come here – they flee the lawless regimes of their home where their property and fundamental rights exist only at the pleasure of the corrupt government, or worse, of mob rule. Subverting the laws via that same mob rule (such as those who help illegals sneak across) instead of voting to change them is the surest way to destroy a free society, which is why people here illegally raise so much ire in most of America – and should.

“Undocumented migrant” is designed to do one thing – imply that violating immigration laws – and by extension, our immigration laws themselves – are just no big deal. And that attitude is as dangerous as it is absurd.

But Legomsky’s flexible quest for accuracy isn’t limited to muddying legal terms for aliens. Creative language can be employed to vilify an opposing ideology just as easily – and as inaccurately – as it can serve to excuse the lawless.

He refers to “anti-immigration lobbying organizations” when referring to any advocates of a more controlled border – another gross inaccuracy. Even Pat Buchanan (whom I’m not defending) isn’t “anti-immigration.” It’s the illegal immigration that we’re “anti.” To imply that the 80% + of Americans who want tougher border enforcement are against any immigration at all, or are racists, is simply dishonest and insulting.

Immigration law is complex enough without the casebook author deliberately attempting to muddy things by substituting what he thinks should be the law instead of describing what it actually is. Worse, it makes me have to wonder what else Legomsky is spinning or leaving out entirely that's less obvious to me. It's unfortunate that legal academics can't resist such PC madness, and instead stick to the language of the statutes, case law, and common sense.

But They Support the Troops...

Just ask the ROTC guys at UNC-Chapel Hill who had their building vandalized. Do these idiots not understand that no one is making them "Fight Your Wars"? They ought to just be grateful those fine volunteers are, in fact, volunteering so there isn't a draft.

As a former ROTC Midshipmen, I hope they find these guys and choke them. In the Vietnam era, there were a lot of arson attempts on ROTC buildings. Someone will get hurt if this isn't stopped.

But they're all about peace and free speech. And oh, yeah - they support the troops, just not Bush and the war.

H/T Michelle Malkin.

A Military Victory Over Law Professors

Today the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the 3rd Circuit's decision striking down the Solomon Amendment on free speech grounds. The amendment requires Universities who accept federal funds to allow military recruiters on campus despite the incompatible policies on homosexual hiring between the military and Law School career service offices. The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, and Chief Justice Roberts' opinion is here.

Last week, a professor told me that although he respected the military and students who chose to serve, he despised the Solomon Amendment. I don't understand how you can reconcile that. It seems to me self-evident that where you ask for tax money from the government, it's OK for the government to ask for a little something in return, such as helping maintain the military which protects the silly academics' right to be opposed to the military. If academia despises the Solomon Amendment, they should likewise despise the government funding that allows them to take home 6 figures, and reject it.

And honestly, how the 3rd Circuit could come to the opposite conclusion after South Dakota v. Dole is simply beyond me. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a silly policy, but it's Constitutional, and it doesn't erase the academic dependence on federal tax dollars, nor does it cut the strings that legitimately come with that cash.

To me, the despicable thing isn't that the Solomon Amendment exists, but that it should have to exist. Let's face it. The law schools opposed to it aren't free speech advocates. That's merely their back door. Nothing stops them from openly and loudly opposing the military policies, and in fact they do just that with disclaimers on E-mail and signs in the hallways saying, "The JAGs are coming, but that doesn't mean we like it." In fact, if they REALLY believed in free speech, they would let MORE groups with whom they disagree access the Law School and its students, so we can make our own decisions after hearing all sides.

The actual opposition is to two things - first, the military itself. Alas, we aren't as far from the days of spitting on the troops as I used to think we were.

But far more than that is the continued loss of their precious insulation from the real world. The Solomon Amendment forces academia to recognize that being a citizen involves not just rights, but responsibilities. It forces them to admit other people have legitimate, if different, points of view, and that they aren't all knuckle-dragging baby- killing ignorant gorillas. And it forces them to remember they are dependent on the good graces of the taxpayers for their grants, salaries, offices, research funds, and access to academic journals to publish their ideas. In short, it rudely reminds them they are not entitled to "free" money.

I do have to say that even before this ruling came down, this Law School allowed the military access, although they did have pretty hostile disclaimers. I don't know if they did before the Solomon Amendment was passed, though. But there is a large population of law students affiliated with the military here, and I hope UW continues - and in fact improves - its support of them.

Seattle P-I Wrong on Pappy

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has an editorial excusing the UW Student Senate on the whole COL Boyington memorial flap. Bizarrely, they condescendingly and incorrectly claim that the memorial was shot down because it wasn't honorific enough of enough different veterans. But this is exactly the opposite of what the minutes of that meeting made clear was at issue. Sloppy journalism at best.

Hilariously, the paper also gives credit to these students for a more "inclusive" memorial that is now being supported, as if that would have happened without the entire nation shaming them into it.

Shameful. The statue was opposed not because the students wanted more, but because they wanted less. The P-I snidely looks down their nose at the bloggers while giving these students a pass for making overtly insulting comments to military members. Typically, they excuse the comments saying "asking a question is always fair."

This is as untrue as "There are no such thing as stupid questions." Because the P-I shares an ideology with the anti-memorial, anti-military students, they took the "senators" backpedaling explanations on pure faith without ANY skepticism or question.

The P-I does no favors to these students' civics education by implying that legitimate criticism for their public comments is somehow out of bounds, or by reinforcing their re-write of what was actually said at the meeting. They also do no favors to their own credibility.

Non Fidelis at UW

I'm so ashamed of my school right now. The student senate has voted not to support even the idea of honoring WWII Congressional Medal of Honor winner Gregory "Pappy" Boyington because we shouldn't honor people who kill. Apparently, even if those people killed were literally fascists who were attempting actual global imperialism.

The award for the Most Asinine Hippy Statement of the Month goes to "Senator" Jill Edwards, representing the Honors Croquet League, who said that she didn't think "a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce." This profoundly disrespectful statement for military people in general is disgusting. Are we really going to go back to spitting on the troops? Does Miss Edwards really think the world would be a better place had we not had US Marines in WWII? Certainly this goes beyond disagreement about the Iraq War.

The University itself brags about the distinguished Marine on their official alumni page. I wonder how proud the author of that article is about his alma mater now. More importantly, I wonder how much money they'll be willing to give to the school in the future. I hope President Emmert is taking notice.

Of course, this whole hoopla may wind up helping the school recognize COL Boyington. I wouldn't have known about the effort. If I find a way to donate to the effort, I'll post it here.

Read the full minutes of the Student Senate session here. Contact Miss Edwards here.

Ideological Diversity in the Classroom

The Yale Fed Soc is launching a program to lobby for a more balanced faculty at their law school. It'll be interesting to see how it goes.

The BLS Alternative

I've talked to a lot of people who feel frustrated and aren't getting what they need from the texts in BLS. I didn't either. If you're one of them, I highly recommend The Legal Writing Handbook by Oates, Enquist, and Kunst. If you're one of the people I've talked to, this is the book I've been talking about. It's the text they use at Seattle U (Prof. Oates is the head of their legal writing program), which has one of the top ranked legal writing programs in the country. This book taught me legal writing. Enjoy.