I think it’s the ABA (or more precisely, I think that as far as most bar associations are concerned, it’s the ABA). And it looks like Liberty has other accreditations in place or is in the process of acquiring them.
That said, I also think CA is the only state that bothers with unaccredited law schools and they only bother if, at the end of your first year, you take their 1L exam…so the pass rate from Liberty University should tell how well they’re teaching torts, contracts, and civ pro at the end of the year.
Magiver, I’d like a cite on that claim too. Kerry or Edwards will do…
Scalia did go to Harvard Law, Bush went to Harvard Business School.
I don’t want lawyers churned out as members of an elite God-squad, skilled at infiltrating the culture, with the goal of attacking abortion and gay marriage. I want lawyers who have the primary duty of serving the law and the secondary duty of serving their client, and who are capable of largely subduing their own personal morality to do so. I want lawyers who will passionately defend gay marriage adherents, if they are retained as counsel for that purpose, and vice-versa as well.
It seems to me this is a red herring. The only lawyers attacking abortion and gay marriage would be lawyers in either the judiciary or legislator, isn’t that right? A trial lawyer can argue all day long but it is the legislator that makes the laws, and the judges interpret them. A lawyer ‘serving the law’ may very well be a trial lawyer, or even a judge. But a lawmaker has every right to propose laws based on conviction.
If so…I would think that the people have a say in the matter. Abortion is legal in the US, but ironically in the other example gay marriage is not. So…how would this “attack” be manifest? With your cites, a lawyer that you would apparently approve of would have to stand in for the status quo as it related to abortion, but conversely fight for a change in the law as it related to gay marriage. It looks to me that what you really want is a lawyer who thinks like you, and has your political and/or religious views. It appears that you want a lawyer who will attack the things that you wish him/her to attack.
How is that qualitatively different than Falwells intention?
And…You’re not suggesting that any lawyer be forced to take a case that violates his/her sensibilities, personal ethics or convictions are you? I’d think you’d agree that a lawyer is free to take (or reject) any case he wishes. We’re not likely to run out of trial lawyers any time soon, or activist lawyers on both sides of most issues including gay marriage and abortion. We’re certainly not going to run out of lawmakers who feel passionately about those issues. (or people willing to run for public office)
If Jerry Falwell starts a university it’s not likely to ever reach the level of Notre Dame or the University of Chicago. (Or the many other universities that have a religious charter and mission) I don’t think we need to be in fear Jerry falwell University.
Forgive me if I don’t accept a soundbite from the chairman of the RNC as a cite on his political opponent. Got something better - the Moonie Times maybe?
No, I’m talking about any lawyers, not just judges and politicians. I think it’s wrong for lawyers to have a goal that is not the service of the law and their clients. How could such a statement apply to judges and politicians.
(My emphasis). I want lawyers to act for anyone, irrespective of their views.
Yes, I certainly am. I believe in the cab rank principle of law, particularly for barristers (trial lawyers) but arguably applicable to solicitors as well. A lawyer has the obligation to work for whoever walks through his or her door, irrespective of their own convictions.
Hey, I’m not in fear of them overtaking a real university in terms of prestige and influence. However, I don’t think they should have any prestige or influence. Places like Bob Jones University or the proposed Falwell Law School are mere factories designed to churn out fanatics on missions to infiltrate our government and legal system with evangelical Christian notions. I don’t like any of them, and I fear these attacks on the American system, ineffectual as they may be.
Interesting thoughts so far. Clearly not many here are concerned, except for the very aptly named Atticus Finch, so maybe it was mostly my anti-Falwellism causing me to go “oh ick!” when I read the article. Or maybe my instincts will be proven right – only time will tell, I guess. And we’ll certainly learn more once the curriculum is made public, if it isn’t already.
Heh. Well, thanks I guess! Actually I rescinded my admission, because the comparison was flawed. My main objection to Falwell U. is (or was) the religion aspect. The hypothetical Jackson U. was to be focusing on secular issues, which makes more sense to me. After all, the laws of the U.S. are not supposed to have a religious basis, so a school churning out lawyers who will be arguing from such a slant seemed … odd, if nothing else. And Falwell’s “infiltrate” comment skeeved me out.
LOL, good question. Of course, private schools are allowed to turn down people based on religion, aren’t they? I can’t imagine an atheist being allowed in, although it seems to me that having some would be a highly useful experience for the rest of the students to learn from their “opposition.” (Aren’t law students taught to argue from both sides of an issue, or did I watch too many episodes of Paper Chase when I was young?)
Whoa nellie! I honestly can’t see where I suggested that in my OP. Can you explain how you inferred that from my comments? I was asking what objection, other than personal ooginess over Falwell, one might have to such a school. Then I mentioned the potential conflict regarding the separation of church and state, but added:
Isn’t this the exact opposite of what you suggested I was saying? Geeze, I would have expected a more generous reading of my words from the first (or second, after DrDeth) person kind enough to welcome me to the SDMB.
What’s to stop fundamentalist lawyers from practicing law in a way that doesn’t serve their clients and uphold the laws and the ethics of their profession?
I didn’t know a lawyer was required to take every case that appeared before him. Lawyers are human beings and human beings are known to have strong feelings about certain subjects. I see nothing wrong with a lawyer refusing to take a case because they disagree with the premise. Lawyers aren’t slaves.
So long as they work within the law they have every right to attept to change the system.
That’s what I was wondering. I was trying to figure out what the hell Fallwell meant by “attorneys who will fight for conservative causes.” He mentioned abortion and such, but I don’t understand how lawyers can be any more helpful in a case like that than a case about murder. “Well, your honor, I know the law says that, but isn’t the law an ass after all?” […shrug…] What I suspect it really means — based on the fact that Fallwell is a bottom dwelling slug — is that his lawyers will attempt to sabotage the system with underhanded tactics, like trying to delay judgments, or refusing to represent gay people, or taking on cases for conservative clients that normal people would consider frivolous. Does anyone else think this?
Makes sense to me. My other concern would be that judges are often ex-lawyers, so perhaps a goal on its own is to get a flotilla of right-wing judgeship candidates in the future, where the fundamentalism would make more of a difference on issues like abortion. I don’t know.
Protected speech and people have a right to their opinions and all that, but nutjobs attempting to make our system less secular and peddle this crap about the Constitution being based on faith aren’t going to get any applause from me.
Delaying a judgment seems like a legitimate tactic any lawyer might use if it helped his case. As for frivilous suits I thought a lawyer who brought such things before a court could be subject to sanctions or other forms of punishment. If a lawyer doesn’t want to represent gay people, so what? Lawyers aren’t slaves and shouldn’t be forced to take cases they don’t want to take.
I’m not a big fan of Falwell either. I just don’t expect lawyers to be neutral.
Well, if they don’t serve their clients, the free market will kill 'em. There are plenty of lawyers out there who do serve their clients well, after all.
And if they don’t uphold the laws and ethics, they’ll get censured by the bar, held in contempt of court, or even disbarred.
Yes, you wonderful symbol of the Democratic Party. I WAS kidding. If you can’t see the humor in a bunch of Fallwell lawyers giving money to Edwards than you have no soul. Ergo, you must be a lawyer.
Magiver, when someone has to repeatedly explain what was meant by a one-liner, the failure as a rule is NOT in the audience’s sense of humor. That particular one-liner was dry as the lakebed at Edwards Airbase, and the delivery just about as flat.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch… like I said before, I just don’t see how JF thinks this helps the cause that much… he could advance the cause far more by paying to have a few good Christian Fundamentalists get law degrees at regular prestigious Law Schools and then advocate their position with a solid legal education, good contacts network, and experience facing tough opponents in debate; than by cranking out any number of busloads of Law-Mart Blue-Light-Specials who’ll be lucky to get work suing the Upper Podunk Consolidated School District over Halloween decorations.
I saw an interview with Falwell last night. What nearly all of you seem to be missing in this thread is that Falwell insists that “God’s laws” are the only valid laws, and those that aren’t shouldn’t be defended. It’s blindingly clear from his statements and his attidues that his “law school” will focus mainly on how to push the far-religious-right’s political agenda through the abuse of the law.
Oh, he’ll see to it that his “law” students are coached in how the “liberals” want the Bar Review questions answered, but he’ll make it clear that they’ll just be lying for a “greater cause.”
As far as the other handful of law schools at religious universities, can those of you who feel this is no big deal cite equivalent statements from the founders of those schools? Say, for example, a statement by the BYU law school’s founder that reads something like: “'We want to infiltrate the culture with Latter-Day Saints who are skilled in the legal profession”?
Let’s see, Magiver, you misused the word irony, confused site with cite, posted a false accusation about a political candidate in GD, boasted that it took you only 5 seconds of wasted time to find the cite, claimed you were just kidding, touted your own so-called “one-liner,” misused the word humor…This one really isn’t going well for you.
I think that any law banning such a law school would be a violation of the First Amendment. The Christian Right has had this agenda all along and I don’t see it getting particularly bigger and better just because of a focus on it in law school itself. Have they ever really lacked lawyers to fight their cases/causes?
First they have to pass the bar. My money’s with Harvard.
Oh sure. But I’m not talking about helping a case; I’m talking about helping a cause. And yes, I know there’s nothing illegal about that, but if the cause is to destroy civil liberties, I think we should be concerned.
[…shrug…] Hell if I can keep up with a bazillion laws, rules, and regulations, but I would think that cases framed as constitutional issues could be sufficiently disguised as important. For example, a lawyer might argue that Bob and Jim should not be allowed to marry because their marriage violates the first amendment — government has no business telling religions (or religious civic officials with authority to marry people) that homosexuality is not sinful.
Again, I agree. But what if he is a public defender? Or what if the court assigns him the case for a man who cannot afford an attorney? What is to prevent the lawyer who is functioning as an unelected politician from tanking the case or at best, phoning it in?
I don’t expect them to be neutral with respect to their cases, but I expect them to be neutral with respect to the law as a whole. They are not judges.
