The American Center for Law and Justice is vaguely affiliated with Regent University School of Law – Regent being the college that Pat Robertson founded, so he had this law school idea long before Jerry Falwell. (I know that RUSL existed in the early 90s, I want to say it’s been in existence for about 20 years.)
As for “chipping away” at SOCAS, unless you believe that equal access to public facilities and open free speech on public streets is a SOCAS violation, that’s not really their mandate. Take a look at the cases that the ACLJ chief counsel has taken to the SCOTUS and you’ll see that this is the centerpiece of nearly every one.
Oooh, way to stereotype! Is someone with a Baylor, Pepperdine, Regent, Brigham Young or Yeshiva sheepskin a religious nutter too?
Falwell = religious nutter (“9/11 happened because we allow immorality, etc.” remember?)
Degree from school headed by Falwell = High probability of religious nutterness.
Not certainly, not uniformly, but highly likely if only out of selection bias of applicants. Extremely so, in the case of the first classes.
None of those other schools, AFAIK, have their current leadership making public statements that their goal is to “infiltrate” the system in order to make the Law (for all of us) subordinate to (their particular) doctrine. They have a commitment to bear witness to their faith in the World, and to practice the Law w/o compromising their beliefs.
That’s not true in the U.S. A lawyer is not obligated to undertake any particular client’s representation. If a Falwellian lawyer had a abortion doctor walk through his door, he’s perfectly free to tell that doctor to take a hike.
Once he has accepted a client, of course, he’s obligated to give that client his zealous representation within the bounds of the law.
But there is no requirement that a given lawyer serve all comers, regardless of his wishes. Lawyers are not a public utility.
So… even pointing out the fact that you continually call me a martyr is itself an exercise in martyrdom. I presume that my denying that I am a martyr also makes me a martyr. I suppose it is safe to conclude that I eat martyr food, shop at martyr stores, and post at martyr message boards. And at every turn, your amazement is renewed.
Answer your point? I thought your concern was that I had ignored your point. […checking…] Why yes, yes it was. But now I am learning that “failure to answer” means “not answering to my satisfaction”. Must be legal jargon. My analogy that Yale is to the Council of Churches as Liberty is to the Moral Majority means that I do not buy into your premise that people from Yale and people from Liberty necessarily share identical agendas. There is a difference between political conservatism and religious fundamentalism. Although the two are often paired, a man may be politically conservative and still recognize the difference between a civic obligation and a moral one.
Incidentally, just so you know, it is not the case that when you make a point, I have a rhetorical debt, but when I make a point, you have license to insult me by calling me names like “martyr” — especially in this forum.
And I challenge you to find where I’ve said you’ve spoken on his behalf. What I said was that you have said nothing about his extremism. Didn’t they teach in law school that speaking and not speaking are opposites? You are, in fact, trivializing his agenda and marginalizing the issue by putting his nefarious institution in the same company as institutions like Yale.
I think what Dewey was trying to say there is that, while this proposed Liberty Law School would be a law school for fundamentalists, as it is now, fundamentalists are going to other law schools, like Yale, across the country, even though there’s nothing “fundamentalist” about these other law schools. So, in all likelihood, the formation of this school isn’t going to create more fundamentalist lawyers. It’s just going to draw fundamentalist law students who, without it, would go to some other law school.
And since there’s a very good chance that Liberty Law School won’t be a very good school, its existance could very well be a good thing, because it will mean those fundamentalists who want to shape the laws graduating from that school will have crappy educations and not be very good at it, in contrast to a fundamentalist who wants to shape the law with a diploma from Harvard, Yale, or some other good law school.
Sorry, one more thing. Obviously, in one sense, Liberty Law School and Yale Law School are similar, in that they both, obstensibly, at least, teach law. This doesn’t mean the quality of the two institutions are the same, nor neccesarily the motives of the faculty and staff, and I think Dewey doesn’t mean to say they are.
As a holder of a Baylor undergraduate sheepskin myself, I can say “no.” Oh, and you left off Notre Dame and Georgetown.
Having said that, the aforementioned institutions are a far cry from Falwell’s Liberty U, which is on par with Bob Jones University in its religious extremism. Intelligent, moderate religious types simply don’t choose those institutions.
You had ignored my point up until that post, and in that post you failed to answer it, obviously because you do not understand my point. See below.
No, it’s simple English.
Good thing that’s not my premise then. I defy you to show me where I claimed that people from Yale and people from Liberty all share identical agendas.
What I did say is that some people at secular schools like Yale share a fundamentalist agenda favored by those who select Liberty University, and that these folks would be going to law school anyway, and thus your notion that the Liberty U law school would increase corruption and collusion is silly.
Yes. And what the holy hell does this have to do with anything I wrote?
I only call you a martyr when your “point” is “boo hoo, I’m not being treated with the utmost reverence.”
I’ll just repeat what I said, and you deleted: I am having a discussion with you. I am not having a discussion with Jerry Falwell.
This whole “you didn’t condemn the asshat” line of argument is totally bogus. Why should I have to? Don’t some things go without saying? If we’re talking about the building of the autobahn, do I have to preface every remark with “of course, the Nazis were evil assholes”?
There is nothing in my remarks to suggest I approve of Falwell’s views. Furthermore, the relative evilness of Falwell’s views are wholly irrelevant to the points I was raising. For you to raise my silence on that issue as a debating point is, in a word, dumb.
I’ll just add: just what valid point were you raising by noting my silence if not to make a reader infer I somehow favor Falwell’s views, or at least that I consider them less offensive than your own viewpoint? What does making that notation add to the debate?
As someone whose undergrad school was sort of in that neighborhood, I don’t think this is true. Neither is a bastion of independant thought, but BJU is definitely a couple of notches farther out to lunch than Liberty.
