U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who spent five years lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School from 1977 to 1982, criticized what he sees as the Law School's move toward liberal ideologies at a talk before a group of conservative lawyers earlier this week in Chicago.
Scalia told the Federalist Society of Lawyers that he bemoans the crop of newer, less traditional classes that now supplement the more "serious" classes that exclusively comprised the Law School curricula during his time as a lecturer.
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Scalia reflected on his own legal training as a law student.
"I took nothing but bread-and-butter classes, not "Law and Poverty." Take serious classes. There's so much law to learn. Don't waste your time," Scalia told the audience, according to today's issue of the Chicago Sun-Times.
"I regret it," Scalia added, refering to the Law School's political and ideological shifts. "I don't think the University of Chicago is what it was in my time. I would not recommend it to students looking for a law school as I would have years ago. It has changed considerably and intentionally. It has lost the niche it once had as a rigorous and conservative law school."
The Wall Street Journal blog also picked up on the Sun-Times story.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
scalia= partisan blowhard
Liberal and conservative are relatively meaningless terms. Teaching law and poverty does not make a law school liberal. I know he means well as we often try to say helpful things, but I really do not think there is anything wrong with a class like law and poverty. I mean I agree that bread and butter courses are helpful, but law and poverty is bread and butter. A more problematic issue is tying the university so much to people like Barack Obama. Barack Obama gets involved in trying to deal with a 10 trillion debt and the university looks too connected to politics rather than research, academics and scholarship. I think a bigger problem is the decisions of the Supreme Court. For example, the Supreme court denies so many writ of certorari's, and the court should be advocating for rights that are fundamental and constitutionally protected like the rights of parents and children to visit, get fresh air, or live at home. Conservative should not mean that people trying to advocate for their civil rights are barred from filing documents or similar. The justices are clearly inundated with cases, but banning certain lawyers from filing or not commenting on rights violations is problematic. I mean what exactly is the difference between someone killing someone and the 9 justices killing someone? In some cases there is not a difference? Why should not a prosecutor prosecute the 9 justices for killing someone some day? I think that is part of the reason Europe was concerned with the death penalty. Conservatism or liberalism is almost totally irrelevant like being democractic or republican? Those words are irrelevancies and Justice Scalia to some extent I am sure is aware of that. I find the decisions of the court to be troubling. What if you were a police officer facing people using the recent supreme court decision on the second amendment to bear arms? The Supreme court should be wary that their decisions can be used to justify things that can increase violence. Justice Scalia's decision making based on original meaning is interesting in the way he does not look always at original meaning. Confinement of persons for some of the things people are confined for today would not happen historically. The colonies would not confine people for speaking loudly; they might punish you for a day or something. Prisons were more of a 19th century phenomena related to John Howard and the like. I do not think his Matter of Interpretation critique survives scrutiny. Our prisons and nursing homes would probably be emptied if we looked at constitution as it was meaning.
James T. Struck BA,BS,AA,CNA, MLIS
The reason I would not recommend U of Chicago law school is because the way Cook County judges, sheriffs and guardians treat people with disabilities and illneses. Cook County guardian staff will put people in nursing homes because their pipes break, are given cold water, request reimbursement of food, dental, optical, transportation bills, want their mail, want chemicals put into their family. Then Cook County staff will deny phone rights, visitation rights, and will say it is harassment to want a parent to get fresh air away from smokers at nursing homes. Nursing home director will say "you are going to be dead if You say things like that" about contacting the US attorney about treatment of people like slaves and Cook County will deny access. Requests to go to Christmas services are responded to with jail threats. Requests to get bills reimbursed or know where family is are responded to with jail threats
James T. Struck BA,BS, AA CNA, MLIS
When I said above "want chemicals put into their family" I meant "want to know what chemicals were put into their family." Case law like the decision with regard to plutonium said that people should know what was put into them. Case law such as Poole v. Milne and Bishop Reserve V. Clarkson say that people should know what was put into their family. I would be concerned about coming here because of the legal environment's response to possible Geneva Convention violations. Issues such as chemicals put into people, rights to visitation and going home are violated. Some of the County will retaliate, because it is mentioned that the state and County tax a corporation involved in war.One interesting thing about the Supreme Court is that they will establish a precedent like Olmstead V. LC, then 2-2000 cases will follow in which the Supreme Court will deny certorari without comment on very similar cases.If a case were brought up in a lower court saying we should treat disabled as without any rights even disabilities such as not being able to struggle with potential angry tuba players some day hypothetically, the Supreme Court would affirm it. It would affirm all sorts of crazy idiotic reasons to confine people,because of case management procedures. They have too much demand on time and do not realize that courts like Cook County are taking people as slaves every day with disabilities such as inability to respond quickly enough to flooding in apartments ,lies from employers, death of family or students, Counties denying dental bill reimbursement, Counties taking mail,shots without consent, non release of records, being punched possibly by a hospital staff, or an area being involved in war.
You obviously don't understand how certiorari works. The Supreme Court only needs to decide an issue once. If there is a similar case, there is no reason for the Supreme Court to rule on the same issue. The similar case should be remanded to the lower court for reconsideration of the issues based on the Supreme Court ruling. Don't you see how it would be a waste of time to hear o second case and issue a second opinion on a second case? Don't you think the Supreme Court's time would be better spent on an issue that they had not yet resolved? You should be wary of commenting on legal issues when you don't fully appreciate the underlying procedural policies of the Court. And do you really think it's necessary to put all the letters behind your name?
Benjie...
Post a Comment