Home » Legal education is indoctrination at Columbia and elsewhere, and has borne much fruit

Comments

Legal education is indoctrination at Columbia and elsewhere, and has borne much fruit — 25 Comments

  1. We are sinking fast into Cultural Marxism, the 1st Amendment is going under the wayside as cases are mounting and TV media is totally under them.

  2. The leftist control of law schools is not simply disturbing, but exceptionally dangerous to the future of the republic, with “lawfare” and corrupt lawyers/judges coming to hold ever more power. On a related note, U Penn is continuing its jihad against the heretical Amy Wax, while the Clinton-appointed Judge Kaplan who is presiding over the trial in Manhattan of Trump over allegations of rape by the not-at-all-credible E Jean Carroll (being funded by a leftist billionaire) is proving himself to be highly partisan indeed.

  3. @neo: On another thread you said:

    One of the handicaps of the right in the power struggle is that it still believes in the rule of law and not just in whatever results in a win for the right. You’re saying essentially that the right should bring a gun to a gunfight, and not care about principles but only about power. That’s the old question the right continually faces: how much principle to compromise in order to win?

    I’m not wise enough to say at one point it’s best to switch one to the other, but the point where you can’t get legal representation because the lawyer who takes your side will be punished, is definitely a place at which you need to start contemplating the switch.

    We’ve seen a lot of that over the last five – ten years. I don’t see that there’s much rule of law left to believe in.

  4. When people are persecuted by the legal system itself, that is when the blood starts to flow. Judges like this are setting themselves up for assassination by behaving in such a biased manner, and I don’t think they realize the danger they are creating.

  5. “…and has borne much fruit.”

    Well done. You packed a lot of truth into just five words.

  6. The Texas legislature can strip the State Bar of Texas of its disciplinary role since they’ve abused it.

  7. Didn’t lawyers play a big role in The Terror.

    And in the last century “show me the man, and I’ll give you the crime.”

    But just last month we learned that President Trump can now prove his innocence in court.

    Progress! The arc of history!

  8. I know I’ve worn this out, but I can’t help myself, I like the quote that much, William F Buckley once said,

    “I’d rather be governed by the first 500 people listed in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.”

    A great rhetorical point that I’m not sure he really believed himself back in the day. But now? I would agree.

  9. You can’t teach that swill to people who don’t already believe it or have the emotional twistedness to believe it when it’s presented.
    A grad is twisted, attested to by the diploma, and was twisted when he went in.
    What he’s learned is practical methods to do this stuff.
    But we know he’s twisted before he lands his first job.

  10. This stuff makes me feel so defeated already. I’ve got young children. Will they ever get to live in a free country? It’s hardly a free country now, and getting worse every day. They’re white, probably straight, and currently Christian. The odds are already stacked against them (and against me at being able to keep them from falling for this BS in the world)

  11. This kind of stuff reinforces my opinion that compromise with the American Left is no longer possible. A national divorce or disunion is the only way to effect a clean break. Reboot the country — wipe the hard drive and reinstall the original operating system: the Constitution and Declaration. Then re-examine the patches we made over time, discarding the ones that are obviously poisonous to the original intent.

  12. Chases Eagles says, “Maybe it will be played at their execution.”

    Another possibility: the “Ça ira,” an iconic song of the French Revolution. Sample 1791 lyrics:

    Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira.
    Les aristocrates à la lanterne!
    Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
    Les aristocrates, on les pendra!

    For you and huxley, here is Edith Piaf singing the “Ça ira” in a 1953 French film about the women’s march on Versailles (subtitles in both French and English):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VoRmjxvPs&ab_channel=VNRose3

    The YouTube notes include the following: “There are many versions of this song. In one, not only do they hang the aristocrats, they stick a shovel up their asses.”

  13. @Chases Eagles:Disunion?!? What about the nukes?

    What about them? I’m not sure what kind of point you’re trying to make so I’m not sure how to respond.

    If you’re worried that FedGov will use them against states that don’t want go along any more, well…

    If you’re worried that the states will divide them up and nuke each other, I think there’s multiple reasons why that’s not an outcome worth worrying about, but as I said I don’t know what point you are trying to make so don’t want to write some huge post that fails to address it.

    But in the former Soviet republics, physical possession of the nukes did no good, as they were centrally controlled from Moscow, and trying to subvert that control would have been an unambiguously hostile act. This is why it was easy for Ukraine to “give them up” as they had no way to make use of them. All the nukes outside Russia were eventually returned to Russia.

  14. Les aristocrates à la lanterne! — The aristocrats to the lamp-posts!

    PA+Cat:

    Sarah Hoyt likes to the throw in that pithy phrase. I didn’t know where it came from.

    Thanks.

  15. No nation in their right mind would give up nukes at this point. Not one. A bunch of the former SSRs rushed to get under our nuke umbrella. Sweden and Finland now and soon maybe Ukraine. Who’s would you be under? Japan?

    The fragmentation of the industrial base needed to maintain the triad would probably end our nuclear capability (and most of our military industrial complex too) and all rump components of the former USA would likely be at the mercy of China.

  16. @Chases Eagles:No nation in their right mind would give up nukes at this point.

    I think I’d agree with this, but they’d first have to HAVE nukes to give up. No Soviet republic had nukes under its control, they only had Russian-controlled nukes on their soil. When the US had nukes in Germany, Germany did not “have nukes” because Germany did not control them. The US has nukes in American states but no American state “has nukes”, because no American state can use them on their own initiative.

    Who’s would you be under? Japan?

    FedGov would certainly keep the nukes, so probably under theirs. Unless you assume FedGov wants to nuke Americans, in which case we’re already not safe under our own umbrella. There’s a lot of forms “national divorce” could take, they don’t all involve shooting or even secession.

    You know how blue states stopped allowing marijuana enforcement, declared themselves sanctuaries for this and that, and don’t participate in the Real ID requirement? Red states could start doing the same kind of thing. If they were serious.

    The fragmentation of the industrial base needed to maintain the triad would probably end our nuclear capability

    France maintained a nuclear triad despite only having the GDP of California. Splitting the US GDP in half would give you two countries with almost the GDP of China, and no other power with a nuclear triad is anywhere near that size.

  17. I’m sorry but I have lost the point here. Disunion means going your own way. The left will not let you alone. They are already trying to cram abortion down the throats of states that are opposed to it. I can’t imagine why you would think they would let you go without a fight. They will be your greatest enemy.

    Also don’t think for a moment that the Feds couldn’t crush MJ growers and sellers in those states that allow it if they wanted to. They don’t want to. Yet.

  18. the father of critical legal studies was derek bell, once upon a time, the sane members of harvard prevailed to deny him tenure, but one of his top students was barak obama, the evidence was in the university of chicago syllabi, that jodi kantor glossed upon back in 2008, but was expanded upon in the daily caller, two years later,

  19. Two of CRT’s main players, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, “rebutted” that book you referenced by Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry in what amounts to a level of gaslighting unprecedented even by modern standards. In their standard work on the topic they write of Farber and Sherry: “Citing the example of Jews and Asians—two minority groups that have achieved high levels of success by conventional standards—they argued against the idea that the game is rigged against minorities. … [T]he crits replied that if Asians and Jews succeeded despite an unfair system, this is all to their credit. But why should pointing out unfairness in universal merit standards, like the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), bespeak a negative attitude toward members of those groups? As the crits saw it, Farber and Sherry confused criticism of a standard with criticism of individuals who performed well under that standard.”

    In other words, pointing out the fact that Jews and Asians on average perform so well academically and economically is being turned into an accusation that “crits” are critical of Jews and Asians. Which is clearly not the point that Farber and Sherry were trying to make.

    Delgado and Stefancic’s bullshit book, which I forced myself to read cover to cover, is riddled with this level of scholarship. An absolute abomination.

  20. I find the infatuation with the French Revolution on the part of the commenters on this website very odd.

    I think you misunderstand who the revolutionaries ARE in contemporary America and who is going the get the shovel.

  21. Reading about the Dominion lawsuits — and now the Smartmatic lawsuits — made me think that we have become a country with more lawsuits than people.

  22. I’d say the commenters here who are infatuated with the French Revolution (which includes me) are often referring to the fact that while Robespierre, Danton, Saint-Just, etc. (revolutionaries all) might not have gotten the shovel, they did get the blade. Of course a lot of people had to die first.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>