Betsy's Page
Betsy asks:
After the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the case regarding military recruitment on law school campuses, Bill Murchison asks a question that a lot of people are wondering about. How could 36 of the top law schools in the country be so misguided on what the Constitution says? How could they think that letting some military recruiters join all the other professional recruiters on campus was limitation on the schools' freedom of speech and association? Don't they have any professors of Constitutional Law at these schools who could have pointed out to them the weaknesses of their argument?
Bill Murchison, who(m?) Betsy references in her question believes this is an outgrowth of sixties radicals moving into professorship and presidencies / deanships of law schools and universities. They then enforce their own political orthodoxy. I believe that is part of it but not all of it.
The basic problem is their is really only one route to become a lawyer in this country. You must attend a four year university, then attend an ABA accredited law school, then you must pass a bar exam. In short legal education is a monopoly controlled by the lawyers. Because of this I think lawyers tend to assume other lawyers, especially those educated at the same universities and law schools will view things the same way. They don't have to really examine the weakness of an argument.
Now today will be the one day a lawyer looks at this blog and I will be hunted down by the secret ABA police :-).
No comments:
Post a Comment