The theme resonates throught society. The current eye opening support for HAMAS and the mob rule at elite colleges, law schools and professional schools is now revealed. The threat to democracy coming from the progressive left is clear and no longer disguised. The question is not if, but how to restore civility and truth seeking. Tom Friedman [NY TIMES] claims the pendulum will swing back. It needs to be pushed back, and we need to start today. Why in our political debates is this question NOT at the highest priority. If the elite believe not everyone is entitled to a defense and are proclaimed guilty by mob justice, next not everyone will be entitled to medical care.
Some to most of these crazy changes to the law demanded by these people follow a verdict they think went the wrong way.
Their thinking stops at that point. They do not consider how the change demanded will effect future defendants. Nor do they stop to consider that a very large portion of the principles, presumptions and rules are ancient. They derive from many hundreds of years of tinkering in pursuit of finding the most well balanced and just legal system. Our crim law and procedures did not simply materialize out of nowhere. We use them because they work.
Hard left progressives are unfamiliar with the concept of yesterday and tomorrow. They inhabit "right now." That type of mindset is ok in a four year old but not some one entrusted with a law license.
"...peremptory strike allows attorneys, in a trial case, to toss out potential jurors they deem biased..."
Inaccurate. It may be true in some cases but peremptory strikes are for whatever reason the trial attorney wants, not simply bias. Race, age, and gender are commonly considered. Attorneys exercising peremptory challenges need not and as a rule do not offer any explanation for the strike. They simply say, "We thank so-and-so for their service and excuse so-and-so from the panel."
"judges “not only stand with the protesters—we fall with them.”
Nothing like a judge explicitly declaring that they promise NOT to be impartial. She should be removed from the bench and hauled in front of a disciplinary board.
Arrested in 2019 for domestic abuse. She played the, "I'm a judge you can't arrest me" card. Police were not impressed. She was then put on administrative leave and had her concealed carry license suspended.
"He told me he retired in 2020 after the firm’s culture became “simply unbearable,” with younger associates excoriating him for being “old and white, and part of the reason we have systemic racism in America.”
Those should be "former" young associates. Walking away rather than imposing consequences for being overtly and excessively political on top of egregious insubordination only emboldens these entitled zealots.
Duty to eliminate racism: "The American Bar Association, which accredits almost every law school in the United States, voted 348 to 17 to adopt the new standard."
The ABA has been a hard left and politicized organization since well before I passed the bar in '99.
"psychosexual" an interesting and probably accurate term; especially the psycho part.
It is now June 2nd, 2022, and I just read this for the first time. I write now to suggest it is not as bad as purported to be in the legal field -- yet.
I started law school at the University of Denver in 2018. I came directly from studying Energy Commerce at Texas Tech University. I knew what I was getting in to. It was just as "liberal" as I suspected. Orientation was the first time I ever saw pronouns listed on nametags (as far as I could tell, I was the only person who declined to list mine . . .). But what I had not suspected was the lack of blowback I would receive for being perhaps the most openly conservative or libertarian in the entire law school.
I never censored myself, but I did refrain from being "that guy" and derailing discussions about the law with my own personal philosophy. Nevertheless, I espoused the value of a "well-armed society" being a "polite society". I regularly (in good fun) antagonized my liberal feminists friends with visions of Amy Coney Barret replacing RGB on the Supreme Court (called it). I attempted to rename my flag football team "Kavanaugh's Classmates" to show solidarity with Due Process and beer drinking (my request was declined). I attended Federalist Society training in D.C., and met preeminent libertarian and conservative attorneys from across the country. I interned for a conservative non-profit and participated in the fight for individual liberty.
I did not hide these things from anyone. It did not cost me friends, mentors, or jobs. In fact, I like to think people respected me for having the courage to be open about my beliefs in a place where they were not shared. The college's DEI professor/admin was my public service internship advisor. She was lovely. I did not agree with her ideas, and she did not agree with mine. But she accepted me for what I was and offered me wise counsel throughout the semester. If anything, in her eyes, conservatives like me were a minority under her auspices.
It was not perfect. During the pandemic we were asked to put our pronouns in our Zoom bios (I, and a large portion of the college, declined). I was required to read Between the World and Me and an excerpt from How to be an Antiracist for Legal Ethics (I did not have the courage to give my thoughts about "antiracism" -- mostly because during that phase of the pandemic I did not have the same zeal for class that I did when it was in person).
My Constitutional Law professor--who I greatly admired and respected-- used the 3/5ths compromise as an example of how racism is baked into the Constitution (I regret to this day not engaging in a dialogue about how that is an egregious misunderstanding about the history of the Constitution).
My favorite professor was reprimanded for using the term "whore" in class. Everyone but the student who reported him had his back. His lawyer wife commented that whoever it was did not have what it takes to be a good lawyer.
My Property professor gave an apology for being on stolen land -- still waiting for the Comanches to apologize for all of the men they scalped and the women and children the enslaved.
I had to give a presentation on "bias" in my mediation class: I was able to pivot and make it about "cognitive biases" like confirmation bias. A guest speaker in my Legislative Drafting class made a disparaging remark about people with mental illnesses -- something to the effect of "I'm not one of those crazy libtards". Our professor apologized on her behalf the next day. The whole thing was hysterical to me -- and right on the nose.
Finally, in that same class, I was making the case for the legalization of psychedelics drugs. I made the observation that at this point, the only thing standing in the way of that objective were "evangelical types". I am an evangelical type. Nevertheless, a young she/her/hers felt the need to chastise me for "stereotyping evangelicals". Bless her heart, she was so far left she was defending the right!
This is just my experience. I really enjoyed law school before it went to Zoom. It may be worse now. But in light of all the negativity floating around, I offer advice one of the best teachers in my life gave me: "with a positive mindset, and an indominable spirit, you can accomplish anything." He made it over here from sub-Saharan Africa. If he, from less than ideal circumstances can fervently believe that, what excuse do we have? Friends, do not give into the negativity. Don't let the misanthropes bring us down to there level. We outnumber them. Those of us--on both sides of the aisle--still capable of critical thinking, empathy, and rationality ARE the majority. It's time to start acting like it: "For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline."
I read this article when originally published. Yours is a nice comment. I see you are practicing law now. Love the quote from your prof from Africa about mindsets and spirit, as I think it is precisely what separates the successful from the perpetually aggrieved. I'm not sure the woke threat to the legal system is fading.
As you probably know two outstanding Supreme Court appellate attorneys, one a former Solicitor General, were sacked by Kirkland & Ellis after the were successful in the recent 2nd Amendment case. I know them both. They are truly excellent advocates. The backstory on them is available in the Wall Street Journal, but this is not the first firm that has shown them the door on grounds of the firm not wanting to be known for representing certain clients. Pretty shameful. And I fear it is not fading soon - or soon enough.
The ABA, faded guild that it is, is now in institutional capture of the hard Left. It pushes its ideology through its model rules of professional conduct and law school accreditation process. Fortunately some - but not all - state bars are pushing back or members are pushing back through litigation on 1st Amendment grounds.
I finally had my best friend's granddaughter read this article for her reaction. There are bastions of the real world still out there. She is in law school in Belmont in Nashville. She says she does not even KNOW the political affiliation of her professors. The article is quite shocking to her. This is tremendous news to me.
Good reporting. I myself don't feel quite as alarmed. Law schools--yes, they're suffering from the same hysteria as campuses in general. But universities have been radicalized since the Middle Ages. Commissioner Slaughter's statement was grossly inappropriate. I don't know what's happening in law firms, but the reporting on this could easily be cherry-picked; I have to believe there are partners who'd say, if asked, that they've never felt a problem taking clients some of their associates might disapprove of.
There are something like 35,000 judges, at all levels, in the U.S. It's scarcely surprising that some few make statements indicating bias. (Judges are often inappropriate in many different ways; in my state, we had one who finally got removed after years of women complaining about his sexual innuendo.) And, when it comes to judicial bias, it's a little hard do outdo Clarence Thomas, who has many times stated how he would rule on his pet peeves should they come before him, and who apparently feels no reason to recuse himself from any political litigation despite being married to a fiercely outspoken Republican fundraiser and activist.
My wife's firm (1000+ attys) certainly does turn away SOME clients for political reasons. They have a large and very successful lobbying section and they overwhelmingly represent Democrats, so there's an actual basis beyond "conservatives are icky."
Since covid the associates have gotten much more bold about making demands. They even got together to create and issue a list of demands and changes they wanted to see. The partners humored them and adopted a few innocuous elements from the list and tossed the rest. But those associates have now put themselves in the crosshairs of partners they pissed off. Some don't care. A not small number walked after working at the office became mandatory.
Thomas does not express bias. He is quite clear, however, in his issued opinions and in dicta, where he stands with regard to his philosophy of legal analysis. Don't fault him for having a batshit crazy wife. He's capable of judging cases without her help.
This is all about Progressives trying to separate vulnerable adolescents from their families, so that only the State can be trusted. They don’t care a whit about these kids. They’re just throwing them under the bus to gain further government control over every aspect of American life. Parents, HELLO, you don’t let adolescents make these kinds of decisions. Protect your children! If they want to self-mutlilate as adults, at least you’re not an accomplice to this barbarity when they are at a super-vulnerable point in their lives.
As an attorney with 25 years of experience (mostly civil), it is chilling (terrifying?) to think that these people are even considering throwing out these bedrock principles of our justice system. The scariest part is that my wife (also an attorney) and I have two young children who have to live in this world for the next 70 years or so.
An utterly galling and disconcerting article. I hope the US will be able to pull back from the brink, because his is truly scary stuff, especially since it is happening as we speak. And we all know that what happens in the USA will travel to Europe shortly after. #equalitynotequity
It is sad that our basic education fails to instill respect for the constitution and understanding its roos by reading the federalist papers. Seems someone is playing the long game by destroying education and replacing it with a racist ideolog to promote tribalism and of course the solution will be more government in your life. I always question when will one of the insiders break and expose this crazy evil.
This is indeed terrifying. A new totalitarianism.
The theme resonates throught society. The current eye opening support for HAMAS and the mob rule at elite colleges, law schools and professional schools is now revealed. The threat to democracy coming from the progressive left is clear and no longer disguised. The question is not if, but how to restore civility and truth seeking. Tom Friedman [NY TIMES] claims the pendulum will swing back. It needs to be pushed back, and we need to start today. Why in our political debates is this question NOT at the highest priority. If the elite believe not everyone is entitled to a defense and are proclaimed guilty by mob justice, next not everyone will be entitled to medical care.
Excellent reporting.
Some to most of these crazy changes to the law demanded by these people follow a verdict they think went the wrong way.
Their thinking stops at that point. They do not consider how the change demanded will effect future defendants. Nor do they stop to consider that a very large portion of the principles, presumptions and rules are ancient. They derive from many hundreds of years of tinkering in pursuit of finding the most well balanced and just legal system. Our crim law and procedures did not simply materialize out of nowhere. We use them because they work.
Hard left progressives are unfamiliar with the concept of yesterday and tomorrow. They inhabit "right now." That type of mindset is ok in a four year old but not some one entrusted with a law license.
"...peremptory strike allows attorneys, in a trial case, to toss out potential jurors they deem biased..."
Inaccurate. It may be true in some cases but peremptory strikes are for whatever reason the trial attorney wants, not simply bias. Race, age, and gender are commonly considered. Attorneys exercising peremptory challenges need not and as a rule do not offer any explanation for the strike. They simply say, "We thank so-and-so for their service and excuse so-and-so from the panel."
"judges “not only stand with the protesters—we fall with them.”
Nothing like a judge explicitly declaring that they promise NOT to be impartial. She should be removed from the bench and hauled in front of a disciplinary board.
Arrested in 2019 for domestic abuse. She played the, "I'm a judge you can't arrest me" card. Police were not impressed. She was then put on administrative leave and had her concealed carry license suspended.
"He told me he retired in 2020 after the firm’s culture became “simply unbearable,” with younger associates excoriating him for being “old and white, and part of the reason we have systemic racism in America.”
Those should be "former" young associates. Walking away rather than imposing consequences for being overtly and excessively political on top of egregious insubordination only emboldens these entitled zealots.
Duty to eliminate racism: "The American Bar Association, which accredits almost every law school in the United States, voted 348 to 17 to adopt the new standard."
The ABA has been a hard left and politicized organization since well before I passed the bar in '99.
"psychosexual" an interesting and probably accurate term; especially the psycho part.
"...old-timers—pretty much everyone over 50..."
ouch!
It is now June 2nd, 2022, and I just read this for the first time. I write now to suggest it is not as bad as purported to be in the legal field -- yet.
I started law school at the University of Denver in 2018. I came directly from studying Energy Commerce at Texas Tech University. I knew what I was getting in to. It was just as "liberal" as I suspected. Orientation was the first time I ever saw pronouns listed on nametags (as far as I could tell, I was the only person who declined to list mine . . .). But what I had not suspected was the lack of blowback I would receive for being perhaps the most openly conservative or libertarian in the entire law school.
I never censored myself, but I did refrain from being "that guy" and derailing discussions about the law with my own personal philosophy. Nevertheless, I espoused the value of a "well-armed society" being a "polite society". I regularly (in good fun) antagonized my liberal feminists friends with visions of Amy Coney Barret replacing RGB on the Supreme Court (called it). I attempted to rename my flag football team "Kavanaugh's Classmates" to show solidarity with Due Process and beer drinking (my request was declined). I attended Federalist Society training in D.C., and met preeminent libertarian and conservative attorneys from across the country. I interned for a conservative non-profit and participated in the fight for individual liberty.
I did not hide these things from anyone. It did not cost me friends, mentors, or jobs. In fact, I like to think people respected me for having the courage to be open about my beliefs in a place where they were not shared. The college's DEI professor/admin was my public service internship advisor. She was lovely. I did not agree with her ideas, and she did not agree with mine. But she accepted me for what I was and offered me wise counsel throughout the semester. If anything, in her eyes, conservatives like me were a minority under her auspices.
It was not perfect. During the pandemic we were asked to put our pronouns in our Zoom bios (I, and a large portion of the college, declined). I was required to read Between the World and Me and an excerpt from How to be an Antiracist for Legal Ethics (I did not have the courage to give my thoughts about "antiracism" -- mostly because during that phase of the pandemic I did not have the same zeal for class that I did when it was in person).
My Constitutional Law professor--who I greatly admired and respected-- used the 3/5ths compromise as an example of how racism is baked into the Constitution (I regret to this day not engaging in a dialogue about how that is an egregious misunderstanding about the history of the Constitution).
My favorite professor was reprimanded for using the term "whore" in class. Everyone but the student who reported him had his back. His lawyer wife commented that whoever it was did not have what it takes to be a good lawyer.
My Property professor gave an apology for being on stolen land -- still waiting for the Comanches to apologize for all of the men they scalped and the women and children the enslaved.
I had to give a presentation on "bias" in my mediation class: I was able to pivot and make it about "cognitive biases" like confirmation bias. A guest speaker in my Legislative Drafting class made a disparaging remark about people with mental illnesses -- something to the effect of "I'm not one of those crazy libtards". Our professor apologized on her behalf the next day. The whole thing was hysterical to me -- and right on the nose.
Finally, in that same class, I was making the case for the legalization of psychedelics drugs. I made the observation that at this point, the only thing standing in the way of that objective were "evangelical types". I am an evangelical type. Nevertheless, a young she/her/hers felt the need to chastise me for "stereotyping evangelicals". Bless her heart, she was so far left she was defending the right!
This is just my experience. I really enjoyed law school before it went to Zoom. It may be worse now. But in light of all the negativity floating around, I offer advice one of the best teachers in my life gave me: "with a positive mindset, and an indominable spirit, you can accomplish anything." He made it over here from sub-Saharan Africa. If he, from less than ideal circumstances can fervently believe that, what excuse do we have? Friends, do not give into the negativity. Don't let the misanthropes bring us down to there level. We outnumber them. Those of us--on both sides of the aisle--still capable of critical thinking, empathy, and rationality ARE the majority. It's time to start acting like it: "For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline."
I read this article when originally published. Yours is a nice comment. I see you are practicing law now. Love the quote from your prof from Africa about mindsets and spirit, as I think it is precisely what separates the successful from the perpetually aggrieved. I'm not sure the woke threat to the legal system is fading.
As you probably know two outstanding Supreme Court appellate attorneys, one a former Solicitor General, were sacked by Kirkland & Ellis after the were successful in the recent 2nd Amendment case. I know them both. They are truly excellent advocates. The backstory on them is available in the Wall Street Journal, but this is not the first firm that has shown them the door on grounds of the firm not wanting to be known for representing certain clients. Pretty shameful. And I fear it is not fading soon - or soon enough.
The ABA, faded guild that it is, is now in institutional capture of the hard Left. It pushes its ideology through its model rules of professional conduct and law school accreditation process. Fortunately some - but not all - state bars are pushing back or members are pushing back through litigation on 1st Amendment grounds.
Good luck in your practice.
I finally had my best friend's granddaughter read this article for her reaction. There are bastions of the real world still out there. She is in law school in Belmont in Nashville. She says she does not even KNOW the political affiliation of her professors. The article is quite shocking to her. This is tremendous news to me.
Good reporting. I myself don't feel quite as alarmed. Law schools--yes, they're suffering from the same hysteria as campuses in general. But universities have been radicalized since the Middle Ages. Commissioner Slaughter's statement was grossly inappropriate. I don't know what's happening in law firms, but the reporting on this could easily be cherry-picked; I have to believe there are partners who'd say, if asked, that they've never felt a problem taking clients some of their associates might disapprove of.
There are something like 35,000 judges, at all levels, in the U.S. It's scarcely surprising that some few make statements indicating bias. (Judges are often inappropriate in many different ways; in my state, we had one who finally got removed after years of women complaining about his sexual innuendo.) And, when it comes to judicial bias, it's a little hard do outdo Clarence Thomas, who has many times stated how he would rule on his pet peeves should they come before him, and who apparently feels no reason to recuse himself from any political litigation despite being married to a fiercely outspoken Republican fundraiser and activist.
My wife's firm (1000+ attys) certainly does turn away SOME clients for political reasons. They have a large and very successful lobbying section and they overwhelmingly represent Democrats, so there's an actual basis beyond "conservatives are icky."
Since covid the associates have gotten much more bold about making demands. They even got together to create and issue a list of demands and changes they wanted to see. The partners humored them and adopted a few innocuous elements from the list and tossed the rest. But those associates have now put themselves in the crosshairs of partners they pissed off. Some don't care. A not small number walked after working at the office became mandatory.
Thomas does not express bias. He is quite clear, however, in his issued opinions and in dicta, where he stands with regard to his philosophy of legal analysis. Don't fault him for having a batshit crazy wife. He's capable of judging cases without her help.
This is all about Progressives trying to separate vulnerable adolescents from their families, so that only the State can be trusted. They don’t care a whit about these kids. They’re just throwing them under the bus to gain further government control over every aspect of American life. Parents, HELLO, you don’t let adolescents make these kinds of decisions. Protect your children! If they want to self-mutlilate as adults, at least you’re not an accomplice to this barbarity when they are at a super-vulnerable point in their lives.
As an attorney with 25 years of experience (mostly civil), it is chilling (terrifying?) to think that these people are even considering throwing out these bedrock principles of our justice system. The scariest part is that my wife (also an attorney) and I have two young children who have to live in this world for the next 70 years or so.
An utterly galling and disconcerting article. I hope the US will be able to pull back from the brink, because his is truly scary stuff, especially since it is happening as we speak. And we all know that what happens in the USA will travel to Europe shortly after. #equalitynotequity
It is sad that our basic education fails to instill respect for the constitution and understanding its roos by reading the federalist papers. Seems someone is playing the long game by destroying education and replacing it with a racist ideolog to promote tribalism and of course the solution will be more government in your life. I always question when will one of the insiders break and expose this crazy evil.