[Posted by The Angry Clam]
See what your tax dollars are up to if you live in a state with a public law school, or if you give donations to a private law school.
This is why law school clinics are so objectionable.
-The Angry Clam
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
Nothing in that article referenced public law schools.
actus (ebc508) — 1/11/2006 @ 8:24 amActus, read this sentence again:
“See what your tax dollars are up to if you live in a state with a public law school, OR [emphasis added] if you give donations to a private law school.”
Bostonian (a37519) — 1/11/2006 @ 8:35 am“OR [emphasis added] ”
Oh. I’m not writing that Clam is completely baseless. Just that we don’t know what kinds of clinics public law schools have.
That still leaves out the fact that we don’t know anything about tax dollars going to objectionable legal clinics. At least not from that article.
The article doesn’t really mention how clinics are funded, other than to say that private foundations do it with targetted grants. I don’t know if they use general fund sort of money that Clam is telling us to police.
actus (ebc508) — 1/11/2006 @ 8:43 amActus, please tell me what university Boalt Hall is a part of.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 1/11/2006 @ 9:18 amHint, from the article:
“The legal elite rose up in outrage. NYU Law School’s Brennan Center, the New York firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the Association of American Law Schools, the American Association of University Professors, UC Berkeley’s Center for Clinical Education and the ACLU sued the Louisiana Supreme Court for violating professors’ and students’ First Amendment rights. Happily, federal courts threw out their case.”
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 1/11/2006 @ 9:20 amThat clarifies it. I saw berkeley mentioned above, but not its law school.
But were they engaged in something objectionable? They seemed to dislike the limits that Louisiana was putting on Tulane clinics. This is objectionable?
I wonder which of berkeleys three clinics sued. The Death Penalty Clinic; the International Human Rights Law Clinic; or the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic.
actus (ebc508) — 1/11/2006 @ 9:31 amThere’s also ad hoc clinic classes that do all sorts of stupid shit.
Plus, Boalt Hall was the one that sued the Berkeley school district for the disciple stuff that leads the article.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 1/11/2006 @ 9:35 am“Plus, Boalt Hall was the one that sued the Berkeley school district for the disciple stuff that leads the article. ”
Ok. The article didn’t mention that.
“There’s also ad hoc clinic classes that do all sorts of stupid shit.”
I agree. Money power must be excercised. We must make sure that in the 1-2 years of the legal careers of lawyers that they are law students eligible for clinical practice they work in the interests of money. Sure will be a good education for the rest of their careers.
actus (ebc508) — 1/11/2006 @ 9:51 am“Money power must be excercised. We must make sure that in the 1-2 years of the legal careers of lawyers that they are law students eligible for clinical practice they work in the interests of money. Sure will be a good education for the rest of their careers.”
First, it would be better education, because, shockingly, that is what nearly all lawyers do.
Second, it isn’t a “enlightened noble poor defenseless people” vs. “big evil greedy mean capitalists” dichotomy.
Let’s consider a number of other “little guy” helping clinics that aren’t, essentially, state and tuition supported leftwing activism:
– Small business assistance clinics. Many cannot afford to hire attorneys. Think help “guy with hot dog cart” incorporate, or get the necessary city licenses.
– Prosecution clinics in addition to criminal defense clinics. Most district attorney and city attorney offices are wildly understaffed and cannot prosecute all the criminals that deserve it due to budget constraints. Additionally, second and third year law students can, with the proper training, make court appearances and actually try cases.
– Proposition 209 enforcement. Usually it is an individual, many times an employee with little resources, being screwed by the state, which has vast litigation resources. This is distinct from leftist legal agitation because, unlike those, Prop. 209 actually is the law
– To get more into agitation, how about a property rights clinic? People in, say, New London can’t really afford lawyers, and need them to protect against eminent domain abuses.
– Clinics have brought a lot of “NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS EVER!!!” lawsuits. How about a clinic that assists nonprofit religious organizations gain equal access to things like renting public school gymnasia for weekend worship services, since such institutions often face discrimination by the school board?
These are just some examples of why you’re a moron.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/11/2006 @ 10:01 amBut you just listed all sorts of things that would help people without money to afford a lawyer, and also said that we should be educating lawyers to serve money. Which one is it?
“Additionally, second and third year law students can, with the proper training, make court appearances and actually try cases.”
So you’re ok with a student, getting up and saying “My name is X and I represent the people of state Y.” ?
“To get more into agitation, how about a property rights clinic?”
You’d think there would be a right wing foundation out there doing this no?
actus (ebc508) — 1/11/2006 @ 10:19 amI said that, from a pedogogical perspective, that is the best idea. However, setting that aside, I provided you with a list where the choice isn’t “evil capitalists vs. noble poor people.”
Yes. What’s the problem? They’re usually assigned to more minor crimes that would otherwise go unprosecuted. One of my friends prosecuted a BUI (bicycling under the influence) and a theft (of said bicycle) while working for the city attorney over the summer after his second year of law school.
What’s the problem?
Actually, it’s libertarian (Institute for Justice), but that’s not the point. Leftist foundations do all the same types of cases that law school clinics do, but, as with any foundation, there’s a limit to the number of cases they can accept at any time. The existence of a sole conservative/libertarian organization that takes those type of cases is not justification to say “see, they do it! Thus, we only need to concentrate on demanding more entitlements for poor people and assisting convicted criminals escape their sentences!”
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/11/2006 @ 10:59 am“I said that, from a pedogogical perspective, that is the best idea”
I’d say that’s a poor view of pedagogy which doesn’t see school as the chance to allow students to experience something that they otherwise won’t see during their long careers serving money.
“However, setting that aside, I provided you with a list where the choice isn’t “evil capitalists vs. noble poor people.””
Its unclear whether you think those clinics exist or not. Here at GW we have a small business clinic, an immigration clinic (is this leftist?).
But its hard to see how death penalty or criminal defense clinics represent noble people.
“The existence of a sole conservative/libertarian organization that takes those type of cases is not justification to say “see, they do it!”
There isn’t only 1 conservative foundation with the ability to fund clinics like the article said the Ford foundation does.
actus (ebc508) — 1/11/2006 @ 11:08 amLaw school is a trade school. It is supposed to instruct students in their trade, not expand their horizons. It isn’t a liberal arts educational environment.
It depends on the composition and purpose of the clinic. A number of small business clinics I’ve seen are exclusively dedicated to the service of leftist activist non-profit organizations or minority owned businesses only. I don’t think either qualifies as politically neutral.
Likewise, immigration clinics are of two kinds. In the border states, they are primarily determined to agitate against restrictions on illegal immigrants, demand unchecked immigration, and fight against border enforcement, all leftist positions. Ones that exist to assist people with amnesty petitions may be more politically neutral (although not necessarily, depending on their selection of foreign nations to complain about… many, for example, refuse to represent amnesty claims from people fleeing Cuba)
Listen to the clinics caterwauling over the racist oppression of the American criminal justice system, and look at their elevation to sainthood of hundreds of criminals similar to Tookie Williams.
You’re shifting what you were referring to. First you were talking about actual litigating organs like the ACLU or the IJ. Now you’ve shifted. Don’t do that.
More generally, even deleting the Ford Foundation’s donations that the article focuses on (which I don’t, incidentally; clinics are far more vast than even that organization’s funding abilities), do you really think that all the leftist agitprop that constitutes the modern law school clinic would shrivel on the vine?
As a general matter, it scares me that you attend a first tier law school.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/11/2006 @ 11:27 am“It is supposed to instruct students in their trade, not expand their horizons. ”
Why the dichotomy? Their horizons are about to get pretty narrow in terms of the trade once they graduate into their law firm jobs. Let them be exposed to a part of the trade that they likely won’t see anymore.
“Listen to the clinics caterwauling over the racist oppression of the American criminal justice system, and look at their elevation to sainthood of hundreds of criminals similar to Tookie Williams.”
I got a friend in a clinic representing criminal defendants. He doesn’t think his clients are noble. And its perfectly ok to think that the american criminal justice system is racist and oppressive without thinking that the people in it are noble. If I think a prison guard is a sadist, it doesn’t mean I think prisoners are saints.
“First you were talking about actual litigating organs like the ACLU or the IJ.”
I didn’t talk about those.
“do you really think that all the leftist agitprop that constitutes the modern law school clinic would shrivel on the vine?”
I really don’t have a picture of this vast leftwing conspiracy to know. The article mentioned a few examples, and it seems like it, and perhaps you, want to tarnish all clinical programs with this idea of ideological agenda advacement. I have no idea how many clinics do this sort of thing, and how many simply do like the clinics here at gw do: small business, IP, tax, consumer mediation, social security administrative hearings, asylum etc…
“As a general matter, it scares me that you attend a first tier law school.”
Don’t worry. I keep getting told by other winger bloggers that I’m failing.
actus (ebc508) — 1/11/2006 @ 11:39 amI assume by “winger” you mean “right-winger.” There are two wings, you know. Or maybe you don’t.
In any event, don’t worry about flunking out. The only thing harder do do than get in to a top tier school is to flunk out of one.
Xrlq (e2795d) — 1/11/2006 @ 11:47 am“I assume by “winger” you mean “right-winger.””
wingnut actually.
“In any event, don’t worry about flunking out. ”
I wasn’t when a wingnut mentioned it. Am not now. Just basking in my position in the social hieararchy.
actus (ebc508) — 1/11/2006 @ 11:53 amMy law school’s clinic was run by my Constitutional Law professor who later became a director of the ACLU. Still, why blame any soldier for winning a war? Blame the wimps on the other side or the judges and juries who granted them the victories.
nk (57e995) — 1/11/2006 @ 12:43 pmI don’t blame the soldier, or the opposition.
I blame the system that supplies them with ordinance and materiel.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/11/2006 @ 12:49 pm“wingnut actually.”
And we chose the president, so go us.
It must suck to lose so badly.
Bostonian (115293) — 1/11/2006 @ 4:49 pmI understood you the first time, Clam. I was trying to say that I have more faith in our legal system than to think that money wins a case.
nk (f58916) — 1/11/2006 @ 5:10 pm“I understood you the first time, Clam. I was trying to say that I have more faith in our legal system than to think that money wins a case. ”
Sometimes money makes a case. If you can’t afford to say, prosecute the government for violating your rights, or someone else for harming you, you don’t really have a case.
actus (85218a) — 1/11/2006 @ 5:29 pmi am not going to read over some twenty replies, but i shall respond to the Dualistic term “Taxes”.
Humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit me once believed that only the poor paid Taxes. Hey, i also believed that America’s Media was reporting the news correctly. Well, it turns out, that “The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes”. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html
Couples “filing jointly who earned $29,019” are also labeled “Rich”!?! Do the math from here. Basically, some 50% of Americans pay little or no Taxes, whilst they have no clue that couples filing jointly whilst making “$29,019” are clearly not “Rich”. 50% of America best wake up, and stop thinking that they are owed something for being born here in America, huh.
America needs to be pruned…so to speak gently.
*BIG* Time!!! As in it would not hurt if America lost around 50% of it’s population.
i have broken it down to just 10% of America surviving a pruning…a more than fair percentage, and clearly represents the needed pruning. Basically, this means that even if America’s Enemies wiped out 90% of the American Population, the Enemy would still lose ‘Da War. Well, China excluded.
Shall we fight or lay down??? Our choice…
KårmiÇømmünîs†
KarmiCommunist (3fb59b) — 1/11/2006 @ 6:19 pmOK…5% works to, but men/Men will need to stand up.
KarmiCommunist (9bba48) — 1/11/2006 @ 7:02 pmThe author deems these clinics “a failure”. I don’t see how; their radical left-wing policy prescriptions have pretty much been accepted in every state in the land, supported by a judiciary (and to the extent that legislators are attorneys) educated in those selfsame law schools and clinics.
Bob (d57802) — 1/12/2006 @ 11:34 pm