Skip to comments.Looking for a Law School to Fit Your Politics? (Ave Maria most conservative)
Posted on 10/14/2012 7:34:58 AM PDT by markomalley
Depending on your political point of view, you can choose a like-minded cable news channel, a grocery store, late-night talk show even a fast-food chain. Did you know you can also choose a law school that suits your politics?
Earlier this week, the Princeton Review published its 2013 edition of the Best 168 law schools, with survey data from more than 18,000 students, as well as administrators. Among the many breakdowns the survey provides is most liberal and most conservative law school students.
Northeastern Universitys law school is classified as having the most liberal students, and given Bostons Democratic roots and traditions, thats not likely to surprise anyone. Earlier this year, plans to bring a Chick-fil-A restaurant to the schools campus were cancelled after the (undergraduate) student government denounced the chain for its support of anti-gay groups, the Boston Globe noted.
On the other end of the spectrum, Princeton Review lists Ave Maria School of Law, in Naples, Fla., as having the most conservative students. The schools history is linked with founder Thomas Monaghan, who also founded Dominos Pizza, and his intent to create a conservative, Catholic law school, according to Business Insider. Mr. Monaghan, who is associated with the anti-abortion movement and other conservative causes, sold his interest in Dominos in 1998 and has since pledged to give away at least half of his wealth.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
"Conservative lawyers." Almost an oxymoron and as scarce as hen's teeth.
I knew someone who graduated from Northeastern University and he “bragged” that he never read a book in his four years. Really.
My daughter is a 3L at Washington and Lee. Where is that on the conservative ranking? I didn’t feel like logging into the site although I might later.
The prof at Regent that did the “Never talk to the cops” video is awesome.
Good one, huh? Had him for Civil Procedure - he's a very smart man of course and quite a character - plays the guitar behind his head like Jimmy Hendricks.
A caveat on not talking to cops is you may need to give your name if you don't have an ID with you, but that's probably all you'd have to do without saying "I want to talk to my lawyer."
Along the same lines and off the main subject but interesting to me since I'm taking Forth Amendment Procedure right now: inexplicably, the Supreme Court has refused to require cops to tell people they don't have to consent when the cops ask if they can come in the house or if they can conduct a search. I venture to say, many, if not most, people would think they might have to cooperate with the cops when asked to do so. Miranda notwithstanding, so far, the cops simply don't have to tell people their right to refuse.
If our Constitution and traditions were reliably taught to our young as they should be, no citizen would wonder if he had to allow police in his home without a proper warrant.
I agree that the Constitution should be taught in school. Nevertheless, cops should be required to tell people when they don’t have to consent to a request to search or seizure because the Constitution doesn’t necessarily make that clear. Application of the Constitution comes to us via case law and this is a kind of nuanced Fourth Amendment issue.
I am generally hostile to blackrobes making law, and considering the IV Amendment is crystal clear, I don’t see the need.
As a sidebar to the IVth, it is a pity we have not been secure in our papers for decades. There is zero financial privacy.
Of course case law is in the civil and criminal law tradition under English and American common law (governed mainly by the states). Generally the common law has been a very good process and brought us fairly sound law because it was grounded in the Judeo-Christina tradition.
Article 3 of the Constitution authorizes SCOTUS to take up controversies in Constitutional interpretation which has also resulted in a body of Constitutional case law. Kind of necessary. For instance, what standard should police use for searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment? "Reasonable" or "Probable Cause"? Usually it's an argument between the government and the criminal and the judiciary is the decision maker as it should be.
The problem in Constitutional law is what is called "judicial activism," the judge-made invention of rights (ex. "right to privacy" leading to "abortion rights") not in the text or original understanding of the Constitution.
>>For instance, what standard should police use for searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment?
As per law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
There will always be case law to interpret statutes as well as the Constitution because there will always be challenges and controversies about how to apply the law.
Wouldn’t it be grand if the next Congress just disestablished the Ninth Circus? Don’t bother with messy impeachment, just send them all packing and start over?
Maybe, even though the ninth circuit “circus” goes way back with a lot of judicial turnover. Something’s going to have to happen to the whole west coast I think.