Top conservative law schools Forum

[PWFan]

Ah yes Liberals love to tout their diversity credentials and how accepting they are of everyone; Until someone comes in that is not equally accepting.

Well, we tolerate everything except intolerance. Go figure how that works out, eh?

Jungleshark, I'm glad we agree. I'm willing to accept there's some hypocrisy involved in my side's viewpoints, so long as everyone else is equally self-aware.

Yes, the age old liberal practice of being tolerant to everyone as long as they agree with you.

[JRR]

It is interesting how conservatives appear to feel threatened by diversity of opinion, whereas liberals tend to embrace it. Perhaps it is important that liberals enjoy subjecting their views to criticism so as to better craft a worldview, whereas conservatives prefer to self-delude.

LOL...libs self delude as well.

[LawandOrder]

I want to clarify something regarding the distinction between liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. Libertarianism is strictly a political ideology. Conservativism, on the other hand, may refer to political conservatism, or it might refer to cultural conservatism. I consider myself both libertarian and conservative, that is, culturally conservative. Politically, I am libertarian, but at the same time, I believe in traditional Christian values.

Did anyone else notice that this person has spent a whole lot of time "clarifying" things but has refused to address the half dozen or so times he's been called out for being homophobic and opposing legal rights for LGBTs?

So what if he is homophobic and opposes legal rights for gays? That is his right. Are you a homophobe-phobe?

[alleycat3]

I want to clarify something regarding the distinction between liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. Libertarianism is strictly a political ideology. Conservativism, on the other hand, may refer to political conservatism, or it might refer to cultural conservatism. I consider myself both libertarian and conservative, that is, culturally conservative. Politically, I am libertarian, but at the same time, I believe in traditional Christian values.

Did anyone else notice that this person has spent a whole lot of time "clarifying" things but has refused to address the half dozen or so times he's been called out for being homophobic and opposing legal rights for LGBTs?

So what if he is homophobic and opposes legal rights for gays? That is his right. Are you a homophobe-phobe?

Yes.

[jungleshark]

I have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also have the right to express that belief. I think it's silly to have a policy banning "discrimination" against someone for that person's sexual behavior. If my opinion constitutes denying homosexuals their legal rights, well, you can think what you want.

[Skadden Stairs]

I want to clarify something regarding the distinction between liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. Libertarianism is strictly a political ideology. Conservativism, on the other hand, may refer to political conservatism, or it might refer to cultural conservatism. I consider myself both libertarian and conservative, that is, culturally conservative. Politically, I am libertarian, but at the same time, I believe in traditional Christian values.

Did anyone else notice that this person has spent a whole lot of time "clarifying" things but has refused to address the half dozen or so times he's been called out for being homophobic and opposing legal rights for LGBTs?

So what if he is homophobic and opposes legal rights for gays? That is his right. Are you a homophobe-phobe?

Yes.

Or an ignorant tight-ass phobe.
[+5 to the first person to get the reference]

[Diana341]

I have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also have the right to express that belief. I think it's silly to have a policy banning "discrimination" against someone for that person's sexual behavior. If my opinion constitutes denying homosexuals their legal rights, well, you can think what you want.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to actively discriminate against others based on that belief.

[LawandOrder]

I have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also have the right to express that belief. I think it's silly to have a policy banning "discrimination" against someone for that person's sexual behavior. If my opinion constitutes denying homosexuals their legal rights, well, you can think what you want.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to actively discriminate against others based on that belief.

I don't think his wanting to apply to conservative law schools constitutes discrimination against a protected class.

[alleycat3]

West Wing pilot.

Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it OK to call the police?

Here's one that's really important 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

One last thing, while you may mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-ass Club. In this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

[alleycat3]

I have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also have the right to express that belief. I think it's silly to have a policy banning "discrimination" against someone for that person's sexual behavior. If my opinion constitutes denying homosexuals their legal rights, well, you can think what you want.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to actively discriminate against others based on that belief.

I don't think his wanting to apply to conservative law schools constitutes discrimination against a protected class.

No, you're right, it doesn't. His desire to "deny homosexuals their legal rights", however, does.

[LawandOrder]

I have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also have the right to express that belief. I think it's silly to have a policy banning "discrimination" against someone for that person's sexual behavior. If my opinion constitutes denying homosexuals their legal rights, well, you can think what you want.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to actively discriminate against others based on that belief.

I don't think his wanting to apply to conservative law schools constitutes discrimination against a protected class.

No, you're right, it doesn't. His desire to "deny homosexuals their legal rights", however, does.

Wrong. One's desires do not have any effect unless acted upon. He can desire them to have all legal rights stripped, and nothing will come of it, therefore it is still not discrimination.

[jungleshark]

I can discriminate against whoever I please. I discriminate when I decide whom to marry, whom to associate with, which professors I want to take classes from, etc... "Discrimination" is thought, and thought is something that is permitted in a free society.


And as far as a school's "non-discrimination" policy against homosexuals goes, I have the right to disagree with that policy, and to voice my disagreement. (Although of course I won't do that on a law school application )

[Skadden Stairs]

West Wing pilot.

Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it OK to call the police?

Here's one that's really important 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

One last thing, while you may mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-ass Club. In this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

Close. Not the pilot, but "The Midterms" (S2E03).

[sbalive]

So what if he is homophobic and opposes legal rights for gays? That is his right. Are you a homophobe-phobe?

Discriminating someone on the basis of their sexual orientation - treating them differently or harming them in any way - is wrong, whether you think that sexual orientation should be named as a protected category or not. Oppose explicit legal protection for homosexuality if you'd like, though as a prospective lawyer you should be prepared to argue that position. But it is never alright to be a homophobe - or to condone the actions of other homophobes.

On topic - UCLA has no business being on any "most liberal" list when one of its most cited scholars (both in academia and in public) is Eugene Volokh... and, as has been pointed out, Berkeley is the home of John Yoo.

And this basically brings up the key: after the great Harvard ideology civil wars in the '80s and the political correctness mayhem of the early '90s, the top law schools that are somewhat scholarly try to have at least some mixture of conservative and liberal voices on faculty and tolerance - and encouragement - of debate among students. Of course, it's difficult to impossible to attain numerical balance, since the majority of young people who form the student body today vote for the Democrats and self-identify as either liberals or "moderates" who agree with a number of liberal views... and that most people with graduate degrees are in the same boat. Even engineering faculties are likely to be liberal or moderate-lean Democrat. The point is that the days of the conservative student being marginalized while liberals run amok burning bras and bibles are in the past. Conservatives are much likelier to have their voices tolerated and heard, and liberals are much less likely to be activists.

[gobucks8284]

Don't know how I stumbled onto this, but from what I understand, Chicago is the only (top) school that has a bent toward conservative thought, in the sense that many professors tend to textualist approaches to the constitution/statutes. But I think that no matter where you go, the Federalist Society approach to the Constitution is going to have a large number of sympathizers, because it's a reasonable opinion to have.

Also, on a personal note, I guess I'm bitter about the fact that the Republican Party/Conservatism basically forgot that Barry Goldwater founded their movement, but there's nothing conservative about denying gays certain rights. And I hate to get too controversial, but as a strong proponent of a reality independent of human perception, I think it's laughable to say you believe in objective reality while simultaneously believing that virgins birth the children of celestial wizards.

[jungleshark]

The New Testament abrogates most of the ceremonial regulations laid out in the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, affirms the Old Testament prohibition of homosexual conduct.

[Diana341]

I have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also have the right to express that belief. I think it's silly to have a policy banning "discrimination" against someone for that person's sexual behavior. If my opinion constitutes denying homosexuals their legal rights, well, you can think what you want.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to actively discriminate against others based on that belief.

I don't think his wanting to apply to conservative law schools constitutes discrimination against a protected class.

I didn't say that it did. I was just clarifying that although he has the right to believe that "it's silly" not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, he doesn't have the right to practice this belief by actively discriminating against homosexuals.

[20160810]

Hey guys, I want to go to a law school with the largest percentage of 6'3" white guys who like watching football and reading mystery novels; can you recommend a school? I was thinking about Yale, but I'm just afraid everyone there won't be exactly like me. Maybe GMU is a better fit?

[dresden doll]

Ah yes Liberals love to tout their diversity credentials and how accepting they are of everyone; Until someone comes in that is not equally accepting.

Well, we tolerate everything except intolerance. Go figure how that works out, eh?

Jungleshark, I'm glad we agree. I'm willing to accept there's some hypocrisy involved in my side's viewpoints, so long as everyone else is equally self-aware.

Yes, the age old liberal practice of being tolerant to everyone as long as they agree with you.

Well, we had to develop some technique against the age old conservative practice of labeling everyone who dissents from their orthodoxy as unpatriotic and un-American.

It isn't about having a problem with people who disagree. It's about having a problem with people whose viewpoints cause them to discriminate against/attempt to diminish other people's rights due to their own intolerance.

As far as I'm concerned, you may believe that, say, homosexuality is wrong all you want. However, if/when you behave in such a manner as to try to restrict homosexuals' rights/impinge on their freedoms, I'm going to be less than tolerant of your attitude.

[pomona]

I have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also have the right to express that belief. I think it's silly to have a policy banning "discrimination" against someone for that person's sexual behavior. If my opinion constitutes denying homosexuals their legal rights, well, you can think what you want.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to actively discriminate against others based on that belief.

I don't think his wanting to apply to conservative law schools constitutes discrimination against a protected class.

I didn't say that it did. I was just clarifying that although he has the right to believe that "it's silly" not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, he doesn't have the right to practice this belief by actively discriminating against homosexuals.

Of course he has the right to practice this belief, he just can't exercise it in certain instances (such as hiring, admission to certain schools, etc.).

For example, you can discriminate against him choosing not to be his friend because think his beliefs about gays are wrong.

[sbalive]

I can discriminate against whoever I please. I discriminate when I decide whom to marry, whom to associate with, which professors I want to take classes from, etc... "Discrimination" is thought, and thought is something that is permitted in a free society.

As a professional lawyer, you will have obligations that restrict you. Of course you can think whatever you want - and no one believes civil rights are about regulating thoughts. If that were the case, there would be no need for regulating equal protection - you'd just legislate the thought process and be done with it. But, in your practice - there are forms of discrimination you will not be able to do. Now, you can certainly reject components of your ethical code. There are lawyers who do that all the time. But, it's up to you to decide whether your commitment to opposing homosexuality supercedes your ethical commitments as a practicing lawyer.

[LawandOrder]

So what if he is homophobic and opposes legal rights for gays? That is his right. Are you a homophobe-phobe?

Discriminating someone on the basis of their sexual orientation - treating them differently or harming them in any way - is wrong, whether you think that sexual orientation should be named as a protected category or not. Oppose explicit legal protection for homosexuality if you'd like, though as a prospective lawyer you should be prepared to argue that position. But it is never alright to be a homophobe - or to condone the actions of other homophobes.

I'm not sure what to make of this. There is, as I think you've pointed out, a marked difference between harbouring homophobic thoughts and feelings and the manifestation of those beliefs into actual discrimination against protected classes.

Because there is a difference, it is perfectly fine to be a homophobe, and/or to condone the actions of other homophobes, provided that they do not act in a discriminatory way against homosexuals.

The difference between holding beliefs and acting upon them is the crucial distinction.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

[dresden doll]

Hey guys, I want to go to a law school with the largest percentage of 6'3" white guys who like watching football and reading mystery novels; can you recommend a school? I was thinking about Yale, but I'm just afraid everyone there won't be exactly like me. Maybe GMU is a better fit?

I want to go to law school with all who share my love of Dostoevsky, classic Hollywood movies (think Clark Gable - to - Cary Grant era) and Woody Allen jokes. Oh, and with SBL, of course.

[Mitsunobu]

The New Testament abrogates most of the ceremonial regulations laid out in the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, affirms the Old Testament prohibition of homosexual conduct.

It's kind of easy to use that argument however you please...

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Loving v. Virginia (1967).

[Diana341]

Of course he has the right to practice this belief, he just can't exercise it in certain instances (such as hiring, admission to certain schools, etc.).

For example, you can discriminate against him choosing not to be his friend because think his beliefs about gays are wrong.

When I said actively discriminating, I didn't mean not befriending gay men and women.