Saturday, November 26, 2011

The Crazy Train Rockets Down The Track

The ancient, sparsely-haired crone has, from the comfort of its seclusive (and exclusive) ivory tower, written another op-ed with no grounding whatsoever in reality. In a nation overrun with lawyers snarling like rabid dogs over any hint of a dollar, the NYT wants to dumb down a profession already choking on its own lack of ethics and dearth of basic critical thinking skills. They begin with a bit of hang-wringing:

American legal education is in crisis. The economic downturn has left many recent law graduates saddled with crushing student loans and bleak job prospects. The law schools have been targets of lawsuits by students and scrutiny from the United States Senate for alleged false advertising about potential jobs. Yet, at the same time, more and more Americans find that they cannot afford any kind of legal help.

Anybody too stupid to research the worth/market of a degree in their chosen field is too stupid to be an attorney. And no, thank you; as a taxpayer, I do not want to pay their student loans. There's more:

Even after the economy recovers, the outsourcing of legal work from law firms and corporate counsel offices to lower-fee operations overseas is likely to continue. Belatedly, some law schools are trying to align what and how they teach to what legal practice now entails and what individuals and institutions need — like many more lawyers who can serve as advocates for the poor and middle class.

The bolding is mine. The Times is advocating a new class of government drones; badly educated lawyers. The taxpayers will foot their inflated salaries, and they can work alongside the glutted "social worker" profession, hanging out in our neighborhoods and driving government-issued Hummers. But hey! There's more!

In American law schools, the choice is not between teaching legal theory or practice; the task is to teach useful legal ideas and skills in more effective ways. The case method has been the foundation of legal education for 140 years. Its premise was that students would learn legal reasoning by studying appellate rulings. That approach treated law as a form of science and as a source of truth.

That vision was dated by the 1920s. It was a relic by the 1960s. Law is now regarded as a means rather than an end, a tool for solving problems. In reforming themselves, law schools have the chance to help reinvigorate the legal profession and rebuild public confidence in what lawyers can provide.

Who needs attorneys that, you law? Or critical thinking? Or ethics? Why don't we cut to the chase, and bestow a law degree on community organizers? That would fit well with the model being championed by the Times.


  1. Just think...lawyers could join SEIU and wear purple T-shirts! The Times must be giddy with excitement.

  2. I have long felt that if the left really wants to straighten out things for the lower and middle class, the US should have socialized legal system before it has a socialized medical system. Have everyone entitled to free legal representation.

    I know that would never take place because lawyers would never make a lot of money that way. And as we all know, most members of Congress are lawyers. They are not that interested in protecting anyone -- they are interested in lining their pockets.

    Anybody too stupid to research the worth/market of a degree in their chosen field is too stupid to be an attorney. Don't forget, Anita Hill, one of the brightest legal minds in the country, did not report the "sexual harassment" of Clarence THomas because she was afraid she would get fired if she did -- despite the fact that she was protected by civil service, which would have made it almost impossible to fire her. Never mind that she also hated working for his so much that she followed him to another job.

    And where is the criticism of the law schools for turning out so many lawyers into a glutted market? None of the critics ever says anything about a bloated educational system that has pretty much gotten anything it wants.

  3. The left has no interest in straightening things out for the lower and middle class; it would erode their power base. They are masters of pandering and manipulation, not to mention outright deceit and fraud.

    They are now attempting to create even more dependent civil servants. They know that people rarely vote against their own wallet, thus ensuring them political power into the foreseeable future. Their game is to stratify society, with themselves at the top of the heap.


  4. Preaching to the choir there, Lady Red. It is the same as with the race baiters: if there was no "racism," those people would be out of a job.

  5. Is this written by Pinch or Punch?

    I don't want to take it out of the bottom of our bird cage to check...

  6. Really great post lady red.

    There is something really insidious going on here.

    Law is now regarded as a means rather than an end, a tool for solving problems.


    And so our "nation of laws" is really just a nation of tools for solving problems?

    This then makes the power to designate "national problems" an absolute, unchallenged and dictatorial power. How convenient for those whose business model relies on the gradually accrued and jealously guarded power to shape the national political narrative. How convenient for the editorial board of the New York Times. They suddenly become a critical organ of unrestrained state power.

    This is treason.

    [Yes, the above is admittedly overwrought, but if you'd corner a drunk, glib liberal at happy hour in the west village, they'd cheerfully sign on to my statements, and consider them features, not bugs].