Law Student Adam Key, 23, is learning the practical elements of a first amendment case from his school, Regent University — though not under the usual clinical conditions. He is suing the University after he claims it violated his right to free speech last November in suspending for posting an unflattering picture of Pat Robertson on the Internet. Ironically, his case was heard by a judge who knows something about suspensions and discipline. Judge Samuel Kent, who was disciplined for misconduct himself and has been suspended from hearing criminal cases. He is believed to still be under criminal investigation for sexual assault and other crimes — and could face impeachment with another Fifth Circuit judge (click here).
Key alleges that Regent recruited him with a false promise of a standard legal education, including a community that valued free speech. (For full disclosure, I once gave a speech at Regents on free exercise of religion, free association, and other constitutional rights). He was given a full scholarship. He has added Robertson as a defendant. In his lawsuit, he wants to clean his disciplinary record from Regent, recover fees he paid for his unfinished third semester at the law school, and damages for embarrassment as well as emotional pain and suffering. He is now completing an interdisciplinary studies master’s degree at Stephen F. Austin State University and intends to enroll this fall as a second-year student at the University of Houston Law Center.
Key insists that he merely posted a picture as a joke after Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Key changed a picture of Robertson to show an obscene gesture. Wen he was threatened with discipline by school officials, he took the picture down. He later added the picture to a condemnation of the school’s free speech and obscenity policies. Kent will now decide these initials question, despite his own precarious status, click here
While Key has legitimate objections to how Regents responded to his posting, his complaint is a long shot. Such challenges rarely succeed. It is not fraud, even if the school is wrong in how it reacted to the posting. He stands a better shot in objecting to the ABA over the accreditation of the law school, but even that is unlikely to result in serious action. Putting aside the legal merits, Regents has always struggled with its two missions — at least in the view of outsiders. It has a talented faculty and student body. However, it risks the image of a cult of personality when its students cannot exercise first amendment rights in the criticism of the Administration. Robertson’s statement regarding Chavez was bizarre and legitimately subject to scorn. Key was a bit juvenile in his chosen criticism but there is no question that it was an exercise of free speech. Notably, it was Robertson’s counterpart in the religious movement, Jerry Falwell, who helped establish the protection of parody before the Supreme Court in a case against Hustler magazine. (Click here).
Of course, Regents is not a state actor. However, as a legal educational institution, it must do more than teach first amendment values. It must also show a modicum of restraint in allowing such speech within its own community.
For the full story, click here
“A modicum of restraint?”
The fact that Regent Law recruited him at all speaks volumes to Regent’s desire to maintain diversity among the student body and to have diversity of ideas and to promote free speech. No one stopped Mr. Keys from doing what he did. But the right to free speech does not equal the right to be free from any resulting consequences.
Mr. Keys decided to bite the hand that fed him in a very personal and offensive way. He accepted a full ride scholarship and then turned against the institution and ignored its policies despite agreeing to follow them. So who really made false promises?
Regent Law is an excellent law school. Mr. Keys is simply an ingrate. I’ve highlited some recent accomplishments at this link: http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2007/04/28/bill-maher-blasts-regent-law-school/
Virginia bar pass rates for all applicants
in the state of Virginia*:
2005 – 74%%
2004 – 72%
2002 – 73%
2001 – 73%
Reegent Law School pass rates
for Virginia Bar:
2005 — 61%
2004 — 53%
2003 — 48%
2002 — 44%
1995 to 2000 numbers were abysmal and were habitually last in the Commonwealth.
Any questions?
– A Virginia Lawyer for 24 years
Thanks for the 3 year old stats Virginia Lawyer. I guess you have a grudge too.
Facts:
—Regent Law’s admission standards continue to rise every year.
—Regent Law’s bar passage rate is currently above the 70% average of all law schools in Virginia. (UPDATE: 2006 Regent pass rate 85%)
—Many Regent Law professors hail from top-tier law schools including Yale, Harvard, Chicago, Virginia, Georgetown, etc. and several have held full partnership positions in prestigious law firms.
More @ http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2007/04/28/bill-maher-blasts-regent-law-school/
Jay: The problem is that the lawyers now practicing are in that crowd and many are ideologues like you, which ,of course, is a betrayal of the profession. By the way, those are two year old stats which are the best available since the 2008 Bar results haven’t been reported yet. Regent doesn’t publish its passage rates on the web site for 2007 by the way. I checked with the Board of Bar Examiners and they don’t have your figure either. So I am just wondering how you know. The five year average is 54.6% though. These facts really are pesky aren’t they? There is no grudge just because I graduated from another Virginia law school, I just know the facts and have had years of observation. I wouldn’t want the rest of the Country getting any wrong ideas.
Jay: As an UPDATE, I checked the 2006 pass rate for the Virginia bar by Regent Law School graduates on the Internet Legal Research Group website which is otherwise accurate and the pass rate was 67.5% not 85% as you stated. (That’s about the degree of legal precision I expected from an ideologue.) Sixty seven percent is certainly better, but still below the 74% overall pass rate which of course is slightly skewed since Regent brings down the average for everyone else. Face it, it’s second rate by any standard because it refuses to value reason over ideology and it shows.
I must be an “ideologue” now? Please. So much for professionalism. Let’s just focus on the issue at hand. It’s been awhile, but the 85% refers to either their national pass rate or their pass rate among Virginia takers.
“Regent brings down the average for everyone else.”
EVERYONE else? My, you certainly are full of yourself (and your law school). You must think that comparing well established law schools, i.e. maybe even the one where Thomas Jefferson himself taught in Virginia, is somehow fairly compared to other relatively new law schools. They all start somewhere, and they can compete with the best of them including yours.
The problem with your profession is self-absorbed attorneys like yourself.
Jay: The 85% refers to neither. It’s propaganda made from whole cloth and referenced nowhere. The problem for you is that you will disregard and cloud the truth to prove your point and that makes you what you accuse others of being– either a liar or a dupe. Neither is particularly attractive, regardless of your “profession.”
Jay: By the way, 2007 results are out. Regent’s back down to a 61% passage rate (with a minus 13% differential from the norm of 74%), again contrary to your previous assertion that it’s “above the 70% average of all law schools in Virginia.” Same web site as previously cited. Are your pants on fire yet?
Virginia Lawyer, thanks for keeping me honest. I would never intentionally mislead anyone on this issue, and I have worked to locate and to provide the basis of my factual statements and personal opinion.
Accordingly, the Spring/Summer 2007 Regent Remark had this to say:
“This past February, Regent Law first time Virginia
Bar takers continued to excel as they received a
83.3% bar passage rate for the state of Virginia.
Regent first time bar takers exceeded the 64.07%
state examination passage rate for all first time
takers and the 66.31% for all first time takers
who received a J.D. from an ABA accredited law
school. The achievement of these Regent Law
graduates is a further testament to the success [of]
programs and policies implemented by the law
school back in 2000 to increase its bar passage
success.”
So, evidently I was indeed off by 1.7% and I hereby clarify that these statistics reflect FIRST TIME TAKER RESULTS of the Virginia Bar Exam. Of course, I am satisfied that this outstanding accomplishment is praiseworthy of such a young law school! Love them or hate them, Regent Law is an excellent law school which is growing an excellent reputation and they are here to stay.
Would you discount Brigham Young Law (Mormon), Notre Dame Law (Catholic), Cardozo Law (Jewish), or any other school simply because they affliate themselves with religious entities or systems of belief or particular faiths? Are their lawyers all second rate, inferior ideologues that are betraying the profession also? I suggest that it is absolutely disingenuous to discount an institution such as Regent Law simply because they value the Christian faith.
And I, for one, am shocked at the level of contempt in your words to discredit Regent University and to paint those folks as you have.
Jay: Thank you for reading us the Regent spin. For the truth, see the Internet Legal Research Group website which is impartial. You again fail to mention that your crowd is still substantially below the 74% overall rate which I verified today with the State Board of Bar Examiners. The other Virginia Law Schools typically pass between 85-95% of their graduates, so Regent is still dead last. Glad you took to attempting some “research” instead of just shooting your mouth off, but the bottom line is that if three University of Richmond Law professors didn’t go over to Regent and drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st Century with their Bar review course, your guys would still be in the mid 50′s. Why don’t you tell us how many left-handed, polo wearing, first time bar takers from Regent passed the Bar. That would give us about the same information as the cherry-picked stats that the Regent Remark gives us. Find me an impartial source and I’ll at least believe they finally made the grade up to “average.” And as we know, everybody wants an “average” lawyer. Give me a break about the “shock” and quit playing the hurt feelings card. You said it was an excellent law school and I just proved it isn’t even close. I did so because your contention is a disservice to all the ones that are indeed excellent. Sometimes the truth is cold and hard.
“Regent spin.” “Cherry-picked stats.”
There you go again…
How’s this for “cherry-picked” from Richmond U’s website:
“The statewide rate for first-timers who received their degrees from ABA-accredited law schools was 77 percent, while Richmond’s rate was 86.4 percent.”
(Gee, that language sounds familiar.) How about this beauty:
“The first-time pass rate for the top three-quarters of the graduating class was 97.4 percent. Of the 78 students who graduated in the top 75 percent of their class, all but two passed the exam.”
I don’t fault Richmond U for that! Any law school will frame the bar stats to reflect a positive image. But I guess, according to you, Regent is a lying, biased, second-rate law school, that is destroying the profession and that doesn’t deserve the same right as other law schools to publish favorable information simply because of their Christian world view. Is that what your saying?
One can only imagine the depth of scorn and other derogatory insinuations with which you might have pounced upon Regent Law had that institution dared to put forth favorable stats ignoring the entire bottom 25% of their class!
I’m afraid we’ll have to chat again another time.
Take care.
“…Regent is a lying, biased, second-rate law school, that is destroying the profession and that doesn’t deserve the same right as other law schools to publish favorable information simply because of their Christian world view.” Those are your words not mine. I would say neo-conservatism world view masquerading as Christian world view. But except for the Christian victim card which I never said, you’ve got it about right. By the way, the UR stats exactly match those on the Internet Legal Research Group website. Wonder why Regent’s don’t match? Oh I know, see first sentence. Nice of you to hit and run.
Listen, the Regent article clearly states that the stats reflect February bar results. The stats you point to, evidently do not. But you obviously hold Regent to a different standard than other law schools anyway. And I would regret most of the spiteful things you said if I were you as well. But there they are. Good thing you posted anonymously.
Have a good night Virginia Lawyer mespo727272.
Jay: “Good thing you posted anonymously.” ??? My, my your neo-con fangs are peeking out from behind your Jesus mask. I think Samuel Johnson’s observation on scoundrels needs a face lift. It is truly religion that is their last refuge in the modern age.
“[Regent Law] refuses to value reason over ideology.” Faith & Religion = Dark Ages. Got it. Thanks again anonymous attorney.
Sorry Jaybo, you don’t get to put words into my mouth. I said ideology over reason is Regent’s problem, not religion. I won’t for a moment concede that anything done by Pat Robertson and his gang of robber barons has anything to do with religion. He just found a time-honored way to make money by bilking the religious and that is truly his and their ideology. That’s why it’s so insidious. Like you, he uses religion like a bludgeon, and then, when others object, he plays the victim to goad the faithful into supporting his “righteous” fight against the non-believers. It’s pathetic. Notice, I never criticized other religious institutions who sponsor legitimate law schools, just the neo-con thugs who run this one. Why don’t you go to law school? You’ll see it teaches the mind to decide issues on verifiable evidence instead of sentimentalism and wishful thinking–two modes of thinking which you have obviously mastered.
The only sentimentalism and wishful thinking in this entire discussion is yours — the idea that Pat Robertson (Yale Law Alumn) can’t possibly have a “legitimate” law school.
Well, you’re wrong.
Regent Law grads know your wrong. Just ask alumni such as the current Virginia Attorney General and alumni working at (and making partner in) private practice firms in Virginia such as Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins; Hunton & Williams; Huff, Poole & Mahoney; Kaufman & Canoles; Vandeventer Black; and other fine firms across the nation.
The ABA knows you’re wrong. Regent Law teams have gone head to head in several national competitions and done very well. They won the 2006 ABA National Moot Court Competition in Chicago, IL. They won the 2007 ABA National Negotiations Cometition in Miami, FL that Harvard Law won the year before. Regent Law students have won numerous best brief awards throughout the years.
Regent Law Professors know you’re wrong. (Many of them earned their Juris Doctors from other fine, top tier law schools.)
You continue to decry some “ideology” that the school espouses. You’d have to ask the law students about that one. I suppose you could ask any liberal, or conservative, or libertarian, or Democrat, or Republican, or Independent, or Protestant, or Catholic, or Mormon, or Christian, or atheist, or single, or married, or male, or female student that goes there.
Regent Law might be young, but it is hardly illegitimate. Regent is an excellent young law school that continues to build on its successes.
So you don’t like Pat Robertson? Lots of people don’t. However, your conclusions about him and his role in the founding of Regent University does not diminish the quality of the institution itself, especially the law school.
Hey Jay! The numbers still don’t lie, and you failed to mention the most famous Regent Law graduate of all, who epitomizes and personifies my feelings about the school and its “mission” — why none other than the disgraced, ideologue Monica Goodling. You remember her, she’s the one who made mincemeat of the law she was sworn to protect and handicapped the DOJ with her ilk for a generation. Apparently, oaths don’t mean much at old Pat Robertson U. Funny how that one skipped your mind! As Bill Maher noted (and you conveniently posted on your own gushing website), I wonder why she didn’t rush right back to Regent to find her lawyer when she got caught violating the law. No, she got a lawyer from a respected law school. Unlike you, I trust more in what people do rather than in what they say–and,of course, Monica Goodling has made my case for me. And finally, as for asking law school students about the place, let’s start with the subject of this article, Adam Key. On second thought, don’t go to law school, you’re immune from reason. I suggest you apply for a position on the Republican National Committee-your talents are better suited for their “work.”
More personal attacks… Another leap in logic for the mysterious Virgnia Attorney…
I’m sure no one from your esteemed law school ever did anything professionally unethical or might have even… perish the thought… been disbarred! *GASP*
Once again, your conclusions about Ms. Goodling do not diminish the quality of the institution itself. And while we’re on the subject, thanks to Ms. Goodling’s character, she actually owned up to her actions in her testimony and exposed the real problem in the DOJ — Gonzales. That’s actually refreshing. That’s actually a good thing. This world needs lots more attorneys like that who will risk their careers because it’s the right thing to do or because it’s in the interest of justice!!! Everyone else? Just trying to save their own hides.
By the way, you practically imply that the only crooks in D.C. come from Regent. You can’t be serious!?
Once again, you hold Regent to the standard of perfection which your own school is not held to.
Finally, just pretend there was internet 25 years ago. Now go back in time to your law school days, accept a full ride scholarship, agree to that institution’s polices, then turn around, post a crude picture of your Dean or Chancellor online accessible to all the world and then you’ll find out whether your institution congratulates you for your so-called right to free speech!
Give me a break.
Jay: You are hopeless, but, lest anyone actually believe your drivel, that “she [Ms. Goodling] actually owned up to her actions in her testimony,” we should all remember that her ethical epiphany occurred only after a grant of immunity. (See Washington {Post, May 11, 2007 article) Before that, she flatly refused to testify or even speak to investigators citing her 5th Amendment privilege. How mafioso! Not quite the Joan of Arc you make her out to be, but about the ethics one would expect given her training. By the way, the scenario you described about my law school days actually did happen, but, my oh my, no one ever considered suspending the student and that was also at another religious and private law school. I guess it was because we actually had to read our copy of the Constitution.
Sorry, I don’t fault people or private institutions for taking advantage of their Constitutional rights and privileges in either case. Regardless, Ms. Goodling still risked her career and reputation in exchange for her truthful testimony. She could have lied and protected the establishment. But she didn’t. And D.C. is better for it.
Gents:
It has been my pleasure to follow this discussion from the beginning. You both give me hope for America. It is easy to find merit in either argument. And while there are ad hominem elements to both positions, your argument has been most enjoyable for a number of reasons, not least of which, is that you have both respected each other, and respected this very nice hang out that JT has generously provided.
I’m not even going to interfere more than I have by weighing in with my opinions. I just wanted to commend you for defending your strong opinions, yet limiting yourselves to some sarcasm and one or two over the bow.
Very hopeful indeed – thanks.
Can I step in for a moment too?
My two cents: Regents seems a partisan ideological law school. No doubt about it. But that is no great sin, since many many such schools existed on the liberal end of the spectrum. Turn about is fair play I guess.
Regents is not yet in the first tier, it is young but has a good faculty, and it may get there eventually. Nihil Obstat.
I don’t like the fact that Regent’s products seem like cookie cutter ideologues with fast tracks in the conservative legal world. But again similar pathways and uniformities have existed for decades on the left so I can’t really complain.
Mespo, by any chance did you go to Washington & Lee? I know its unlikely but I have to ask….
Deeply: No about two hours east of there, but that is a fine law school. My beef with Regent is the same as my beef with any institution that loses sight of its mission. We don’t need more Evangelical Christian lawyers just like we don’t need more Baptist, Hindu, or Catholic lawyers. We need more independent lawyers willing to use the law to represent their clients zealously and thereby to benefit the society as a whole without the baggage of personal ideology. Nazi Germany had lawyers as did Stalinist Russia and many other totalitarian regimes. The common thread among those lawyers was adherence to a zealous ideology coupled with the philosophy that the law serves that ideology and is, in essence, a mask for that power. That is the antithesis of our tradition.
The Regent crowd elevates its Christian mission over its teaching mission resulting in a disservice to its students and the clients they will one day serve. A simple example: Citizen B seeks to enjoin a public high school from officially sanctioned Christian prayer before class in a clear violation of federal and state law. Could a Regent graduate effectively represent the interests of that citizen? Could anyone trust one of their lawyers given the school’s Christian bias and stated mission to “bring to bear the will of our Creator, Almighty God, upon legal education and the legal profession?”
Finally, I appreciate the kind words from VC, and deeply and even Jay. These discussions are more than just college bull sessions. They allow one to test and explore deeply held positions in the face of sometimes withering fire from a worthy adversary. That beats watching American Idol any day!
I know I’m just a lowly non-lawyered average citizen here, but I agree with Mespo that America needs more independent lawyers with no clear ties to religious ideologies than Evangelical lawyers with an obvious religious bias. Obviously, both types of attorneys have the same right to practice law, but if I ever needed an attorney for any reason, I’d seek the services of the independent lawyer who zealously advocates for his/her client. Just my preference.
Susan: You have every right to expect that your lawyer will further your interests and not his own ideology at your expense. That is rule one of the profession, some recent and not so recent scandals not withstanding. The problem is that you have no way of knowing who has the hidden agenda. I am positive that Goodling didn’t put her religious/conservative mission on her resume. So how’s the average citizen to know? That’s why I am so adamantly opposed to these ideologues. They get to reek havoc with the immense powers we lawyers enjoy, and most clients will never know the difference. How would we have known about Goodling (ostensibly our lawyer) unless another lawyer, David Iglesias, came along. Iglesias, a conservative republican who put his duties to the profession above his own ideology, is the real hero here and not Goodling. And finally, please don’t deprecate your role as the “average citizen.” We are supposed to be hear for you not the other way around. Sometimes we forget that, but there would be no need for us if there was no you.
Mespo, your reply is very comforting and very appreciated, especially to those of us not in the profession of law. Over the past couple of years, I have taken a far greater interest in the mechanics of law and criminal justice as a whole by reading a great deal more about both than I did before. Only recently have I found my way here, and thanks to JT’s hard work and researching, I’ve learned even more. What I have learned, however, is both disturbing and alarming, and what’s even worse, the majority of citizens would prefer NOT to know about these alarming trends, and just “hope for the best.” I confess to being formerly guilty of this kind of apathy myself, but no longer.
Of course, we exercise our right to vote, and I vote in every election. But when the officials we elected in November 2006, whom we counted on to correct some of these terrible wrongs, have also refused to do what we wanted them to do, what do we do next? And will the next election in 2008 really change anything, or simply bring more of the same, if not even worse? We have too many serious questions and problems, and not nearly enough answers or positive solutions. Sorry for sounding so gloomy today, but at times I find it very hard to be optimistic.
Susan: Don’t ever be dis-spirited. Change doesn’t come with an election or a new president or a slogan. It starts inside the citizenry as a whole. Remember Bush’s strong approval ratings after 9-11 and the media’s free pass to allow him to push his agenda through. Somewhere along the line, people like you and I decided he crossed the line and began to doubt. That doubt found champions like Olbermann, Hegel, Murtha, Feingold, Abrams (father & son), Natale Maines, and Turley and countless others from all walks of life who knew down deep something was desperately wrong. No candidate or speech did it for us–we did it. Now Bush is at 18% approval, is a lame duck, and apparently can’t get the National Anthem through the Congress. We should all be every proud that we live in a country where the public’s opinion matters, and society can change. That is not the norm. The reason I like my job is that, in my own very small way, I get to be on the edge of that social change. I like to think Professor Turley feels the same way. That’s why I so enjoy this blog. I am very happy you decided to be more involved with the law and learn about it. As I tell high schoolers, from the moment you get up until you lay your head on the pillow at night, the law is there to protect you in ways you cannot even imagine. It is really fascinating how we have developed this intricate system that we lawyers call the “seamless web.” Be ecstatic — there never was a better time to be alive!
The liberal law school crowd clearly elevates its extremely leftist ideology over its teaching mission resulting in a disservice to its students and the clients they will one day serve.
Another simple example: Citizen D, an elderly person, seeks to pray a blessing over his meal delivered to the local Civic Community Senior Center where he also leads a short Bible study a few days a week for anyone interested. The City officials concerned about “separation of church and state” forbid all seniors from any prayer or Bible study in the Community Center and threaten to stop delivering their meals in clear violation of federal and state law and of their Constituional rights. Could a liberal law school graduate effectively represent the interests of that citizen? Could anyone trust one of their lawyers given the school’s strict-separationist or anti-religion bias?
Jay: With all due respect – a liberal, as Jesus is purported to be, would be the only choice for me. If one wants to protect religious freedoms, or to avoid zealots forcing religious dogma down one’s throat, liberals whether of a Republican or Democratic pedigree would be the only potential choice for a simpleton as me.
Equally, if that person were a Muslim, I think the same choice would apply. However in this discussion of pure conjecture among strawmen – if that man were to be a Muslim and the State provided him with legal representation that happened be a declared neo-conservative, perhaps Pat Robertson for instance, the founder of Regent, also the same person that publicly recommended that the assassination of Hugo Chavez wouldn’t be such a bad thing, I fear that Muslim would find his respectable derrière seeking an appeal. No?
Jay: I just complimented you and you go and get all goo-goo eyed again. If you’re going to use an example, how about one that actually comports with the law. In your scenario, the citizen is clearly involved in a personal choice to pray and teach the Bible to interested persons albeit in a public building. Unlike my scenario, in which a public right to education is involved, and where the risk of government coercion is clearly present against non-believing high school students. Since the prayer and the class are not officially sanctioned by the town, no establishment clause issue is involved, and the only issue is the first amendment/equal access rights of the citizen. If the town allows other groups to use the facilities, the case would likely fall under the rule in Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 US 226 (1990) in which the secular US Supreme Court (that you neo-cons love to hate), specifically ruled that the denial of a religious club’s right to meet after instructional hours in a public school violated the Equal Access Act when other such groups were permitted to do so. I can tell you that any lawyer familiar with this area of the law would take the case you describe and likely win. In fact, if the scenario is true let me know, I’ll take it. As an aside, Jay Sekulow argued and won the Mergens case and guess what–he has a degree from Regent. Unfortunately, the degree is a PhD in history. His law degree is from Mercer University. I wonder if he could have argued the other side of the case?
Jay,
You’re citing an example that falls (for a change) within my very limited area of expertise.
Can you give me more details: what city, community center, etc. Is the case under litigation? If so, where is it? Was it the Woodside case and are you Jay Sekulow!?!
A distinct honor for all of us here if so. JS is a very good advocate and I have the highest respect for him.
But to answer your question. Of course they could trust such a lawyer in exactly such a situation! If you are JS, you know that!
To those not in this conversation: Jay Sekulow is a prominent not to mention pre-eminent advocate working for the ACLJ and is a familiar face to the ACLU in separation cases. He is a graduate of Mercer and has an advanced degree from Regents. He is very well respected by all sides and a very nice guy.
VC: Undoubtedly, Jesus was a liberal. Anyone who castigated the religious orthodoxy of the time as hypocrites, drove the pay-day lenders from the temple, and who actually lived among, felt compassion for, and advocated on behalf of, the poor and wretched would find it tough sledding to finagle an invitation to a Bush-Cheney rally. I don’t feel sorry for him though, he’s got friends and family in higher places than Kennebunkport.
Deeply,
That’s not Jay Sekulow. I am sure he knows better.
Hi Mespo,
As you were posting your response, I was finishing mine. Talk about synchronicity.
No, I came to the same conclusion reading all his posts just now. For one thing JS has a sense of humor and I didn’t see any of it above!
Deeply,
Scary!
Deeply,
My thoughts exactly. Sekulow knows it’s a game of wits and circumstances and that no one wins or loses all the time.
Amen to that.
Vincent,
I don’t disagree that anyone with a deep-seated agenda, bias, hatred or prejudice (liberal or conservative) can most certainly be an ineffective assistance of counsel in a given case when it blinds proper analysis of justice and the law. Every generation of lawyers faces this problem.
But the problem with Virginia Attorney’s claims, which I’ve continually pointed out, is that simply labling someone and dismissing them out of hand is poor evidence of anything. Virgina Attorney’s opinion of Pat Robertson or Regent University does not make it so. He (or she) would have us believe that anyone associated with that institution must have been brainwashed in some kind of sinister “ideology.” Yet Regent has an extremely diverse student body of strong, independent-minded law students and alumni, and the facts simply do not support Virginia Attorney’s claims.
Regent Law appears to exists to confront the negative stereotypes that plague Virginia Attorney’s profession, not to add to it. And nobody is perfect. But Regent Law’s Christian mission and perspective undoubtedly works to provide a greater sense of moral duty and higher personal and professional standards beyond the bear minimum requirements of the attorney Code of Professional Ethics.
Because that’s what every client wants, right? An attorney that upholds the bear minimum of professional ethics?
Jay, You’ve got knack for appropriating my words but with somewhat skewed meanings and examples. To quote your favorite author, you can’t serve both God and mammon. If you are telling me that Regent produces some moral and diverse people, I agree. The problem is that this was not your initial assertion. You said it was an excellent law school and I just showed you why, from a structural standpoint, it cannot be. If a client’s interests are directly contrary to the tenets of the brand of Christian faith advocated by Pat Robertson, how can any one of Regent’s graduates represent that client? The school has handicapped them with that inane mission statement which I cited in an earlier post. In essence, the conflicting allegiances are forcing them to choose between God and mammon.
@ Virginia Attorney
About teacher sanctioned prayer in public school: “the risk of government coercion is clearly present against non-believing high school students.”
I’m just curious what other risks of government coercion you are concerned about? Teaching Evolutionary Theory as a fact? Teaching “safe” sex? Teaching alternative lifestyles?
What about all the “non-believing” students who don’t want to hear about all that stuff from their teachers?
“In essence, the conflicting allegiances are forcing them to choose between God and mammon.”
Thank you for establishing that most attorneys are only intersted in serving money!
(And to think someone said I have no sense of humor
Mespo and Jay, Ignore this interruption and continue your colloquoy;
for those interested in Regents Law Schools rise to prominence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601799.html
I believe that even the most fair minded of us think there was a greased skid operating in favor of the Law School’s graduates.
Imagine a Democratic administration with say, 150 NLG lawyers working for it!!!
Jay, I have no idea how that applies here since the thrust of the comment was the problem with two masters, but I’ll play along. I am glad to hear that Regent grads work for free! You really do have a sense of humor.
Deeply,
Now you’ve got me deeply worried. Imagine someone in the Virginia AG’s office saying “my resume is God’s instrument.”
For all you know, they have!! Just not in public! But everyone wears two or three hats, lawyers more than most. I put my religion hat away when reporting to the office….
Jay,
You must be kidding. Do you really believe that evolution is not a time tested, verifiable, and scientifically accurate explanation for the origins of life on the planet. It is not a “theory” in the sense that it is merely states a possibility. In science, theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. There is no hierarchy between facts and theories with facts being higher. The facts are data and the theory explains the data through verifiable and repeatable experimentation. At it’s core evolution is both fact and theory. Even the Catholic Church admits that after centuries of butting heads with the evidence. If you’re asking me if people have a right to be stupid, I would have to say yes but why would they want to be? My question is do parents have the right to indoctrinate their children with myth and fairy tales?
Deeply,
What was shocking is that it was a quote from the article!
Evolution is a theory: kind of like gravity!
I know! But at least he wasn’t speaking in his official capacity!
Do you find it interesting that “Jay” has neither confirmed nor denied?
Deeply,
I love this Judith Hayes quote: “If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.”
Deeply,
I do find it amusing. Well, reflected glory is better than none at all
Truely.
We gave Jay glory (and a large benefit of the doubt) now we take it away.. Sic Transit Gloria!
As to teaching Evolution Theory as fact and “alternative lifestyles” etc. Since when do we go to school to learn things that we agree with or are agreeable to us? We don’t have a right, in the public square, to be free from that which offends our religious sensibilities.
Let parents home school their children and teach them any world view they please. But in the public schools, lets teach science.
“My question is do parents have the right to indoctrinate their children with myth and fairy tales?”
Now who’s being led by their ideology? You should be well aware of the parental rights under the Constitution. Whether we like it or not, parents are responsible for their children in every aspect until proven unfit. Unless you are taking it upon yourself to expand the definition of unfit parenting to include Creationist parents, I guess we’ll just have let parents be parents.
Evidently, government “coercion” of school children is okay when it suits your ideology?
“Since when do we go to school to learn things that we agree with or are agreeable to us? We don’t have a right, in the public square, to be free from that which offends our religious sensibilities.”
Except teacher-sanctioned prayer?
“Oh, the tangled web we weave…”
“When first we practice to deceive”
Jay, I simply posed the question. The better question you raised is whether it is child abuse to utterly fail to prepare your kids for life in the secular world? I can see both sides here, but without doubt teaching science is a legitimate government interest, and teaching individual and of course, mutually exclusive religion, belongs to the churches. They bear the blame of dogmatism and purposeful ignorance, not the believer who is simply trying to do what he thinks (and is taught under penalty of hell fire and damnation)is right.
Hear! Hear!
To clarify, the “Hear! Hear!” was to the pithy little saying.
Jay. I wouldn’t be so quick to applaud. The corollary is that not all religions can be right. In fact, they all lay claim to being the one true religion. And if so, all the wrong ones are condemning their followers to eternal damnation–if you believe in that sort of thing. Not exactly cause for celebration.
Add “designated moments of silence” to that also Jay. Schools are not churches or places of religious indoctrination or religious practice.
Nor should they be forced to be, sorry ACLJ!
Well, I can see that there are at least three people on this continent not watching the Oscars!
Congratulations to the three of us!
Deeply,
As Geo. Bernard Shaw so elegantly said: “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.” That’s why government sanctioned religion never works. Substitute “Quo’ran” or “Bhagavadgītā” for “Bible” and you see just how prescient Shaw’s words are.”
Deeply, You caught me. I am just off to watch my favorite show: Law & Order: CI. We shall resume this later. Good night Jay!
“Schools are not churches or places of religious indoctrination or religious practice.”
Nope. Just places of indoctrination of secular humanism and/or atheism depending on your point of view
Goodnight all.
The party’s over….
Good night as well Mespo and Jay.
One last thing: it isn’t JS.
JS would never allow my little test probe about moments of silence go unchallenged without reminding all of us of Brown, etc.
As Mespo says, can’t win ‘em all!
“The reason I like my job is that, in my own very small way, I get to be on the edge of that social change. I like to think Professor Turley feels the same way. That’s why I so enjoy this blog. I am very happy you decided to be more involved with the law and learn about it. As I tell high schoolers, from the moment you get up until you lay your head on the pillow at night, the law is there to protect you in ways you cannot even imagine. It is really fascinating how we have developed this intricate system that we lawyers call the “seamless web.” Be ecstatic — there never was a better time to be alive! ”
Mespo727272
Mespo, thanks so much for this reply. I’m copying part of it only because the “party” started again, and figured I should use a quote for my latest reply, so no one (including me lol) would get confused. I so enjoy this blog too, and I thank JT so much for creating it. It was his and KO’s discussions on COUNTDOWN that led me here, and being part of any serious discussions about positive changes is a pleasure and a privilege for me.
“If a client’s interests are directly contrary to the tenets of the brand of Christian faith advocated by Pat Robertson, how can any one of Regent’s graduates represent that client?”
Mespo727272
*************************
The way I see it, I doubt any of Regent’s graduates would represent that client in any way that could be considered effective. Especially not if the lawyer has a strong Evangelical Christian bias and the client is either a non-Christian or “worse” (according to Robertson), an atheist or agnostic. It would end up as a constant clashing of verbal “swords,” and nothing positive could come out of such a representation.
Jay
“Schools are not churches or places of religious indoctrination or religious practice.”
Nope. Just places of indoctrination of secular humanism and/or atheism depending on your point of view.
**************
And secular humanism and/or atheism are “bad” things….why, exactly? Because some schools insist on adherence to the first words of the First Amendment? You know, the part that goes, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
And here I was thinking the mixing of religion with government was precisely what that amendment was written to PROHIBIT. How silly of me.
Darn, looks like I arrived when everyone has already gone for the night. Hate it when that happens. Okay, good night all. I’ll turn off the “light.”
DeeplyWorried wrote:
Well, I can see that there are at least three people on this continent not watching the Oscars!
Congratulations to the three of us!
**********
Make that four, please. Okay, NOW I’m really going. I KNEW I shouldn’t have scrolled up.
Wait Susan!
The night-owl DW is still up, though even he is flagging at this hour.
Mespo’s message to you of hope was great and I agree wholeheartedly.
Don’t let the state of the union (or that of the world) get you down!
Change can come very fast. And tyrannies can crumble very fast.
Your comments to Jay are on the money. The evangelicals like to think that secular humanism is itself a religion, but of course they are wrong. They conflate, because it is advantageous for them to do so, belief systems and religions. Its like conflating darkness and light. Darkness is the mere absence of light…it is not a different KIND of light. Secular humanism can be the absence of belief in a religion, not a different KIND of religion. And even if it were a religion, it definitely isn’t one within the usage of the term when the Framers were writing the First Amendment.
I would argue further that one can be a perfectly good religionist and still be a secular humanist at the same time!
Good morning, DW, and everyone! DW, sorry I couldn’t stay awake longer. I have a high-schooler DS, and 5:30am comes early.
Okay, where were we in last night’s discussion? Right, Secular Humanism v. Evangelicals. First of all, I DO consider myself a secular humanist, so Jay would probably say I have a “dog in the fight.” Not that it matters, since no religion is required to be an American citizen or patriot. I remember reading a rather snarky remark by George Bush Sr. a few years ago regarding atheists; something along the lines of “…nor do I consider them patriots. This is one nation under God.” (REALLY. Since WHEN!)
I completely agree with your definition of a Secular Humanist, and with what you said about it being possible to be a religionist and a humanist at the same time. Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State does both very well. I believe he is also a minister! He wrote a book very recently, which I promply grabbed from the library and read. Excellent book (I’d expect no less from Rev. Lynn), but darn it, I can’t recall the title right now. Grrrrrr.
I confess to having used the term religionist in a negative light up to now. From now on, I’ll qualify it by saying “militant religionst,” who is, in my view, someone who thinks religion should control ALL aspects of life, preferably THEIR religion, whether others want it or not. Funny how the Evangelicals fit that description perfectly, wouldn’t you say?
Getting back to the actual case, I agree with JT that Key’s case is a long shot at best. I believe, although I could easily be mistaken, that as a private university, Regent has the legal right to set policies that students might not like or agree with. My guess, the university will probably make the argument that Key should have better educated himself on all of the school’s policies BEFORE enrolling at the university. And Regent will probably win too.
As an individual who values free speech, including the right to criticize ‘leaders’ like Pat Robertson publicly, the LAST place I would have enrolled in is a college that places Evangelical Christian ideology at the top of the list.
Susan: Read your remarks and I think you’re right on the money. I do add that for a lawyer to decline a case simply because he doesn’t like the client’s cause is unethical. If not, very few accused murders or child abusers would ever have counsel. Our job is to advocate and not to judge. Some lawyers lose sight of that as do lots of judges. I think it honorable to let every citizen have his say whether the lawyer detests it or not. Even a terrorist has the right to bring his case, and fortunately some lawyer is there to articulate it. It’s what separates us from the terrorists who are from a culture where grievances are resolved by violence because the opposition can never have a voice. As with Churchill’s famous quote, we are merely the roar of the lion and not the beast itself.
Very true, Mespo, we are supposed to better than the accused criminals, no matter what the charges may be. Unfortunately, I have read of too many real-life cases where the constitutional presumption of innocence was completely trashed, and innocent people accused of heinous crimes were tried in highly biased courts, and — not surprisingly — convicted.
As one tragic and appalling example, the notorious Bakersfield CA “child molestation ring” cases of the 1980′s, which is outlined in detail in Edward Humes’ book, perfectly named MEAN JUSTICE. The atmosphere in the courts when these defendants were tried, according to Mr. Humes, bore a stark resemblance to the equally infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692-93; only the type of offense had changed.
Just to compare the two time periods almost 300 years apart at the time, I read another book, called THE DEVIL IN MASSACHUSETTS, by Marion L. Starkey, which was “a modern enquiry into the Salem Witch Trials.” I couldn’t believe it; the methods used to target both “witches” in the 1690s and “child molesters” in the 1980s was almost EXACTLY THE SAME. Kids were being used by law enforcement in both sets of unjust prosecutions to go around the area and point the finger at the so-called “perpetrators.” In the witch trials accusations, the prosecutions suddenly ceased because the girls pointed the finger at the wife of a very prominent minister, and maybe one other prominent individual. Almost the same thing happened in Bakersfield CA, the kids (both boys and girls) began pointing accusing fingers at some prominent people in local law enforcement. But the terrible damage had already been done; wrongful executions in Salem MA, and wrongful convictions in Bakersfield CA. At least in Bakersfield, however, the defendants were eventually exonerated and released, although some served more than 10 or 15 years in prison for crimes they not only NEVER committed, but which actually NEVER happened.
Sorry for the ramble into the past, but I also agree with the person (I forget who at the moment) who said (roughly), “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” These parts of the past, and many others like it, are what we as a people do NOT want to see repeated, and what should be avoided, to the best of our ability. So I will take the walk back into the past, when I feel it is necessary. There are those who believe we shouldn’t even HAVE a Constitution or a Bill of Rights in this country, and would love to see it all but eliminated. I suppose they have a right to feel this way. I just wish they would physically MOVE to a country like Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, or China, or Cuba instead of trying to turn the United States into their version of the same. I don’t want that horrible kind of government, which only offers the terror of tyranny, with justice for NONE. I don’t think anyone who values freedom of conscience and free speech wants that either.
Susan wrote:
“I don’t think anyone who values freedom of conscience and free speech wants that either.”
**********************************
Blast, I hit “submit” too soon. I should have added “to name just two of our most cherished rights” after the word “speech.” My apologies for the oversight.
Susan: Your quote is from George Santayana who knew a think or two about history. You are right that sometimes justice gets perverted by sentiment. Normally that doesn’t happen but Judges who have sat too long or prosecutors who are up for reelection get nervous about their positions and go after cases that should be dropped. I blame the Judges more however since after a time most feel they are part of the government instead of merely being the referee. Only the most egregious violators go before any review panel and even then sanctions are few and far between.
Thanks, Mespo, I agree with all of the above. It all just gets very frustrating at times, particularly when I read of cases that J.T. has recently reported, where no apparent crime was even committed, except in a police officer’s or prosecutor’s own mind.
One of them is the “Aggressive Handshake” case and J.T.’s column titled “The Criminalization of America.” What these law enforcement officials were “thinking” in making some of these actions crimes is completely beyond me. Maybe they’re suffering from “prosecutorial dysfunction.” I know that’s only my opinion, and probably a cheap shot, but that’s as good a guess as any. I get a bit cranky when I see what appears to be very innocent citizens unfairly prosecuted.
Susan: I think the problem may stem from the vocal criticism judges and prosecutors suffer from right-wing ideologues. Since criminal defendants have no natural constituency like crime victims do, the easiest thing to do is go with the popular position and infringe the rights of those who have no voice. That’s where criminal lawyers come in to keep the process honest and drag it kicking and screaming sometimes back to neutral. It amazes me that there is so much animus in conservative circles to this type of role for lawyers. It also happens when trial lawyers go after rogue corporations, who intentionally or negligently injure and kill for profit. Somehow this crowd believes it could never happen to them–and, historically, it almost invariably does happen.
Mespo, right again. But honestly, if some prosecutors and judges can’t handle what I think is often the whining of right-wing ideologues due to their own thin skins, maybe they should get out of criminal law and look for other work. As a citizen who doesn’t have the big bucks to hire a top criminal defense attorney, I shudder to think how easy it has now become for anyone to make an unjust and very often unfounded accusation of a “criminal” offense against someone like me, and I could end up in jail because of it.
A while ago, I wrote an essay of sorts on another forum, which I called “The Titanic Effect and our Criminal Justice System,” because to anyone who has been accused of ANY kind of criminal offense, that’s exactly what it feels like; being on a ship that is rapidly sinking…with them on it. It hasn’t happened to me personally, and thank goodness for that, but with the prosecution mania J.T. has talked about, it could, and for the most idiotic “offense.” Or to any of us.
If judges and prosecutors are afraid to tell some of these imbeciles who truly believe “there ought to be a law” against a completely harmless activity or action (like swearing or “aggressive handshaking” for example) to get a grip, it is my opinion they need to get out of criminal law…NOW.