Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has long proven a lightning rod on the Court, particularly his consistent and controversial habit of making highly charged public comments. I have previously criticized him and other justices for the increasing public speeches, often to highly partisan groups, that undermine the legitimacy of the Court. This week Scalia raised eyebrows in his advice to law students not to take “Law and Women” or “Law and Poverty” courses which he says amount to little more than professors teaching their “hobbies.”
Scalia struck out at “frill courses.” He started out well by correctly noting that “[t]he only time you’re going to have an opportunity to study a whole area of the law systematically is in law school.” As a law professor who litigates, I also emphasize such courses and try to incorporate real-practice elements to my courses. However, I also teach legal history and theory in all of my courses, including my first year classes that range from feminist theory to economic theory to Hegelian theory. I believe that such theoretical knowledge deepens a lawyer’s understanding of the law, including the practice of law.
Scalia however saw things a bit differently and offered a strikingly anti-intellectual view of such courses: “You should not waste that opportunity. Take the bread-and-butter courses. Do not take, ‘law and women,’ do not take ‘law and poverty,’ do not take ‘law and anything.’ . . . Professors like certain subjects that they’re writing a book on, so they teach a course in that subject . . . Because there are so many professors teaching their hobbies, the rudimentary courses are not taught with the frequency necessary for everybody to take them.”
That is a disturbing account to give students and serves only to “dumb-down” legal studies. My students will be better lawyers but not only learning about the practice but the philosophy of law. It is both possible and, in my view, essential to get both in your training. I am distinctly proud of my student’s in their ability to move seamlessly from the theoretical to the doctrinal in class.
It is also highly ironic to read Scalia’s account which will be used by some who want to teach law as a type of trade school. National law schools have long ago rejected that model. Those are the very schools that Scalia identified as the only institutions from which he would take clerks. I previously criticize Scalia for his comments that students at most schools should not hope to become Supreme Court clerks because those positions are reserved to the top schools.
I am disappointed in the recent controversial comments by Scalia because he reflects a deep understanding of legal theory and history in his writings. His opinions are greatly benefited by that deeper knowledge. Student gain such theoretical foundation by taking these seminars, which often inspire or challenge the view of law students. Lawyers are not accountants who merely tally columns of precedent. They are part of an organic and ever-changing field. The current laws are changed by the powerful legal theories and policies that constantly move beneath the legal superstructure.
No school teaches primarily through seminars with such specialized subjects. Rather these are electives that allow students to drill down on areas of particular interest, often exploring the impact or the rationale for legal doctrine. It is terribly disappointing to see a justice criticizing such courses and downplaying their value in legal education.
Source: ABA Journal
mespo:
what is poverty law about? what is womens law about?
One thing I dont understand is why do poor people and women need special law, doesnt the law take care of the poor, minorities and women? Isnt the law meant to protect the individual?
Great clip. Those dumb guys laughed all the way to the bank.
This guy can’t help himself. He sort of a dumber version of Costello to Alito’s Abbott.
“You know what that wall reminds me of? … ”
“The problem with praising a man like Scalia for being intelligent or knowledgeable is that you wrongly give his views legitimacy that they do no deserve.”
Justice Holmes points out that heaping praise on such as Scalia provides him legitimacy. However, how is it that someone of intelligence can find himself so astray in a field in which he has proven knowledge? My take is that we often conflate knowledge and intelligence with insight and depth.
Stupidity can be said to be the lack of intelligence. Ignorance is a different matter. One can be incredibly intelligent, yet abysmally ignorant. Their is no dichotomy there because ignorance is the inability to accept ideas that interfere with ones own pre-judgments. Scalia may well be an intelligent man, yet he is also a profoundly ignorant one.
FB, You’re correct. I think we need to return to the gentlemen’s agreement and have no Catholics or Jews on the Court. We need to return to the all WASP court. This is what happens when Italians move into the neighborhood!
Oh please, he’s just a crook. Maybe not garden variety, but nonetheless. If I wanted to decide what college or law school courses to take I’d want advice from somebody I respected. Anybody who takes HIS advice deserves it.
A Supreme Court nominee should have some variety in his/her legal career to qualify for the Court. If I was nominating I would require: 1) representation of criminals in serious jury trials, habeas and appeal; 2) constitutional jurisprudence including civil rights cases (pro or con) under section 1983 and this means trials and appeals not law review articles from Harvard or Yale; 3) civil jury trials in tort cases; 4) civil jury trials in complex litigation involving class actions. Not one of the present sitting justices have all or any of these qualifications. Geography. Right now we have six judges who speak turdy turd and a turd– meaning they are from New York or New Jersey. We need diversity from places like the big fly over and from down south.
Now, getting to law school curriculum. They do not address constitutional law studies coherently. There are two sides of the aisle taught: criminal law with some constitutional aspects and a broad shallow con law I course. There are some other electives. The history behind our constitutional framework needs to be taught– i.e. the Bill of Rights of 1688 do have some relevance here folks. The “Second Revolution” or Reconstruction period in which the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed needs to be discussed and the constitutional history from 1865 to Citizens United needs to be taught. All lawyers who practice law in any fashion are controlled by some aspect of constituional law in their sphere. That includes the banker who never sees a client other than bank trustees. It is possible that any lawyer in the U.S. with a law license could be appointed by a court to represent an indigent criminal defendant. How up to speed are 90% of American lawyers? Not.
Law and poverty should be a seminar. So should Bush v. Gore.
Law schools ought to have a seminar on “Originalism”. This should be an unvarnished look at how the Original Framers of the Original Constitution and the Ten Bill of Rights thought and what they intended. We should look to see if they would approve of Italian Americans like Scalia being appointed to the Court or women or other minorities. I bet they have rolled over in their graves so much that there is room for more in the graves. There ought to be a seminar on Citizens United. And one on removing federal judges from office.
Justice Scalia is a insult to the profession. This so-called justice is in the pockets of any corporation that comes calling. Especially if they come calling with gifts! Scalia won’t have to worry about Hell because his decisions are creating one here on earth.
” Lawyers are not accountants who merely tally columns of precedent.”
Professor Turley should have used the term “bookkeeper”. In the U.S. a true accountant must be certified by passing a multi-part exam (CPA exam) that includes parts such as theory, practice, and law. The names of parts have changed since my bookkeeping days but you get the picture. One of the critical activities that accountants must do is classify assets and liabilities. I can hear the yawns now but consider that there were theoretical and practical issues to consider when financial derivatives came on the scene. Are these assets, liabilities, something else? How should they be valued? Derivatives? Who cares about derivatives anyway? Um, everyone as of 2008.
John Q,
How much did he get paid?
Judging from Fat Tony’s girth versus his height, plus his age, it it probably a safe bet that his arteries are pretty well clogged. Hope springs eternal.
Justice Scalia was a very gracious, substantive participant last April in an excellent Law & Religion seminar taught by two of my St. John’s Law School colleagues–here’s a report and some photos: http://www.stjohns.edu/pr_law_120405.news_item@digest.stjohns.edu%2facademics%2fgraduate%2flaw%2fpr_law_120405.xml?context_date=10/29/2012.
“He reflects a deep understanding of legal theory and history in his writings.” Such an interesting observation but it shouldn’t set you up for being surprised that he doesn’t want any one else to understand how jurists have often perverted the law in the US to oppress the very people, real humans, that many of the laws were actual enacted and crafted to serve and protect. The problem with praising a man like Scalia for being intelligent or knowledgeable is that you wrongly give his views legitimacy that they do no deserve. Justice Scalia is a prejudiced partisan whose biased and pro corporate views have resulted in decisions by the Supreme Court that have severely damaged if not destroyed any serious belief that the law works for the people.
“Satan, still laughing, turned to his favorite demon Beelzebub and said, ‘A lawyer? We already got one and he’s better than this one.’ And thus lil’ Tony ended up in Purgatory.”
Justice Scalia… do US all a favor, already, and cash in your chips. Geebus has a special spot reserved for you in Hell…………
Justice Scalia has long been an embarrassment on the court. He is politicizing the court and I for one have lost faith in this branch of government.
Dumb dowing has started….. Is he just furthering the trickle down……At his age he must be careful….
“And most certainly don’t take ‘Logic and Legal Reasoning’. I found that was a not only useless but counterproductive course. Almost as useless as Constitutional Law.” – A. Scalia
Since the justices don’t write their own opinions (I have a good friend who clerked the USSC & this tidbit that he was writing opinions was a major shock) I don’t doubt your framing that Fat Tony’s opinions are great legal writing showing a different person than his public spew. But it still does not indicate the man is qualified for the job he has
One problem for Justice Scalia is that, from the looks of his vita, he didn’t practice a whole lot of “bread and butter” law himself.