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
Bron –
I don’t want to be perceived as hijacking the blog here, and the only reason I mentioned it at all, was in response to Lee’s unfortunate experience. Because it happens a thousand times a day.
So here’s the short of it. As a career medic, my partners & I have been called out on many thousands of EMS calls, Early on, I was struck almost speechless by how often Medics are required, at clinics & urgent care centers, as a result of errant medical treatment.
So 35 years ago, I started taking notes. 15 years ago, I joined Public Citizen and their rather impressive cadre in investigators. When I started seeing data like this, I knew I was on the right track for a second career:
In a mind boggling article published by The Journal of the American Medical Association – Vol. 284. No. 4 – July 28, 2000, the research finally admits they kill 250,000 Americans per year. They estimate the figure to be low, and report these are only the death figures, not the adverse side effects associated with disability and/or long-term injury.
12,000 – unnecessary surgery
7,000 – medication errors in hospital
20,000 – other errors in hospitals
80,000 – nosocomial infections in hospitals
106,000 – adverse effects of medications
So I’ve come to believe we can save more people by enlightenment, that with the niftiest ambulance it town.
Here’s what we do:
http://www.citizen.org/hrg
And thanks for asking.
Patric’s story inspired me to present one of my own in support of what he is saying. Almost a year before my heart transplant I had a device in me called
and ICD, which is similar to a pacemaker but is for bringing a heart into rhythm if the person goes into distress. It acts like the paddles you see in TV shows that shock the heart. There is a type of doctor call an Electro Cardiologist, whose specialty is the electronic functioning of the heart. Within an ICD or Pacemaker is a little computer that does the job. This can be monitored by a machine. Patients with them go to have them checked (interrogated) about every three months.
I went to my Electro Cardiologists office for an interrogation. As I was being called into the office I became quite dizzy. The Technician running the machine saw that I was in what is know as Ventrical Tachycardia (VTAC) which is life threatening. The Doctor was called in and saw that my heart rate was 178 bpm, but my ICD was set for 180bpm so it wasn’t going into effect to shock my heart back into rhythm. Rather than using the machine to shock my heart into rhythm, taking me out of this life threatening distress, he chose to call the paramedics. They came rather quickly gave me oxygen and checked my signs. The Doctor seemed to want them to get me out of the office ASAP in a way that suggested to me that he was less worried about me and more about his potential liability. Once in the ambulance the paramedics administered a drug called Amiodorone which immediately put me back into rhythm.
As has been the case in the many times I’ve needed them, in may parts of the country, the paramedics were wonderful, comforting people, whose presence kept me from panic. VTAC is a extremely life threatening condition and my Doctor had the means at hand to shock me back into rhythm, but chose to let me stay in it ad by doing so my life was in danger for at least a half hour more than was necessary.
I thank you Patric for your work and the work of others like you. I know from far too may experiences the importance of what you do for people like me.
Patrick:
That is an interesting story. how do you know about it?
How many people die from medical malpractice, isnt it around 100,000/year?
Brian,
It’s called sarcastic parody.
RE:
Gene H.
1, October 29, 2012 at 7:29 am
“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
* * * * * *
For those of us who may be curious, can you inform us of the source (and date?) of that Scalia quotation?
For all I know, I may not be the only one who reads the Turley Blog with a remnant of neonatal curiosity lingering on.
leejcaroll said:
” I used a doctor after whom the surgery I had is named. He paralyzed my face, committed provable negligence, malpractice, and was lack pf informed consent. You can research all you like, you can ask many people. At the end of the day it does not matter. If they are lying SOB’s they will still hurt you.”
Ugly truth, Lee. And in no societal arena is this more valid than medicine. I am sorry for your funky experience, and do hope you’ve achieved some level of redress.
Bron said:
“I would say it is childishly simple, if your are of sound mind, to call around and do a search on the internet. If you are too stupid or lazy to do so, you deserve the fuching you are most probably going to get.”
Well, no, actually, it is entirely possible to get burned to the bone by errant health care, as one example in many – and being either stupid or lazy often has nothing to do with it.
Consider the ugly case of physician Visu Vilvarajah, but one of thousands. This fellow murdered his wife & mother-in-law in the mid-1980’s; was found guilty; sentenced to 20 years; released in 5; got his medical license back and went right on playing with peoples’ bodies for money, with little more than a speed bump in his career.
He made the decision to resurrect that career by pushing more “legal” drugs out the door than a Columbian cartel. So now he’s back behind bars.
But between his decade of homicides and his recent drug-dealing conviction? Well, you would have found absolutely nothing available about his penchant for murder in either the Arkansas state medical board – which originally licensed him – or that of Tennessee, which saw fit to bless its populace with this health care monster.
You see, very, very few state medical boards favor patient safety over physicians’ ability to earn a living.
And when it comes to train-wreck doctors, its the state boards who hold most of the cards.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/05/doctor-convicted-1980s-germantown-murders-arrested/
Bron, I used a doctor after whom the surgery I had is named. He paralyzed my face, committed provable negligence, malpractice, and was lack pf informed consent. You can research all you like, you can aks many people. At the end of the day it does not matter. If they are lying SOB’s they will still hurt you. If they are not they acn still not be expert in your particular need but have presented that as part of their resume.
The lawyer I just won against (somewhat) in small claims court teaches real estate law at Temple U Fox school of business. I thought that meant he knew real estate law but he was unaware of a major statute of limitations problem with the complaint(s) he drafted.
I am glad you have been luck and your dd worked out. That is not alwats the case and the more I read of ppl’s experiences the less times I find dd was sufficient but found out too late
I would like to have my Congressman introduce a bill to repeal ScaliaCare. All federal judges get free medical care for self and family for life. This is not like an employee that has to chip in insurance dues. This is simply all free. Socialism with a Scalia face. I also will ask him to introduce a bill to cut off the Supreme Court Justices salaries for July, August and September when they dont work.
Then maybe you should ask them about professional services contracts and detrimental reliance, because you clearly don’t know what you are talking about, Bron.
Gene H:
I dont need to, I know a couple of really good lawyers. I did my due diligence.
Again, if you want to take a Law of Contracts class to find out exactly how wrong you can be, be my guest.
Gene H:
good luck with that. That is why there are limit of liability clauses and arbitration clauses as you well know.
Then you should have a clue as to why even if you check out a professional and you rely upon their advice and that advice turns out to be both wrong and harmful to you that they should bear the brunt of the consequences for that bad advice.
Gene H:
the concept of promissory estoppel seems pretty straightforward. So does detrimental reliance.
Gene H:
I am not saying you are wrong about the law, I am just saying you should check out who you hire and it has nothing to do with supermen.
Bron,
Seriously man. Give it up. You really don’t have a clue as to what I’m talking about. You’re not even in the same ballpark and quite frankly it’s not worth the effort to get you to the right one on this issue. Your Randian superman ideals are simply in conflict with the reality of professional services contracts and I don’t feel like explaining promissory estoppel to you (which is relevant to explaining detrimental reliance). Go take a course on Law of Contracts to see how wrong you are if you are interested.
Gene H:
People can and should do background research on anyone they hire who can cause them financial harm.
While it doesnt prevent the harm it can lesson the probability.
Do you hire the drunk lawyer down on his luck?
If you hire that guy, you deserve what you get.
Bron,
That response simply illustrates that you really don’t know you are talking about. The point was that even with due diligence malpractice can and does happen. Whether the professional is insured for it or not is beside the point of the cause of action. And what Frankly said.
Gene H:
Stuff happens, that is why you carry liability insurance. Which is one of the things a potential client ought to ask about.
Frankly:
you can, as a layman, do your due diligence to try and chose a good professional who will minimize the possibility of F. U. B. A. R..
But all bridge builders are not equal and it is up to you to figure out which one is the best you can afford. You do that by research.
That is the problem with many people, they take someone’s word for how good they are and dont check into it for themselves.
I would say it is childishly simple, if your are of sound mind, to call around and do a search on the internet. If you are too stupid or lazy to do so, you deserve the fuching you are most probably going to get.
Gene – you might point out also that it is impossible to perform useful due diligence on any sufficiently complex subject unless you have specific knowledge in that area. If someone were going to build a bridge they are going to hire someone with extensive experience and training in engineering but they are not going to be able to verify that the person didn’t screw up somewhere. Thats why you hire a pro.
You might also bang your head against your desk for 20 minutes – it would be as useful as tying to convince Bron that the world does not fit is childishly simplistic world view.
SwM,
Or, from the other side, familiarize and join the prosecution.