Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Great Advertising: A Supreme Court Case

UC Hastings School of Law is getting some "free" press from the Supreme Court, in a case where they are defending their anti-bias policy.  The Christian Legal Society is suing the law school for failing to recognize and fund their group, where they would not allow gays and lesbians membership in the Society.  Such a funny policy for the Christian Group to have considering the schools location in San Francisco, the homosexual mecca.  I can just imagine all of the bleeding heart liberal lemmings flocking to UC Hastings for their promotion of diversity.

All and all, it's a lame case. I can't tell if there is an actual gay or lesbian person that was denied entry into the group or if it clear that they wouldn't extend membership to the Gay Reasonable Person--should he exist.  And the analogies are atrocious:  "If Hastings is correct, a student who does not even believe in the Bible is entitled to demand to lead a Christian Bible study," the group's lawyer, Stanford law Professor Michael McConnell, told the justices in Washington. A campus NAACP chapter, he said, "would have to allow a racist skinhead to sit in on its planning meetings." I don't see the comparison.  Whereas being a racist skinhead and an active member of the NAACP are mutually exclusive--as in one cannot be both a skinhead and a believer in the mission of the NAACP--the same cannot be said of a gay person who identifies himself as Christian.  What does it really take to be a Christian?  A belief in Jesus, baptism?  Once you've overcome those hurdles, you are a Christian.  A think a more similar analogy would be one where a person who looks white, but identifies as black for whatever reason (either culturally, or based on a black grandparent or great grandparent) would be denied membership to NAACP.  I doubt that would happen. Would a transvestite be denied membership with NOW? No, s/he would be welcomed with open arms.

In short, this Christian Legal Society needs to focus on its bible studies and stop intruding in people's lives.  I bet they don't say anything to members who are promiscuous or use drugs.  Last I checked, "thou shall not commit adultery" and your body is a temple.

So, based on the ludicrous nature of the lawsuit--I can't help but think that this is some ploy to get press. In any event, fight the good fight UC Hastings!  The gay lemmings will respond with increased applications, and then you can raise tuition again.  And Christian Group, continue to pray... that you'll get a job when you graduate.


  1. You know, I first saw this story and the headline in the Washington Post that read "Law School Sued", and I thought that one of these dumps finally was being taken to court for its fraudulent practice. Sadly, it turned out to be much to do about nothing.

  2. This case is not just about the CLS not admitting gays. The CLS also bans non-christians from joining. The problem here is that UC Hastings is a public university which has to abide by the states anti discrimination laws which includes sexual orientation. When the CLS national headquarters in Virginia mandated that gays or non-christians could not join the CLS, Hastings correctly refused to recognize them and thus stopped funding them through university funds. The CLS then sued in federal court. Because Hastings has to abide by non-discrimination laws, it cannot support a group which meets on its campus which does discriminate. Hastings does not have an issue with a CLS chapter in its school, but it does have an issue with funding them with taxpayer dollars. I read yesterdays oral argument today on the internet, and it appears that the usual suspects (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito) are siding with the CLS. The others appear to be siding with Hastings. An opinion is not expected until June, but I suspect it will go in favor of Hastings.

  3. If the law is a set of "principles" and rules, then why do the Supremes consistently vote in blocks, i.e. 5-4 decisions based on ideological lines? Oh, right. Because they are politicians.

    This is not news to anyone with an IQ above 70 or those who understand that at its base, politics is nothing more than imposing one's views onto others - and seeking to solidy this via the law. It's a disgrace that law schools still teach Con Law (and other "substantive" courses) like they are teaching a middle school civics class.

  4. I don't necessarily believe that SC justices are politicians, but I do agree that each of them have certain ideological philosophies, but then who doesn't? Which is why it is important to have a good balance on the SC. The way the SC is now you have the liberal end with Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and the more conservative end with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Kennedy is poised to become the next Sandra Day O'Connor by being the swing voter and Sotomayor has not been on the Court long enough to gauge which side of the ideological fence she sits on. One SC Justice cannot impose their viewpoints into law as it takes a majority of 5 to do that. Hopefully, the Justice who replaces Stevens will also have a liberal viewpoint so that the Court retains some balance.

    The professor I had for Con Law went into great depths about the cases and the legal theories, so I never felt that it was a junior high civics class. Plus, Con law 1 and 2 were my favorite classes of all of the classes I had to take.

  5. As a Hastings grad I actually think this is one of the very few things that Hastings actually got right.

    Then again let us not forget that they increased the new 1L class size by 100 new students this year! Fantastic! 100 more Hastings grads is just exactly what this market needs. Not to mention these fools are now paying private school prices for a public school. One of the main reasons I chose Hastings was the cost. Back when I enrolled it was $13,500/year. Thanks to budget cuts and poor leadership fees have now skyrocketed to an astonishing $40K/year in 2009-2010. Wow. Good luck, kids.



Blog Template by YummyLolly.com - Header Image by Arpi