After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said—"hostile for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling."
Washington Free Beacon, March 14, 2023
Whaaaat?
I cannot replicate the sound one of my grandson's makes when he says that. It is a combination of disbelief, disdain and WTF. You might be saying the same thing, so some background is in order.
Several days ago, a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge (a judge appointed under Article III of the US Constitution) was invited to speak at Stanford University's law school by their chapter of the student Federalist Society. For those who are unfamiliar, the Federalist society is:
"[A]n American conservative and libertarian legal organization that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution." Wiki
One might get the idea from that brief description the Federalist Society is right of center, if the "left-right" labels really have any worth anymore. The judge they invited is relatively young, and (gasp) a Trump appointee. He has expressed (also gasp) textual foundations for his opinions.
Lest one think that, like everything else in public life, the gulf between textualist/originalist doctrine and "living constitution" doctrine is both substantial and insurmountable - maybe that's how it is becoming. Textualism is now seen as a form of oppression, a means by which institutional bias is preserved. One is not merely of a mind to base their legal decision on what is in front of them, but they are deeply rooted in a time when the law was used to exclude individuals with legitimate grievances. Etc.
We're not going to litigate this here. Suffice to say that the differences are important enough to consume the time and attention of great men and women of the bench, bar and...
I almost wrote academia. Apparently, when the judge invited by the Federalist Society students rose to speak, he was shouted down by "student activists" who, not to put too fine a point on it, disagree with the judge on matters of law, and stuff. A faculty member intervened and made matters worse by delivering one of the great "However, comma" moments where she tried to have it both ways and couldn't quite find the words. Stanford maintains an inclusive environment, she said to a Federal Appeals court judge being silenced by the classic "Heckler's Veto." Fortunately, no one was injured but the speaker did not have a chance to deliver his prepared words or take questions.
The dean of Stanford Law issued a written apology to the judge, implied that the faculty member's efforts had been weak and misplaced, and that should have been that. But, wait. The next Con Law class the Dean taught involved a "Wall of Silence" protest by members of her class, who dressed in black, wore masks and stared defiantly at her the entire time.
Who is the dean of Stanford Law? Jenny Martinez, a faculty member for twenty years. Her Stanford bio reads: "Martinez is a leading expert on the role of courts and tribunals in advancing human rights."
One of the students in her class, one Schumacher, who did not participate in the protest and - shockingly - was not made to feel all that included among his student peers - noted above that the protesters are intent on creating a hostile environment. I think they've gotten a good start. I invite them to explore this kind of childish behavior in a Federal Court, where federal court judges take a dim view of the "Heckler's Veto" in their courtroom. There, they have a ready solution.
Court marshals arrest the miscreant for contempt, and the subject goes to jail until the judge is good and goddamned ready to let them out. My guess is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure professor at Stanford has not let them in on that.
UPDATE: And so it begins. Two federal circuit court judges voicing what is a growing concern among members of the bench - that enough students in top tier law schools have demonstrated an unfitness, at least in their present immature state, for the practice of law in any capacity, to render them unworthy of prestigious and highly prized clerkships upon graduation. If this seems like an especially blunt instrument... Law schools who refuse to discipline or expel students who cannot treat an adversary with respect are doing both the practice of law, and the students, a disservice.
No comments:
Post a Comment