Law and Theology – Who Says It’s Not Practical ???

I was glad to see that Bruce linked to the fascinating debate on the nature of legal education prompted by Brent Newton’s article claiming that law professors “preach” what they don’t “practice.”  I’ll comment later, although my general view, as someone who has much more practice experience than the typical full time legal academic, I think its an issue that is often drawn too starkly and that requires a nuanced response.

But today I want to talk about Law & Theology (10 am on Friday mornings in 204 for anyone who wants to add a seminar) and Glen Beck. Newton argues that law schools overemphasize “theoretical, increasingly interdisciplinary scholarship” and courses. But Glen Beck has put law (0r at least politics) and theology smack into the middle of the public debate. In this fallen world, we may have to take that where we can find it.

Continue ReadingLaw and Theology – Who Says It’s Not Practical ???

Best of the Blogs

It’s the lazy days of August and the blogs are quiet, but there are still posts of interest. I know I link to Mirror of Justice quite a bit, but it’s just that good. They have a great discussion of the Park 51 project in New York.

Over at Opinio Juris, Hofstra’s Julian Ku is impressed with criticisms of the International Court of Criminal Justice’s assertion of jurisdiction over “agression” by Hertitage’s Brett Schaefer and George Mason’s Jeremy Rabkin. He offers the following money graph from Rabkin:

The problem is that, in the absence of a world legislature, advocates of international law tend to treat silence as consent (and they treat incoherent mumbling as equivalent to silence). That is how “consensus” leading to new “customary international law” gets established. A new “consensus” gained a lot of momentum at Kampala without any serious opposition from the United States. The world took another large step toward isolating and stigmatizing the American understanding of the “inherent right of self-defense.”

Are we looking for provocative on a hot and humid Friday before classes begin? Maybe not, but I got it if you want it. Professor Bainbridge identifies the following as the basic problem with the Supreme Court of the United States:

Fundamental public policies all too often hang on the whims of one unelected old guy in a robe. And, as old guys in robes go, Kennedy isn’t Gandalf or even Yoda. So it would be nice to find a way of making it less important whether Kennedy gets up in the morning on the conservative or liberal side of his bed.

At Concurring Opinions, George Washington political scientist Brandond Bartels provides a preview of some empirical work calling into question the characterization of the Robert’s Court as “the most conservative in living memory.”

Continue ReadingBest of the Blogs

Crescents and Crosses at Ground Zero

I have two principal reactions to the Park 51 Islamic Center controversy.  The first is that the legal issues are pretty clear cut. The government cannot deny approval t0 – or move to block construction of – the center because its Muslim character would be seen as offensive or insensitive. This would apply, I think, to any effort to transparently manipulate historical preservation laws to block or restrict the project.

The second is that those who are concerned about the project ought not to be dismissed as nativists or bigots. One can acknowledge that the attackers on 9-11 represent a small slice of a huge religion and remember that Muslims died that day as well and still think that a prominent Islamic Center that close to Ground Zero is insensitive and subject to misinterpretation,. One can wish it wouldn’t be built without unmooring oneself from our traditions of tolerance and religious liberty. (To be clear, I, like the President, take no position on the matter and, for reasons, set forth below. worry that not going forward at this point would be problematic.)

I wonder if the controversy represents a larger problem in our interconnected society – one that the law is ill prepared to address. We generally believe that the state cannot restrict speech in deference to a heckler’s veto. But should we be concerned about the private consequences of public outrage?

Continue ReadingCrescents and Crosses at Ground Zero