I just graduated from Columbia Law and am currently a biglaw first year. I agree with you pretty much entirely.
Her article is idiotic and so is most of this thread.
Her article is idiotic and so is most of this thread.
Maybe it's a fashionable research topic in that also gets web traffic but is otherwise far removed from the work of most legal practitioners.
Unless it was Yale, I'd wager you're finding examples of something that triggers you everywhere because ppl are primed to do that.
It's one of the fallacies of the woke crowd as well.
Would be interested in hearing more about your exp. I can provide more details of mine as well.
You and I both went to T14s and clearly have different political beliefs from those people. Most people at such schools are pretty progressive, but not extreme, and will end up just working in biglaw and various government positions and as in-house counsel. Sadly for the woke, any attemp they make to obtain and exercise actual legal power by the same obnoxious behavior they exhibit in law school will not make a wrinkle in the stone face of the law. Only changes agreed-upon by less extreme elements can make it through--they need the votes.
I myself was extremely irked that many of my progressive law school classmates were basically like Trump supporters in that they cared more about their desired policy goals and outcomes than the underpinnings of the law, and didn't have much of a value system beyond their ideologies. They would love to pack the courts with ideologues like conservatives have been fairly successful at doing.
But that was a minority of people. What's more, our professors were definitely not of the same mind. The prof I had for con law, for example, is a prominent, highly regarded young liberal intellectual who posed hypotheticals to challenge the class's liberal assumptions, chiding us with "you guys are good liberals right?" He also regularly attends FedSoc panels (the FedSoc chapter at Columbia is doing just fine btw).
She also simply fails to understand how unmoving and slow-to-change the law is. She presents it as much more fungible and modifiable than it is. Her pointing to Breyer re: preemptory challenges is dumb, and almost a counter-argument, given that Breyer is not a particularly ideological justice.
Weiss is an uncredentialed pseudo-intellectual who has latched onto a real problem, but who does not have the knowledge or experience to write competently on the subject.
Why is this relevant? It's also wrong considering she has graduated with a degree from Columbia...
You originally replied to this comment:
"Weiss is an uncredentialed pseudo-intellectual who has latched onto a real problem, but who does not have the knowledge or experience to write competently on the subject."
I was simply trying to find out what she actually majored in to gauge whether there is any truth to this statement. Furthermore, the difficulty in finding the exact degree program seems very suspicious.
So you indeed are implying that she lied about her degree
So what exactly are you suspicious of?
Think about how many articles get tech stuff wrong. Articles about law tend to be even worse because of the political/emotive aspects, which writers (such as here) try to inflame.
(The actual author also seems unqualified to argue the issue)
This entire discussion is about the law and the legal system. For Weiss’ degree to be remotely relevant to this discussion she has to have a law degree from Columbia. She doesn’t. She graduated in 2007 with a BA.
Meanwhile the person you’re speaking to claims to have graduated recently from Columbia Law.
Congratulations. You're the kind of junior lawyer the article warns against.
The article makes claims about elite law schools and what the culture is like there. I was at one more recently than you. The article makes a logical leap to connect the increasing "wokeness" of young law students and lawyers to some alleged "takeover" of American law that is in no way manifesting itself. None of your comments substantiate the notion that such a takeover is eminent.
The "business considerations" of biglaw partners or my experience handling, e.g., commercial litigation, are irrelevant.
I read these pieces about political disruptions to our system of laws with some concern that those deep in the thing might not understand the extent of their own biases. Better to err on the side of caution. A stitch in time saves nine.