The emergence of one dimensional lawyers can be dated to the announcement by some federal judges that they refuse to hire Yale law school graduates. These Yale law school graduates were proving to be particularly rigid in their views as well as destroying the principles of free speech and could not be counted on to develop arguments for a position; which is the bread and butter of lawyering. Plus their animosity towards those who disagree with them, aka conservatives, simply make functioning in a system predicated on advocacy impossible.
Moreover, all pretense of objectivity in the law is being washed away by this controversy. The articles cited here are all littered with highly biased remarks about “hate crimes” and denying the “rights” of special interest groups.
The first out of the gate was U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho. His reaction follows a long train of insults from the left. The Federalist Society has been singled out, and the liberal law students keep calling for attacks on free speech. Law students. They should know better. Free speech is where the ability to debate and discuss controversial issues begins.
A similar situation may be developing for Stanford law school. The recent hijacking of a talk by a federal judge at that school led to warnings that they law school graduates would not be considered acceptable for hiring.
While there are certainly enough liberal law firms around to hire them, there is a subtext being ignored here. These same one-dimensional lawyers, when they get in front of many judges, will find themselves in deep trouble. Their likely hammering away on social injustice, diversity, etc. will not find a receptive audience. These things one-dimensional lawyers take as holy write, others do not.
These pending conflicts in the courtroom can be seen as a battle between pragmatic and ideological principles. The pragmatic position recognizes the sometimes fluid nature of the law and the circumstances under which the law must be prosecuted.
One source has challenged the judges, suggesting they were just engaging in a publicity stunt. Then another source instead suggests that many more federal judges were quietly boycotting the hiring of Yale law clerks. These judges, it is claimed, just don’t have the courage to face public criticism. So, which is it, stunt or stealth? Now that Yale law students are alerted to this, they should be on the outlook for apparent biases committed against them.
While part of the problem is over just singling out Yale law school, the largest issue really is the bias that is turning into indoctrination. Consider for example, the quote from below.
“The event was derailed by students who said Duncan has taken positions that threatened the rights of LGBTQ people, immigrants, Black voters, women and others.”
This quote encapsulates the problem. First, the law students were rude and not willing to have a debate. That is a bad sign right away. Second, they appear to be asserting something that is not true: (Special) rights for favored groups. Favored by who? Well, favored by those who have an agenda for doing so. That conservatives should be shouted down for this simply highlights the narcissistic nature of liberal arguments.
The Rejection of One Dimensional Lawyers
The rejection of one dimensional lawyers must continue and grow if we are to have a functioning legal system. You simply cannot have “officers of the court” beating everyone over the head with a social justice hammer thinking everyone is a social justice nail. There will then be no legal system. All concepts of justice would be ignored, rulings would not be honored, and then chaos will control the legal environment. Not all courts and judges would function similarly. Rulings by one dimensional judges would be routinely overturned, making them look bad.
The problem will only become more serious. The law schools continue to turn out law students indoctrinated in one sided liberal thinking. So, once again, Americans are confronted with an area that must be dealt with directly if there is to be any remnants of fairness in our legal system.