I'm having a Lake Wobegone sort of day here. Eugene has already Eugene noted that the VC is #1 in one ranking. And OpinionJournal has proclaimed GMU Law School "the most competent professors of any law school in the nation" in a process even less scientific than the other one reported by Eugene. Of course, both are exceedingly important and persuasive reports and should be treated as gospel truth by all.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Hah! Now the thread has been hijacked to "living constitutionalism!" Anyone want to go for the hat trick and turn this into a 2nd amendment discussion?
The law profs filed on on the statutory question, not the constituitonal one. They therefore didn't lose on the constitutional question. They still lost, but they lost on the minutae of statutory interpretation, not constitutional meaning. They can't be out of touch on "statutory interpretation," because 99.5% of the public has no informed position on it.
That being said, the Chief rules.
GMU can still exclude employers if it wants. All the decision says is that Congress can override it. The long term self interest you're talking about is therefore more attenuated than you suggest.
Also, even if right-wing legal scholars are undervalued by the market, stocking an entire law school full of them hardly seems like a way to give students a well-rounded legal education. Law and econ isn't the end all be all of the world.
Congratulations to the VC for capturing first place as the most visited law blog. The most important category in my opinion because the diversity of bloggers reaches the most readers.
Come on, Come on. Law students and/or any other students in college or university haven't had a well-rounded education in three decades or more since the moonbats took over academia in the hippie dippie era.
There were law professors who wouldn't sign on to GMU's amicus brief b/c they feared it would be held against them when it was time for tenure review. And others who simply didn't want to be labeled homophobic (even though the merits of don't ask don't tell were never at issue in the case).
Obviously GMU (correctly, according to all eight Justices who considered the matter) didn't feel the Solomon Amendment "chipped away" the First Amendment in any way.
Context is everything. The WSJ seems to be joking.
If you don't think so, consider the implications. Is everyone who filed briefs on the government's side automatically smarter than everyone who filed briefs on FAIR's side? Is Walter Dellinger now officially an idiot? If I filed a completely crazy brief saying that because of the divine right of sovereigns, only the President can declare a law unconstitutional, would I be "smarter" than everyone on the losing side because the petitioners won? Given that (1) most laws aren't unconstitutional, and (2) the Supreme Court grants cert more often to reverse than to affirm, the respondents faced some long odds in this case.
I'd go on about this further, but it seems like a fairly tongue-in-cheek reference from the WSJ.
Did I say that? Must be the overwhelming feeling of pride that I have for being on the number one blog of it's kind.
I have a feeling that Todd's note is all in good fun and functioned to see how many readers have absolutley no sense of humor. Those USN&WR rankings seem to be all important judging from the responses on other threads, for what reasons other than economic, I don't know, but the point was made that in the last contest it was GMU 1, Harvardyalecolumbiavariousivyleaguestanfordetc 0. Since this is the time of the NCAA men's basketball tourney we have to expect some upsets. Maybe we sould play this off in the tourney, I believe that GMU will make it along with Penn and possibly a few of the others ;~)
BTW, I am not a graduate of any of these schools but am a huge basketball fan.
And yet America still stands. How...odd.
/gmusol '05
Good luck on pursuing a future in the law.
http://www.slate.com/id/2137874/
which badly mischaracterizes Raich v Gonzales, stating, among other things, that Justice Scalia dissented.