Regent Law School

[sohotrightnow]

Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty interesting:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/hi ... ?page=full

[StrykerFSU]

Candor? Call the Special Prosecutor!

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, April 10, 2007; Page A17

Monica Goodling is not my kind of gal. A graduate of two schools not known for partying (Messiah College and Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School), she would not be my ideal seatmate on a long airplane flight. But for vowing to take the Fifth in the ongoing probe of why and how eight U.S. attorneys were fired, I offer her my hearty congratulations. She knows that in Washington, free speech can cost you a fortune in legal fees.

The standard question about Goodling is: What is she hiding? After all, until her resignation last week, Goodling was the senior counselor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his liaison to the White House. She was at the center of the White House's purge of non-party party people (a pseudo-Stalinist term coined for this occasion) and so she must be hiding something. Maybe.

More likely, Goodling's problem is probably not what she's done but what she might do. If she testifies before Congress, swears to tell the truth and all of that, she will produce a record -- a transcript -- that can be used against her. If a subsequent witness later on has a different memory of what transpired, then the bloodcurdling cry of "special prosecutor" will once again be heard in the land. Already, in fact, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has raised that possibility. In the offices of U.S. attorneys everywhere, ambitious prosecutors are probably checking The Post's real estate section.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/09/AR2007040901001.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Campbell]

I actually sat next to a guy on a flight to DC that had gone to Regent. He works on the US Code.

[Joe Oakland]

As a future law student who worked his butt off to get a high LSAT score, so I could get a great scholarship to a top school, I am very insulted by the hiring of approx. 150 lawyers from what is the equivalent of "Phoenix University of Law". (No offense to those who earn their degree from Phoenix, it is great that such an online degree exists, so that people who otherwise could not get their degree, have the opportunity.)

"Regent -- which is ranked a "tier four" school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place"

Yes, it is no surprise that Antonin Scalia hires his law clerks from Notre Dame. Further, I wouldn't be mad to see an influx of BC Law grads (Jesuit College). Political / ideological appointments are natural to some extent, but this went too far. By hiring a slew of clearly unqualified, rookie attorneys for some of the government's highest-ranking positions, President Bush's administration spit in the face of the entire judicial system.

Since this is without a doubt an improper venue, I'll cut my diatribe very short, but consider this:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- The title of the course was Constitutional Law, but the subject was sin. Before any casebooks were opened, a student led his classmates in a 10-minute devotional talk, completed with "amens," about the need to preserve their Christian values.

I don't know about you all, but I cherish the separation of church and state.

[DanGenck]

As a future law student who worked his butt off to get a high LSAT score, so I could get a great scholarship to a top school, I am very insulted by the hiring of approx. 150 lawyers from what is the equivalent of "Phoenix University of Law". (No offense to those who earn their degree from Phoenix, it is great that such an online degree exists, so that people who otherwise could not get their degree, have the opportunity.)

"Regent -- which is ranked a "tier four" school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place"

Yes, it is no surprise that Antonin Scalia hires his law clerks from Notre Dame. Further, I wouldn't be mad to see an influx of BC Law grads (Jesuit College). Political / ideological appointments are natural to some extent, but this went too far. By hiring a slew of clearly unqualified, rookie attorneys for some of the government's highest-ranking positions, President Bush's administration spit in the face of the entire judicial system.

Since this is without a doubt an improper venue, I'll cut my diatribe very short, but consider this:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- The title of the course was Constitutional Law, but the subject was sin. Before any casebooks were opened, a student led his classmates in a 10-minute devotional talk, completed with "amens," about the need to preserve their Christian values.

I don't know about you all, but I cherish the separation of church and state.

Testify.

[Zeuslax]

Bill Mahr talked about this on friday during his show. We all know it helps to know someone to get a great job, but I didn't know it had to be the big guy for a federal gov't job.

Seperation yes........Even though most of the US considers itself religous, there is still a line that was crossed. I'll differ to the legal experts to blur the line.

[StrykerFSU]

the equivalent of "Phoenix University of Law"

Really? How did you determine that?

While you may accuse this administration of cronyism, I don't think that the separation of church and state argument holds much weight here. It is also important to note that this idea is a metaphor for religious freedom and not a law or principle. The idea of separating church and state stems from Thomas Jefferson and the freedom of religion (not freedom from religion),

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Given that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have thought attendance at a law school with strong Christian principles should disqualify you from government service. Most of our laws come out of this religious tradition so wouldn't a practicing Christian arguably have good understanding of their core principles?

It is perfectly fair to object to graduates of Regent Law School being given government appointments because of its poor academic reputation but to object based on its religious affiliation is discriminatory. I guess you would also be against Mitt Romney for President because he is a Mormon. Further, how does appointing a Christian violate even the bastardized definition of the separation of church and state?

I used to go to a YMCA sailing camp in NC every summer, can I never hold public office because we had devotionals every night?

[Joe Oakland]

the equivalent of "Phoenix University of Law"

Really? How did you determine that?

See above: USNWR ranks it as a tie for the WORST ABA-accredited law school in the country.

While you may accuse this administration of cronyism,

That point has already been beaten to death and is hardly worth mentioning.

I don't think that the separation of church and state argument holds much weight here. It is also important to note that this idea is a metaphor for religious freedom and not a law or principle. The idea of separating church and state stems from Thomas Jefferson and the freedom of religion (not freedom from religion),

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Your read of the first amendment is plain wrong. See Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet:

Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

By offering prefernce to a bottom of the barrell law school funded and established by secular televangelists, the heat is on the Bush administration to try to qualify these 150 attorneys in high profile positions to take jobs over the slew of more qualified candidates. The only two distinguishable traits that Regent University has is its history of infusing secular ideology into the law and its terrible academic reputation. Please address this, the point at hand.

Given that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have thought attendance at a law school with strong Christian principles should disqualify you from government service. Most of our laws come out of this religious tradition so wouldn't a practicing Christian arguably have good understanding of their core principles?

Our country was founded on SOME principles that REFLECT Judeo-Christian values. Having knowledge of these values, in my humble opinion, would have no effect on the understanding of the law as it has evolved to what it is today. Tell me why Notre Dame, Boston College, etc., do not teach Sin as a part of their curriculum? I find it strange that you seem to have completely ignored that part of my post.

I guess you would also be against Mitt Romney for President because he is a Mormon. Further, how does appointing a Christian violate even the bastardized definition of the separation of church and state?

How could you possibly extrapolate these stances from my post?

I used to go to a YMCA sailing camp in NC every summer, can I never hold public office because we had devotionals every night?

It's not the YMCA sailing camp that scares me about you.

[StrykerFSU]

Quote:
I guess you would also be against Mitt Romney for President because he is a Mormon. Further, how does appointing a Christian violate even the bastardized definition of the separation of church and state?


How could you possibly extrapolate these stances from my post?

Perhaps you need to be more clear as to whether your objection to the appointments is based on the academic reputation of the individuals' alma mater or the role that religion plays in their personal lives. I merely took your objection to Christian lawyers to mean that you would oppose a Mormon President.

I still fail to see how the religious affiliation of a school has any bearing on the separation of church and state in the Federal Government.

As I said in my other post, it is perfectly fair to object to graduates of Regent Law School being given government appointments because of its poor academic reputation but to object based on its religious affiliation is discriminatory.

[Joe Oakland]

Seriously, this is ridiculous.

Yes, the critique is two pronged.

Please read my posts carefully.

Where did I object to Christian lawyers? What makes you presume that I am not Christian? See: BC / Notre Dame references made ad nauseum.

The problem is Regent produces radical Christian Lawyers, not lawyers who are Christian. Good candidates are being passed up for lawyers who subscribe to a certain brand of Christian Fundamentalism, because they subscribe to that certain brand of Christian Fundamentalism.

I challenge you and President Bush to tell the country this is not the case.


Consider an AA analogy: President bush only hires Kurds in all his cabinet positions simply because they are Kurds, passing up highly qualified candidates of all other ethnicities.


This is irresponsible and illegal. Get it?

[nun4you]

As a future law student who worked his butt off to get a high LSAT score, so I could get a great scholarship to a top school, I am very insulted by the hiring of approx. 150 lawyers from what is the equivalent of "Phoenix University of Law".

I didn't know the 60th rated law school was considerd top teir. I thought the cut off was around 58 or 59th.

[Joe Oakland]

As a future law student who worked his butt off to get a high LSAT score, so I could get a great scholarship to a top school, I am very insulted by the hiring of approx. 150 lawyers from what is the equivalent of "Phoenix University of Law".

I didn't know the 60th rated law school was considerd top teir. I thought the cut off was around 58 or 59th.

"I" before "E" except after "C".

The top 100 is considered Tier 1 by USNWR. However, the T 14 are the truly powerful schools. Those in the top 100 after the T14, are what are called regional schools.

The next groups of "50" (100-150 are Tier 3, 151-last are tier 4) are considered much lower than the regional schools listed in the top 100.

Regent is a Tier 4.

I'm proud of where I'm going, but I'm arguing here for the jobs that would be secured by those students in schools ranked in the T14 (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.)

Thanks for pointing that out, you sure put me in my place.

[StrykerFSU]

So it is just Evangelicals that you dislike and who are unfit?

It's illegal for the President to appoint lawyers of his choosing? I will give you irresponsible and even politically unwise but I don't know about illegal.

I also have to add that the more I search the Internet about this story the less important it really seems. Blogs like thehuffingtonpost.com rant about 150 graduates currently serving at high levels of the Bush Administration. But when you click the respective links you are taken to the Regent web site that states 150 graduates (not necessarily law graduates) have served in the Bush administration and the only "high-ranking" member listed is the now resigned Goodling. The blogs don't even list the graduates that are currently working within the Administration or their positions, something that I feel would help their argument...odd. Not to mention that blogs of this ilk would attack the President for animal cruelty if they saw him with his dog on a leash.

I think that your argument against the Regent appointments is strongest if you concentrate on the academic reputation of the school and steer clear of the religious component but it really is beginning to appear that this is much to do about nothing.

[Joe Oakland]

So it is just Evangelicals that you dislike and who are unfit?

It's illegal for the President to appoint lawyers of his choosing? I will give you irresponsible and even politically unwise but I don't know about illegal.

I also have to add that the more I search the Internet about this story the less important it really seems. Blogs like thehuffingtonpost.com rant about 150 graduates currently serving at high levels of the Bush Administration. But when you click the respective links you are taken to the Regent web site that states 150 graduates (not necessarily law graduates) have served in the Bush administration and the only "high-ranking" member listed is the now resigned Goodling. The blogs don't even list the graduates that are currently working within the Administration or their positions, something that I feel would help their argument...odd. Not to mention that blogs of this ilk would attack the President for animal cruelty if they saw him with his dog on a leash.

I think that your argument against the Regent appointments is strongest if you concentrate on the academic reputation of the school and steer clear of the religious component but it really is beginning to appear that this is much to do about nothing.

It is, in fact, illegal to discriminate or give preference in hiring, based on religious affiliation.

I find the "straw man" that you have put up, by arguing against 3rd party bloggers, to be unworthy of my response. But I must say, even some of your attacks on the straw man are illogical and off point.

The Boston Globe is not a blog, nor are the numerous other national news outlets that have picked this up.

The religious component is at the heart of this issue, and should not be ignored. I realize, for whatever reason, you will never come to this realization.

Oh well, agree to disagree, I suppose.

Good talking with you,
Joe

[Campbell]

I think that your argument against the Regent appointments is strongest if you concentrate on the academic reputation of the school and steer clear of the religious component but it really is beginning to appear that this is much to do about nothing.

I think his point is that Regent is poor academically, however, graduates are being selected over more qualified candidates simply because they are evangelical christians. Therefore, the law, and the candidates knowledge of it, is taking a back seat to ideology.