January 11, 2010
Off to the Big AppleAs the Supreme Court gets back in action today, so too do most law school semesters. And this Spring, I am a visiting professor at Fordham Law School in NYC. I hope to find time to blog about a few sentencing issues specific to the Big Apple, though I doubt my work in this cyber space will be nearly as different as my work in real space over the next few month.
January 11, 2010 at 09:15 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Off to the Big Apple:
Best of luck! Fordham's gain is OSU's loss (even if only temporarily(?)).
Posted by: Mark Pickrell | Jan 11, 2010 9:41:38 AM
This is worth 2 days' time during your visit.
Use this great opportunity at that Catholic university, with all its expertise in Scholasticism. Verify for yourself. Reason is the ability to perceive God. Logic and intellect are misled by the Fall from Eden, and the deadly sins. The most reliable guide to moral decisions is reason, and the New Testament, the book about Jesus. Therefore, the technical meaning of reasonable or of reasonable person is Jesus. That is why that standard bearer of proper conduct must be fictional and objective. You cannot say, what would my level headed friend do?
Disputation is a good tool to arrive at a correct answer, so the adversarial system is a Church based methodology. Worse, it is French.
You will get to see the tightest, most compelling IRAC and brief format writing in St. Thomas Aquinas. You will feel on familiar ground in the glow of the High Middle Ages. To see daily life visit the Cloisters at the top of Manhattan, on a Sunday afternoon, to hear music of that era.
Here is the most shocking finding. You meet with an expert in Scholasticism, Natural Law. They have not put together their own expert knowledge. Reason is to be guided by the New Testament, and the reasonable person is Jesus Christ. Find the most pious lawyer there. No connection by the lawyer of his religion to the way he does his job.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 11, 2010 4:21:18 PM
Heel, physician, HEEL!
Posted by: anon | Jan 11, 2010 9:45:35 PM
Anon: Why not a Sharia based jurisprudence? I read their hornbook. 90% of it is pretty good, much less proceduralist. They control crime very well. The crime rate in very poor areas is lower than in many western cities. This hornbook covers all topics of the law, and is short. The legal bill would seriously decrease along with the crime rate. Set aside the 10% that is bizarre, violent, anti-semitic, and plain nuts. Why not?
The Establishment Clause prohibits the promotion of any religion by government. Tiny crosses in city flags are a problem. Now make the core doctrines of the law supernatural doctrines. Make the standard of conduct a mythical character from a religious book. Claim that 12 strangers can detect the truth using their gut feelings after excluding any with knowledge. And although Daubert applies to the criminal trial, continue to allow eyewitness testimony without physical corroboration, which is merely a lawyer induced false memory.
How do you take intelligent, modern people, and make them deny the above religious origin and supernatural core doctrines to themselves and to others? Don't educate them. Indoctrinate them, and crush all dissent with a draconian disciplinary system. The latter rarely enforces most rules that protect the public, and pitilessly enforces the rules that protect the hierarchy, without recourse for the lawyer. Turn these intelligent people into zombified dumbasses, in utter failure in every goal of every law subject save one. Rent seeking. Ignore the fact that 90% of crime goes unanswered. Ignore the fact that when the law gets a hold of a person, there is over a 20% chance it is the wrong person.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 12, 2010 3:55:25 AM