Forcing Cultural Marxism On Lawyers

[PoliticalChic]

1.Every institution in this once great nation is being corrupted with the un-American views of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. Those who have studied history inderstand the plan...
"Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths."

Is this the end of progressive America?

Multiple fronts of resistance are taking shape

unherd.com

2. In today's news, the legal profession:

"American Bar Association Abusing Its Accreditation Power To Force Race-Focused Study On Law Students​

“Legal education is about to undergo a revolutionary change, with the American Bar Association poised to mandate race-focused study as a prerequisite to graduating from law school…. States enabled the ABA’s near-monopoly accrediting power, which now is being abused for ideological purposes. What the states gave the ABA, the states can and should take away.”

American Bar Association Abusing Its Accreditation Power To Force Race-Focused Study On Law Students

Our column at Real Clear Politics: 'Legal education is about to undergo a revolutionary change, with the American Bar Association poised to mandate race-focused study as a prerequisite to graduating from law school.... States enabled the ABA’s near-monopoly accrediting power, which now is being...

legalinsurrection.com

3. It brings to mind a passage from Daniel Silva’s novel, ‘The Unlikely Spy:’

"Hitler changed all of that. Hitler believed in the rule of men, not the rule of law. Within months of taking power he turned Germany's entire judicial system upside down.
Führergewalt. - Führer power- became the absolute law of the land, and Hitler's every maniacal whim was immediately translated into codes and regulations.

Vogel remembered some of the ridiculous maxims coined by the architects of Hitler's legal overhaul of Germany: 'Law is what is useful to the German people! Law must be interpreted through healthy folk emotions!
When the normal judiciary stood in their way the Nazis established their own courts- Volksgerichtshof, the People's Courts.

...in October 1933, when 10,000 lawyers stood on the steps of the Reichsgericht in Leipzig, arms raised in the Nazi salute, and swore 'to follow the course of the Führer to the end of our days.'"


4. Find yourself in this picture.

Protect your children from the Mass Psychosis that poisoned both the Germans of the 30s and 40s, and those under the sway of today's Democrat Party.

 

[Moonglow]

There is no Democrat Party in power

 

[Moonglow]

Without saying so openly, the revised standard in reality dictates that law schools should “institutionalize dogma,” as a group of Yale Law School professors objected. The obsessive focus on systemic racism, a subject of scholarly dispute, reveals the new standard’s Critical Race Theory underpinnings.

Page Not Found​

404 Error​

This is what you get when you follow the highlighted word link for Yale objecting

 

[Moonglow]

No Marxism can I find in the article since Marx was a racist in his own concepts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. "...Republicans now reject reliance on ABA judicial-nominee evaluations and ratings. ABA is just another group captured by the long march through institutions.



But it’s actually worse, because ABA is weaponizing its near-monopoly power to accredit law schools. In multiple proposals, one of which will be voted on by the ABA House of Delegates on February 14, 2022, and is all but certain to pass, ABA is forcing law schools to require that students take courses on race, particularly the CRT-driven systemic racism narrative. The hammer is that this is a requirement for the ABA to accredite the law school, so almost all law schools will have to comply."

American Bar Association Abusing Its Accreditation Power To Force Race-Focused Study On Law Students

Our column at Real Clear Politics: 'Legal education is about to undergo a revolutionary change, with the American Bar Association poised to mandate race-focused study as a prerequisite to graduating from law school.... States enabled the ABA’s near-monopoly accrediting power, which now is being...

legalinsurrection.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. The legal profession has always been the spear point in the effort to destroy….or, as one anti-American put it, ‘fundamentally transform America.’

a. The only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.

Judge Robert Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
See "Originalism," Calabresi and Scalia



b. Progressives altered the law profession from the application of the Constitution to ‘case law,’ what judges claim the law to be.

Progressives have altered the role of the Supreme Court in a dramatic way: no longer should its role be to apply law as written. Instead, it was the application of German social science to American law.
... law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…[endng]the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”
http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html


c. And today (as per the OP) we see the imposition of Cultural Marxism.

 

[SavannahMann]

6. The legal profession has always been the spear point in the effort to destroy….or, as one anti-American put it, ‘fundamentally transform America.’

a. The only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.

Judge Robert Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
See "Originalism," Calabresi and Scalia



b. Progressives altered the law profession from the application of the Constitution to ‘case law,’ what judges claim the law to be.

Progressives have altered the role of the Supreme Court in a dramatic way: no longer should its role be to apply law as written. Instead, it was the application of German social science to American law.
... law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…[endng]the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”
http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html


c. And today (as per the OP) we see the imposition of Cultural Marxism.

More verbose nonsense.

Of course the Constitution requires interpretation. Take something easy. No excessive bail. What is excessive? At the time of the Constitution being written $20 was probably excessive. So what is excessive today?

Cruel and Unusual. What is it? What is cruel and unusual?

All of this was left intentionally vague. So that future generations could make determinations. The future generations could interpret what it meant today.

As usual. Your entire premise is asinine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

More verbose nonsense.

Of course the Constitution requires interpretation. Take something easy. No excessive bail. What is excessive? At the time of the Constitution being written $20 was probably excessive. So what is excessive today?

Cruel and Unusual. What is it? What is cruel and unusual?

All of this was left intentionally vague. So that future generations could make determinations. The future generations could interpret what it meant today.

As usual. Your entire premise is asinine.

You must bless the day I appeared, as, on so many occassions, I have been available to educate you.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

2. When reading becomes attractive to you...

3. Morons who post the sort of thing you did, have been suckered in by this sort of thing:

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution. "
Charles Evans Hughes


Wise up.....you are a tool to the Left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. “…the ABA wants to limit law student and faculty freedom of expression. Its proposed revision to Standard 303 (which will be presented to the ABA House of Delegates in mid-February 2022) mandates “educati[ng] law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism.” Proposed Interpretation 303-7(3) suggests satisfying the new requirement with “[c]ourses on racism and bias in the law.” Proposed Interpretation 303-6 converts the existing professional responsibility requirement into teaching lawyers’ “obligation … to promote a justice system that provides equal access and eliminates bias, discrimination, and racism in the law.”



Without saying so openly, the revised standard in reality dictates that law schools should “institutionalize dogma,” as a group of Yale Law School professors objected. The obsessive focus on systemic racism, a subject of scholarly dispute, reveals the new standard’s Critical Race Theory underpinnings.” American Bar Association Abusing Its Accreditation Power To Force Race-Focused Study On Law Students


Do you understand what that means for the future????

Just imagine a white and black involved in a legal battle.

Do you understand that what their "mandate" will conclude?????



No longer will justice wear a blindfold.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “…the American Bar Association poised to mandate race-focused study as a prerequisite to graduating…”



Compare the new ‘woke’ meaning of ‘justice’ to what it formerly meant.

“Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Thursday there is no room for ideologues on the Supreme Court, declaring an “obligation to the Constitution” and to no other cause as he concluded three grueling days of confirmation testimony.
“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.”
Roberts, in 2005



Can you find a reference to skin color in the Constitution that has not been amended out?



Doesn't matter to the Nazis....er, Democrats......does it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. “Should we extend our discussion to Justice….with mitigating factors of one’s childhood, race, or environment? "


What weight to extenuation…his supposed goodness to animals or to his mother...? Where is consideration for the needs of the citizenry for protection?
No where: if a jury is influenced by emotion, dramatics, flattery, ‘compassion,’ then laws, which have been decided based on behaviors and not individuals are cast aside by reference to merit, or fairness, or compassion….all of which are inchoate, subjective and nonquantifiable.
It is not the government’s job to determine merit, rather to provide a set of laws that one may expect to be applied without intervention. Laws, under our Constitution, apply not to classes of people, but to classes of actions.



If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice. Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.”
David Mamet

 

[SavannahMann]

You must bless the day I appeared, as, on so many occassions, I have been available to educate you.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

2. When reading becomes attractive to you...


View attachment 600092



3. Morons who post the sort of thing you did, have been suckered in by this sort of thing:

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution. "
Charles Evans Hughes


Wise up.....you are a tool to the Left.

I must be the reason for your swearing. Because none of your prepared nonsense ever answers the question I ask or addresses the points made.

I make two clear and specific examples. First the prohibition for excessive bail. You addressed not one word of it. I also addressed cruel and unusual punishment. Again. Not a word.

I can only assume your employers who pay you to post didn’t provide you with any automated response information on those two specific examples.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I must be the reason for your swearing. Because none of your prepared nonsense ever answers the question I ask or addresses the points made.

I make two clear and specific examples. First the prohibition for excessive bail. You addressed not one word of it. I also addressed cruel and unusual punishment. Again. Not a word.
P

I never use vulgarity.....why would you suggest I do???

Is it because of how deftly I put you in your place, and your ire causes you to lie????



No interpretation of the Constitutioin is necessary.

"Bail" is clearly described in this way: to make certain a criminal defendant will appear for trial.
Punishment is simply as the term is used when the document was written.

As I descrbed the use of terminology.

A pity you never read the book I offered for your education......but....have you ever read any book???



One more thing: the 'Supreme Court' is given none of the authorizations you ignorant peasants have been fooled into awarding.


“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm




Now.....don't you wish you actually had an education?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no Democrat Party in power

True they are now American Marxists or Socialist Party of America

 

[SavannahMann]

I never use vulgarity.....why would you suggest I do???

Is it because of how deftly I put you in your place, and your ire causes you to lie????



No interpretation of the Constitutioin is necessary.

"Bail" is clearly described in this way: to make certain a criminal defendant will appear for trial.
Punishment is simply as the term is used when the document was written.

As I descrbed the use of terminology.

A pity you never read the book I offered for your education......but....have you ever read any book???



One more thing: the 'Supreme Court' is given none of the authorizations you ignorant peasants have been fooled into awarding.


“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm




Now.....don't you wish you actually had an education?

Actually. The terms are excessive bail. The question I asked since we are not to interpret the Constitution is what is excessive bail?

The other question was cruel and unusual. What is cruel and unusual punishment? And where is the definition of it from the founders?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually. The terms are excessive bail. The question I asked since we are not to interpret the Constitution is what is excessive bail?

The other question was cruel and unusual. What is cruel and unusual punishment? And where is the definition of it from the founders?

These are not interpretations.....they are orders and mandates.
It is simply in the mind of whoever your sort chooses to obey.

I can decide what is 'excessive' or 'cruel and unusual' as well as anyone......those like you, who bend the neck and knee to the Wehrmacth....er, Democrats, have given up your right to think or question.

Sad, isn't it.


You’ve never been successful in this venue, posting…..go back to the role you were born to fulfill.... working on finding the final digit for pi.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually. The terms are excessive bail. The question I asked since we are not to interpret the Constitution is what is excessive bail?

The other question was cruel and unusual. What is cruel and unusual punishment? And where is the definition of it from the founders?

The only job the Supreme Court was designed to commit to was comparing any bill to the words of the Constitution.

Other than that, they have no function.

That's what Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
. The brief writer’s version

[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country.

THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



Now, admit you are thrilled that I am here to educate you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually. The terms are excessive bail. The question I asked since we are not to interpret the Constitution is what is excessive bail?

The other question was cruel and unusual. What is cruel and unusual punishment? And where is the definition of it from the founders?

In short, the pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way red and green lights are in Rome....

...as merely a suggestion.

 

[SavannahMann]

These are not interpretations.....they are orders and mandates.
It is simply in the mind of whoever your sort chooses to obey.

I can decide what is 'excessive' or 'cruel and unusual' as well as anyone......those like you, who bend the neck and knee to the Wehrmacth....er, Democrats, have given up your right to think or question.

Sad, isn't it.


You’ve never been successful in this venue, posting…..go back to the role you were born to fulfill.... working on finding the final digit for pi.

So you have no answer. Ok. Let’s start an easier one.

Congress shall pass no law abridging Freedom of Speech.

So what is protected speech? What did the founders envision as protected?

There have been more Supreme Court cases on that single phrase than any other. And the definition of protected, that is to say free speech, has evolved as it is interpreted by the courts and society.

The reason is that you fail to grasp a simple truth. The Constitution enshrines absolutes. Those absolutes include the President being the Commander in Chief of the military. It also contained principles. Those principles include prohibitions on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Those principles are absolutely open to interpretation. They are supposed to. They are vaguely written to allow the definition to change with social growth. Excessive bail in 1800 would be pocket change today as one example.

It isn’t interpretation of the Constitution that you object to. It is any other interpretation than your own.

Among the things I have read is the Federalist Papers. The clear objective for the Founders was to make a government strong enough to survive against threats that would emerge, and flexible enough to endure.

Perhaps your employers haven’t given you those talking points. It’s a shame. I’d suggest reading it on your own, but that might end your employment as a paid pontificator.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you have no answer. Ok. Let’s start an easier one.

Congress shall pass no law abridging Freedom of Speech.

So what is protected speech? What did the founders envision as protected?

There have been more Supreme Court cases on that single phrase than any other. And the definition of protected, that is to say free speech, has evolved as it is interpreted by the courts and society.

The reason is that you fail to grasp a simple truth. The Constitution enshrines absolutes. Those absolutes include the President being the Commander in Chief of the military. It also contained principles. Those principles include prohibitions on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Those principles are absolutely open to interpretation. They are supposed to. They are vaguely written to allow the definition to change with social growth. Excessive bail in 1800 would be pocket change today as one example.

It isn’t interpretation of the Constitution that you object to. It is any other interpretation than your own.

Among the things I have read is the Federalist Papers. The clear objective for the Founders was to make a government strong enough to survive against threats that would emerge, and flexible enough to endure.

Perhaps your employers haven’t given you those talking points. It’s a shame. I’d suggest reading it on your own, but that might end your employment as a paid pontificator.

Fully and dispositively answered.

You're just lying again.