this is the heir apparent? man. second rate stuff.

i never got got why Greenhouse was such a respected big deal -- she always struck me as highly competent but not particularly insightful -- but if this is the type of "analysis" she replaced, it makes a lot more sense to me now.

If Bud Selig came out tomorrow and said everyone involved with major league baseball should oppose abortion or be damned to a life in hell, than I would think it would be worth noting that Scalia was batting clean-up for the Yankees. It wouldn't be conclusive of baseball's influence, but it would hardly be as ridiculous as Crawford tries to make it sound. Stone made an observation in a blog post (I can't speak to any comments he may or may not have made during class time). If Crawford thinks religion played no role in the Justices' decisions, or if it did, tha t such influence is permissible, than she should argue such points. To claim that Stone's observation is not worth even stating by drawing a ridiculous analogy perhaps illustrates why Crawford didn't enjoy much success in law school.

Oh come on.

It's more than just chance that the five catholic men came out one way and the two protestants and two jewish folk (including a female) came out opposite way.

Even if it is more than chance (which I would dispute on the basis that there's no evidence of causation), why is it relevant to the discussion?

Or that the five in the majority are political conservatives...

The alignment is overdetermined. There are lots of ways of explaning it, and Stone chose one of them without justifying his position.

will somebody please think about the penumbras!?!?!?!?!?

1240: You make her point for her. How often do you use the "come on" argument in Court? That's up there with "pretty please." Can I also then take from this that protestants and jews on the court are aligning against Catholics, and have no independent thoughts on the issue? What about Italians? These writers should be responsible and have some support for what they say beyond stereotypes.

I could also throw out baseless stereotypes, such as Stone as dean is a far left liberal that hates Catholics. Oh wait.

Your faith influences the way you think. That much is obvious. But the justices do not take their cues from the Vatican.

Did anybody notice that in yesterday's death penalty cases the 4 conservative Catholics came out on the pro-death penalty side (even though the Church teaches that the death penalty is a no-no in a place like the USA)?

"come on" can be an extremely effective argument in court.

perhaps the best way to dispose of arguments that are formally plausible but facially absurd.

You don't think this is anti-Catholic bias? If these 5 justices are unthinking puppets controlled by the pope, how do you explain their favorable approach to the death penalty? The Church is anti-death penalty, geniuses.

If Stone' observation is simply a more recent, public manifestation of deeper anti-Catholic sentiment, he needs to go. Catholic students in his classes will reasonably feel that they need to think like Justice Brennan to get a fair shake.

If this character is wondering why he's "never met a thinking Catholic," has it ever dawned on him that most Catholics with any brains whatsoever go deeper in the closet than Anderson Cooper when they find themselves at a top-ten law school?

Sure, some people come out, but most of us keep our traps shut and nod and smile when professors and students spout the kind of shit this dean spouts.

We know the deal. Most of us, sadly, aren't going to risk our very-subjective grades and recommendations on defending our faith against idiots like this.

Sad but true. Most Catholics shut their yappers because of attitudes like that.

Who is Stone? In the grand scheme of legal practice he's an absolute zero, just like all deans. He's not a practitioner, he's not a judge, he's not a client corporation - so to me, he's nothing. He can be as smug as he wants, he wishes he was on the court. Instead, he'll have to stick to bashing Catholics that will go on to do bigger things then he ever has.

What I find funny are all the NON-catholics who find comments like this acceptable. As if they are in any position to decide what is an offensive statement and what is not! It's like Ann Coulter telling members of GLAAD that using the "f" word isn't offensive.

Maybe this school should ASK ITS CATHOLIC STUDENTS if those kind of statements are offensive or not.

In an open, free, and diverse educational environment, the Catholic perspective should be respected even as it is challenged, and not merely dismissed out of hand "because Catholics don't think."

Just wanted to point out that no one so far has actually confirmed that Stone actually said that. You've all just assumed that he did and debated why he said it and what kind of person he must be to have done so.

I took free speech from him and never heard him say it. As a Catholic, I think I would remember it if he did.

The biggest problem, for me, with harping on the "Catholicism" of the justices is that it normatively presumes that any one who voted the way they did must be some kind of moron under the sway of a superstitious and dangerous institution.

I mean, like the blog points out, what about all the NON-catholics who ... voted for this law? And what about all the NON-catholics who elected those representatives?

Above the Law is one of the worst websites I've ever stumbled upon...

Lawyers are awful people.

JCG's post is probably the first commentary I've read that makes it clear that SCOTUS merely refused to override Congress. The rest of the editorials--including those by people who should know better, like Lithwick--phrase it as if SCOTUS one day just up and decided to ban PBA.

"Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling, to ignore. Ultimately, the five justices in the majority all fell back on a common argument to justify their position. There is, they say, a compelling moral reason for the result in Gonzales. Because the intact D & E seems to resemble infanticide it is “immoral” and may be prohibited even without a clear statutory exception to protect the health of the woman. "

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/04/our_faithbased_.html

I meant that no one has confirmed the thing Stone said about Brennan, not that he drew an association between the majority's religion and their votes.

if catholicism didn't play a role in the majority decision, then racism also doesn't exist

Practicing, pro-choice Catholic here. Not sure about what Stone said, but I have had several obnoxious comments regarding my faith at the large law firm where I practice. There's lots of things I'm not crazy about with the Church - stance on abortion, molestation cover-up, etc., but most of it I do like (emphasis on forgiveness, etc....) and I enjoy practicing the faith I was brought up in. I think lots of people feel this way about their respective faiths, but I'm surprised at how freely people express anti-Catholic sentiments.

It seems kind of ridiculous to pitch the pro-life/pro-choice argument as a Catholics versus everyone else sort of debate. If Bush had managed to get one of his Regent Law-type cronies on the court (think Harriet Miers) I'm sure they would have voted the same way.

I took Free Speech from Stone too. The most horrifying thing he ever said had to do with porn and hotel rooms - I recall nothing even remotely like this alleged comment re: Catholics. We had a lot of visible, active Catholics at Chicago when I was a student and I don't think anyone ever said or did anything to encourage people to look down on Catholicism per se.

Law firms, one the other hand, are another story. I've never encountered so much anti-religious sentiment as I did among my Big Law peers - and today I work for a left-wing nonprofit that faces opposition primarily from Christian groups.

Anyway, this is dumb. People are just dying for something to talk about. I'm a big law nerd, but even I am bored by supposed professor smackdowns.

1:08 - Stone is kind of a big deal in the world of legal academia, which is inhabited also by appellate advocates and judges, so, the "who is Stone" argument doesn't really cut it.

12:50(1) - An even better counterexample re: the death penalty is Ayers v. Belmontes, No. 05-493 (Nov. 13, 2006). There, all five Catholic judges lined up on on the pro-death penalty side.

If anything, the Catholic judges can be accused of acceding to traditional *political*, not religious, divisions; i.e., Republicans are pro-life for the innocent (babies) and pro-death for the guilty (criminals).

In deference to Stone, I tried to figure out some kind of non-bigoted, nuanced point that he was trying to make (like, in legally ambiguous circumstances religious judges fall back on morals while nonreligious judges fall back on the ambiguous precedent), but instead he seems to be making a distinction between religion and morality, which is silly, because in the U.S. there doesn't really seem to a public morality separate from religion.

Once upon a time, Catholics were all but excluded from public life because of fears of undue papal influence. Glad to see that our enlightened academics have moved past that

jonb does a great parody. It's like the South Park hippie infestation episode with a bit more swearing.

Disclaimer: I'm a Roman Catholic who was a student of Stone's at Chicago Law. I took his First Amendment class, and never saw any evidence of him being anti-Catholic. A blowhard, yes. A bigot, no. And, frankly, I'm sensitive to anti-Catholicism.

If you read Kennedy's opinion, it is clear that his decision is heavily, heavily based on his own understanding of morality. I don't think there is anything anti-Catholic about assuming that Kennedy's sense of morality is informed by his religious beliefs, any more so than it would be to say anyone's sense of morality is going to be at least somewhat informed by their religious beliefs. Note that Stone, unlike Rosie O'Donnell, isn't suggesting this is reason to keep Catholics off the bench.

The problem really isn't that Kennedy's Catholic sense of morality shouldn't be the basis for a legal decision, it's that no one's sense of morality should be the basis for a legal decision. The basis should be the law, and Kennedy's opinion (although, arguably, it reached the correct legal outcome) was instead based on how morally offensive the procedure was. And how women should be protected from their inability to exercise good judgment in times of emotional turmoil, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

As for the abortion v. death penalty debate, Scalia argues that there is no inconsistency in being pro-life and pro-death penalty because the Church's positions on the two are not the same. He is right, to a certain extent.

2:48: "practicing pro-choice Catholic" here. First of all, I'm female. Second of all, what the hell are you talking about? I was raised in a town where about 85% of the population was Catholic, so I never felt (and still don't feel) that Catholics are an oppressed group worthy of special protection. I was simply pointing out the ease with which my colleagues, who are generally sensitive about race/gender/culture/religion, make ridiculous generalizations about Catholics. You know, things like having "bullshit fear-based dogma" driven into my head as a child.

In the Raich case, I'm sure many were upset that there were only four closet Rastafarians on the Court. The next election could tilt the balance.

As someone who has taken a class with Stone, I highly doubt he made the Catholic line. While I was in class, he said nothing of the sort. However, he is prone (as was evidenced in his blog post) to throw out a bunch of hypos or theories and think through them to see which ones make sense.

C'mon now, acticing Pro-choice Catholic, you're just trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't be pro-choice and catholic. And since you say you are pro-choice, that means that you are not catholic, no matter how hard you convince yourself that you are.

The truth is, you've outgrown Catholocism but still cling to it, like a full grown adult clinging to their baby blanket. You don't need that shit, the dogma, the fear of hell, etc etc. You're better than that.

Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
This is our battle cry.
All ye who don't believe us
In Hell will surely fry.
To dogma we bow gladly;
To reason we don't bend.
The truth does not concern us;
We'd rather just pretend.

Kiss up, kiss up to Jesus,
Imaginary boss.
Oh, Great Hallucination,
Without you we are lost.
Our self-respect goes down with us
When we get on our knees.
But if we really grovel,
Salvation is a breeze.

Suck up, suck up to Jesus,
Imaginary friend.
It's party-time at your place
After our lives end.
To reach your cosmic Disneyland,
We'll genuflect and cower;
We'll kiss your ass forever,
Pretending you'll save ours.

But now I've done some thinking
About this savior-dude,
And after due reflection,
Here is what I conclude:
This mindless little carpenter
Was mentally unglued,
And thanks to his religion
Humanity got screwed.

I live my life for me now;
This is my sacred right.
I scorn all gods and masters;
On mankind they're a blight.
I'll raise the torch of reason,
Our one and only hope,
Until the cross of Jesus
Goes up in holy smoke.

Beware of true believers
Who try to suck us in --
Snake-oil hawkers selling
Imaginary sin.
They're dying to convert us
By sword or by the pen,
But if we fall for their lies,
We're suckers born again.

They have the nerve to tell us
We're sinful from our birth.
Their God is cruel and jealous,
Disdainful of our worth.
A pompous little potentate,
He's peevish, he's perverse.
Down with cosmic tyrants;
We have enough on Earth.

Now, pride and self-reliance
Are virtues to admire.
Be noble and defiant;
Live life as you desire.
The heaven that you seek is here;
It's well within your reach.
You hold it in your own hands
And need not God beseech.

May humans thrive forever --
Man, woman, girl and boy.
Our noblest endeavor
Is living life with joy.
And so with reason's counsel,
Stand up and go forth --
Claim your glorious birthright:
This life, this time, this Earth!

This blog is EPIC FAIL.

As a catholic for the almost 40 years, I've watched abortion morph from a minor issue within the Church to THE ISSUE. Antiabortion rhetoric gets relentlessly drilled into school children (now that they don't have to try to explain what the heck limbo is, I guess they've got free time).

The comparison to the death penalty is a poor one. I've never heard an anti death penalty sermon.

Given the extreme prominence the abortion issue now has within catholicism, it's an interesting observation that the 5 in the majority were catholics. I hadn't noticed.

And to say there's an anti catholic bias at law firms is ridiculous. The only people who make anti catholic remarks are lapsed catholics.

Blah blah blah who cares about this... where's some associate salary talk??

Or better yet, is Jan Crawford Greenburg available (for a mustache ride)?

SKADDEN JUST OFFERED A $500,000 BONUS TO ASSOCIATES WHO HAVE SWALLOWED THE SEMEN OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!

MORE AT 11!

yessssssss where do i sign up?

jonb is not even half-amusing. stupid troll.

U of C grad, had Stone for one class but not Con Law. The criticism of the opinion was not that there are 5 Catholic justices on Court but 5 justices of any stripe who made no attempt to separate personal views from law.

I'm a non-Catholic student in Stone's class, and I vaguely remember the comment about Brennan (I could be misremembering, but I don't think so). It sounds like Stone, in part because I think Stone was probably joking.

I took First Amendment from Prof. Stone, and I too, am a Catholic. He is arrogant, but he is also a decent man. Anything to the contrary is simply wrong. Also, the mindless conflation of Prof. Stone's analysis with "anti-Catholicism" suggests that the Professor's critics are more concerned that is perhaps correct--i.e., that the Justices are motivated more by personal beliefs than a commitment to their judicial responsibilities. If any people care to discuss this post, I'll be in the Green Lounge playing chess.

Jonb, I thought you were a cool, funny guy based on your comments in the thread on interracial relationships. I now realize you are just a left-wing, worthless atheist. Why don't you just go to some abortionist rally and spare us your comments on the Internet.

Awww man! I am cool and funny, really! I'm not really an atheist, I think Jesus totally rocks! I was just kidding! Can we still be friends!?

Anyone who would suggest Geoff Stone is a biggot hasn't met the man or taken a class from him. People can have every reason in the world to doubt the significance of religious views to the Supreme Court's latest ruling, or any other ruling, but for an academic like Stone its certainly fair game to observe the fact and comment on why he thinks its significant.

"its certainly fair game to observe the fact and comment on why he thinks its significant."

It's only fair game if he explains why the justices's "Catholicism" isn't informing their approach to the death penalty. Otherwise it's rank bigotry.

The inability of Catholic critics to note that the church is against the death penalty has always been suspicious.