"Correlation or causation is a fair question. Did the four pro-gay-marriage justices reach a "better" decision because they went to "better" law schools? Or did their attending elite (read: liberal) law schools make these justices more sympathetic to what Justice Antonin Scalia has decried as the "homosexual agenda"? Feel free to opine, in the comments."

Blatant USC trolling.

USC as part of the "elite" law schools. uh, buddy, it's either T14 or TTT. USC ain't T14, therefore it's TTT.

Even Georgetown is a borderline TTT (cuz it's the lowest ranking T14 school, plus unlike most T14 schools, the bottom half of Georgetown's class actually struggles to find jobs).

Did SEN send you this story? Really, this post worthy? WTF Lat...

Did it ever cross anyone's mind that perhaps this is a sound legal decision in line with the California Constitution and California Supreme Court precedent? Sometimes people want to make something out of nothing. Time to get over that urge.

Maybe the justices who went to the less-elite law schools came from more working-class backgrounds.

Maybe it is because "elite" grads think they are philosopher kings who know what's best for everyone.

Last time I checked, Hastings was a first tier school.

We do know what's best for everyone. You philosopher subjects don't always realize that, but then maybe that's why you're not philosopher kings.

-P.K.

No it isn't. Those people don't care how they get the result they want. They tried a ballot measure and it failed. So they went to the courts and found some far left judges who were willing to overlook the law and the will of the people.

"Correlation or causation is a fair question. Did the four pro-gay-marriage justices reach a "better" decision because they went to "better" law schools? Or did their attending elite (read: liberal) law schools make these justices more sympathetic to what Justice Antonin Scalia has decried as the "homosexual agenda"? Feel free to opine, in the comments."

Blatant USC trolling.

USC as part of the "elite" law schools. uh, buddy, it's either T14 or TTT. USC ain't T14, therefore it's TTT.

Even Georgetown is a borderline TTT (cuz it's the lowest ranking T14 school, plus unlike most T14 schools, the bottom half of Georgetown's class actually struggles to find jobs).

Top Judicial Talent.

This is interesting data. Pretty striking. The breaking point appears to be top 25.

Hastings may technically be a "first tier" law school, but it is #38 (lower than all the schools that the justices in the majority attended).

"If it goes to SCOTUS, we can rest assured Scalia will give us his thoughts (either in the opinion or dissent)."

The marriage decisions (CA and MA) are based on state constitutional law, so they're not going to "go" to the SCOTUS.

Nice job 3:14. Notwithstanding the sarcasm, you pretty much summed up how these judges actually think.

This case proved, once again, Scalia can see the future.

How is Hastings only "technically" a first tier school? At what point is a first tier school only "technically" a first tier school?

Hey 3:11(3), the only people making "something out of nothing" are these judges who seem to make up constitutional rights out of thin air.

yeah upholding equality is just making up constitutional rights. Make in Iran, but not the U.S., dumb f*ck.

COA Clerk for an active judge. While my co-clerks and I went to "elite" law schools (some even T3), our boss did not--similar in status to Hastings, but not Hastings. None of us have had time to read the opinion and dissents in the gay marriage case; however, the idea that each judge's vote is based on where they went to law school is retarded. Even though me and my co-clerks went to "elite" law schools, we hold similar views with our boss--and it isn't because we are suck-ups. Our boss listens when we disagree. Also, last time I checked Scalia, Alito, and Thomas went to "elite" law schools. This post is insulting to the three dissenting justices. I can't imagine the majority thinking for one second this moronic idea had merit. I don't know how it was for you, Mr. Lat, when you were a COA clerk, but the judges of my circuit all respect each other and would never argue that their position is correct because they went to an "elite" law school while the dissenter did not.

Out of curiousity, how many of you people are actually california citizens? Or, if not, how about at least licensed in california?

Out of curiousity, how many of you people are actually california citizens? Or, if not, how about at least licensed in california?

One two three four, I declare a Culture War!!!

COA clerk, I'll assume you wrote your post in haste and didn't proofread to eliminate grammatical errors, incorrect syntax, lack of uniformity between subject and verb, improper case, and the like. Your comments do raise an interesting issue of retardation, but probably not the one you intended.

3:53 - I did not realize that states conferred citzenship.

Or are you referring to citizens of the California Republic (a/k/a the Bear Flag Republic)? Since that Republic was annexed into the USA in 1846 I would guess that no one commenting can claim citzenship of the California Republic.

Just out of curiosity I'd like to see a poll that correlates 1) whether or not you think this case was decided by "judges who seem to make up constitutional rights out of thin air" and 2) whether or not you would self describe as a christian.

I'm just wondering.

Zzzz

This correlation is no surprise. Elite law schools attract smart people and smart people are liberal. The research results on this issue are clear.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center

Ah 4:14, nit-pick grammar errors when you can't criticize the substance of a comment.

Does Stevens have a lesser opinion because he went to Northwestern? How about Ginsburg, who graduated from CLS? These justices are clearly worse than Thomas, because Thomas went to Yale.

This really is a poor post, Lat.

Here's a more interesting correlation/causation question:

Do T14 schools tend to foster social ineptitude and robotic, stick-up-the-ass shitheadedness, or are these douchebags just drawn more to these schools in the first place?

Sorry 4:14 for not proofresting my post. You can be assured that I proofread my writing for F.3d. But I'm sure that it takes the sting out of not getting a clerkship to criticize an unsigned blog post on one who did.
COA Clerk

The appropriate response to this post is that it doesn't matter where the justices went to law school because they're all icky state court judges anyway.

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2004/07/state_.html

I'm sure you're all well-poised to sit on the "icky" CA Supreme Court, so let us know how it is when you get there.

"Even though me and my co-clerks went to 'elite' law schools. . . ."

Liar.

When these justices attended law school Hastings was ranked higher than USC. Also, even now, USC and GW are not in the same league as the other schools. Nice theory though.

4:16, perhaps you should try reading the Constitution sometime?

Specifically, Amendment XIV, Section 1, which reads in relevant part (i.e., the first sentence): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the Unites States and of the State wherein they reside." Note the conjunction. A federal system, like ours = 2 citizenships.

Welcome to the world.

4:16, check out Amendment XIV to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Specifically, Section 1, first sentence.

4:16 has apparently never taken 1L civ pro.

"No it isn't. Those people don't care how they get the result they want. They tried a ballot measure and it failed. So they went to the courts and found some far left judges who were willing to overlook the law and the will of the people."

This is a troll, right? I'm pretty sure this was covered in the comment thread to the initial post about the holding. You know, how the legislature passed marriage equality bills twice but the Schwarz vetoed it both times and said the court should decide it...

and now they did. And the legislature, gubernator, and california supreme court justices are all popularly elected.

No circumvention of democracy here. (Not that civil rights should be subject to tyranny of the majority anyway.)

Here's another interesting "correlation or causation"... the dissenting judges went to law schools in the city of San Francisco whereas the judges in the majority did not...

The majority reached its opinion not for political reasons, but because of its views on the separation of powers in a representative democracy. Specifically, the majority believes that the courts should be a co-equal branch, acting as a check on the oppressive nature of democracy, while the dissenters apparently believe the judiciary should be subordinate to the will of the people and/or legislature, even where the oppression of a minority is concerned.

While I don't believe law school has much to do with it per se, I do believe the majority comes from a better-informed and more rational perspective. Though the right wing pundits will no doubt try to characterize it as "activist", they actually employed a conservative philospohy arising from the appropriate balance of powers embodied by the US Constitution and the early Supreme Court policy of judicial review.

Take a whiff, paleocons. That's the smell of gays, marrying.

Take a whiff, paleocons. That's the smell of gays, marrying.

hee hee
nerd fight!

5:28 is right. The judges from San Francisco law schools all dissented. So either a) they were afraid of being seen as beholden to the gay elite of SF from whence they came; or b) they came to law school in the big city from some rural backwoods of Cali and were shocked and repulsed by three years of seeing men kissing on the lips. Oh, I forgot c) none of the above.

Who cares? Live and let live.

That also goes for the moron who bashed Christians.

I heard that one justice had diarrhea. Not sure how that fits into this debate.

Me:

1) Christian
2) Californian (both by residence and by practice)
3) In complete agreement with the California Supreme Court.

So I guess they're doing a pretty decent job of representing some of us. And, not all Christians are homophobes.

The more interesting question is how many of the judges who voted with the majority in this case are secretly gay.

4:21, you made the exact opposite of the point you were aiming for. Brilliant!

The law was struck down based on the CALIFORNIA state constitution, yes? State Constitutions sometimes just plain promise more than the Federal one does, so this doesn't necessarily say much if anything about cases SCOTUS is likely to hear.

I apologize for the substantive content of this post.

9:20

An even MORE interesting question is how many of the judges who voted AGAINST the majority are secretly gay.

And yes, camp does count.

I'm licensed in California, 3:52. Isn't Hastings at least as liberal as Boalt? And more so than Stanford or USC?

Wow. Even though I'm a frequent visitor/reader of this site, I'm still shocked and amazed at the magnitude of douchebaggery reflected by many of the posts here. (But I mostly feel sad - specifically, for the obvious beta- and gamma-male uberdorks who try desperately to mask their profound insecurity with feigned arrogance and intellectual superiority. Tell me: what was it like getting picked last on the kickball field every day? How soon did you get sick of Mommy's daily "don't worry, you're special" pep talks after yet another day of being picked on?)

Anyway. I agree with the other posters that this story is, in fact, a non-story. Like so many other misleading and actually meaningless statistics, these beg the question to begin with; the fact that the pro-gay marriage majority came from "elite" law schools doesn't necessarily have so much to do with intellectual aptitude as it does with the fact that those schools are established bastions of left-wing nuttyness. It shouldn't be too suprising that students of left-wing schools tend to emerge with left wing views, having spent the better part of three years being thoroughly indoctrinated with leftist ideology.

All that said, let's put aside the trite sociopolitical debate over the propriety of gay marriage, and tip our collective hat to our brothers in the law who stand to beneift most from the CSC's predictable decision: I'm talking about divorce lawyers (or "Matrimonial Lawyers," in modern/euphemistic parlance). They're poised to make a killing in as little as two years hence. Just ask the divorce bar in Massachusetts, where gay marriages are falling apart faster than Governor Deval Patrick's credibility.

Wow. Even though I'm a frequent visitor/reader of this site, I'm still shocked and amazed at the magnitude of douchebaggery reflected by many of the posts here. (But I mostly feel sad - specifically, for the obvious beta- and gamma-male uberdorks who try desperately to mask their profound insecurity with feigned arrogance and intellectual superiority. Tell me: what was it like getting picked last on the kickball field every day? How soon did you get sick of Mommy's daily "don't worry, you're special" pep talks after yet another day of being picked on?)

Anyway. I agree with the other posters that this story is, in fact, a non-story. Like so many other misleading and actually meaningless statistics, these beg the question to begin with; the fact that the pro-gay marriage majority came from "elite" law schools doesn't necessarily have so much to do with intellectual aptitude as it does with the fact that those schools are established bastions of left-wing nuttyness. It shouldn't be too suprising that students of left-wing schools tend to emerge with left wing views, having spent the better part of three years being thoroughly indoctrinated with leftist ideology.

All that said, let's put aside the trite sociopolitical debate over the propriety of gay marriage, and tip our collective hat to our brothers in the law who stand to beneift most from the CSC's predictable decision: I'm talking about divorce lawyers (or "Matrimonial Lawyers," in modern/euphemistic parlance). They're poised to make a killing in as little as two years hence. Just ask the divorce bar in Massachusetts, where gay marriages are falling apart faster than Governor Deval Patrick's credibility.

Wow. Even though I'm a frequent visitor/reader of this site, I'm still shocked and amazed at the magnitude of douchebaggery reflected by many of the posts here. (But I mostly feel sad - specifically, for the obvious beta- and gamma-male uberdorks who try desperately to mask their profound insecurity with feigned arrogance and intellectual superiority. Tell me: what was it like getting picked last on the kickball field every day? How soon did you get sick of Mommy's daily "don't worry, you're special" pep talks after yet another day of being picked on?)

Anyway. I agree with the other posters that this story is, in fact, a non-story. Like so many other misleading and actually meaningless statistics, these beg the question to begin with; the fact that the pro-gay marriage majority came from "elite" law schools doesn't necessarily have so much to do with intellectual aptitude as it does with the fact that those schools are established bastions of left-wing nuttyness. It shouldn't be too suprising that students of left-wing schools tend to emerge with left wing views, having spent the better part of three years being thoroughly indoctrinated with leftist ideology.

All that said, let's put aside the trite sociopolitical debate over the propriety of gay marriage, and tip our collective hat to our brothers in the law who stand to benefit most from the CSC's predictable decision: I'm talking about divorce lawyers (or "Matrimonial Lawyers," in modern/euphemistic parlance). They're poised to make a killing in as little as two years hence. Just ask the divorce bar in Massachusetts, where gay marriages are falling apart faster than Governor Deval Patrick's credibility.

2:00, can you provide some credible statistics? Everything I've heard indicates that Governor Patrick continues to be popular, and that the gay divorce rate has not yet caught up to the hetero rate.

Oh, and I only need to see them once, though I appreciate your thoroughness in providing responses in triplicate.

While it may not be as "elite" as the schools represented in the majority, Hastings is a significantly more liberal environment then all of them. So it is neither correlation nor causation...think coincidence.