That was the question posed in yesterday’s popular Ethicist column, in the New York Times. Here’s the question that a reader posed to columnist Randy Cohen:
While interviewing law students for jobs as paid summer interns and full-time associates for my firm, I noticed several had résumés listing their activities in the Federalist Society. Some of my partners have conservative views similar to those of the society, but I do not. These students’ politics would not affect their professional function, but my review is meant to consider their judgment and personality (though I don’t need to give reasons for the assessments given). May I recommend not hiring someone solely because of his or her politics?
NAME WITHHELD, GREENWICH, CONN.
Ah, Greenwich — limousine liberalism, anyone? We are not surprised that this question came from the left side of the aisle. In our experience, liberals — despite their self-proclaimed commitment to “tolerance” — are far more intolerant of people with divergent views. To liberals, the political is so often personal; if you don’t agree with their entire orthodoxy, you are per se a bad person.
Okay, we’re stepping off our soapbox. How did the Ethicist respond?
Find out — and discover whether the partner took the Ethicist’s advice, plus take a reader poll — after the jump.
Cohen told the partner that he or she cannot discriminate on ideological grounds against conservatives:
If candidates can do the job, bathe regularly and work well with others, you should hire them. As you note, their “politics do not affect their function.” Is it your position that only people who share your politics should be allowed to make a living? It was odious when membership in the Federalist Society was all but required for some jobs in the Justice Department; it is no more appealing to make that affiliation a bar to employment at your firm.
This strikes us as wise advice. You can read Cohen’s complete response over here.
So what did the partner end up doing? The column includes this addendum:
“UPDATE: Believing that all the applicants were qualified, but able to hire only a few, this person recommended rejecting each member of the Federalist Society.”
Oh, liberals — they’re never good at taking direction from authorities! (We’re not surprised; we’re guessing the partner, like a CEO who hires McKinsey consultants, just wanted a rubber stamp for what he or she was going to do anyway.)
So, readers, what do you think? Take our reader poll below. Before you do that, just to be fair, we’ll give you some counterarguments to Randy Cohen’s position. Here are two interesting comments posted over at the ABA Journal:
1: When people put irrelevant political credentials on their resumes, they are trying to bank on them. Concurrently, they are taking the risk that the result will instead be adverse.
7 (echoing 1): Exactly: The fact of the matter is that, if you are not trying to bank on a dubious political connection, you will not be harmed by not referencing it on a resume. The people who put Federalist Society membership on their resumes are specifically searching for a place where that will be a plus to their hiring or their career.
The Bush Justice Department–and Monica G–took the poisonous trend of political litmus tests where it did not belong (government service) and have, fortunately, brought it into the disrepute it deserves. So, if all things being equal, an applicant believes s/he should prevail in the job market because of such a membership, then fie on the fool.
At this point we’d like to observe that the Federalist Society is not a “political” organization, at least not in the narrowest or most technical sense. As a legal matter, it cannot be; as noted on its donation page, “[t]he Federalist Society is classified under I.R.S. Code Section 501 (c)(3) as a charitable and educational foundation.”
Although the Society views issues through a conservative or libertarian lens, as you can see from the About Us section of its website, it is not affiliated with either party, and it does not take political positions. From the Fed Soc FAQ:
Q. Does the Federalist Society take positions on legal or policy issues or engage in other forms of political advocacy?
A. No. The Society is about ideas. We do not lobby for legislation, take policy positions, or sponsor or endorse nominees and candidates for public service. While overall the Society believes in limited government, its members are diverse and often hold conflicting views on a broad range of issues such as tort reform, privacy rights, and criminal justice.
This is very true. If you’ve ever attended the Federalist Society’s annual lawyers conference — a great way to rack up continuing legal education credits while attending interesting and lively panels, as opposed to the usual CLE snooze-fests — you know that the internal debates on some issues can get quite heated. E.g., gay marriage. We suspect there is more ideological diversity within the Federalist Society, which is marked by the whole “conservative vs. libertarian” tension, than within the American Constitution Society.
Here’s the poll. We realize that the practice area at issue might matter (as noted by commenter #4 on the ABA Journal post). For purposes of this poll, assume a generic Biglaw firm with generic litigation and transactional practices.
And note the “Biglaw” qualifier. If you’re hiring for a five-person boutique law firm, it might be more defensible to take into account some “soft” considerations — such as personality fit, which might include a political component — on the theory that you have to spend all your time with this person. Cf. the Mrs. Murphy exception to the Fair Housing Act.
(Or it might not be. Some people feel that the Mrs. Murphy exception should be repealed.)
UPDATE: And remember that this is for a summer associate or associate position at a law firm. If you were hiring a gigolo, you’d pick a conservative, because Republican men are better in bed.
Taking on Unlikables [New York Times]
Hiring Lawyer Rejects Federalist Society Members–and Columnist’s Advice [ABA Journal]
farstie
Only a dick sucking liberal could ask this question. Liberals make terrible attorneys, mostly because they can’t seem to ever take the dick out of their mouths. Moderates and conservatives make the best attorneys, because they have reason and common sense, not to mention superior intelligence. It’s hard to say, “May it please the Court” when you have a dick in your mouth, not to mention one sticking out of your ear.
Unless political views carry into the way the attorney practices law, then this should NEVER play a factor in hiring.
This is even more true on an associate level.
You are not entitled to a job. Firms should be able to discriminate based on your political affiliations as much as if they just find you generally unpleasant. Any good federalist would agree.
Tim Tebow for the Heisman
Discriminating for summer associate jobs on the basis of political leanings shouldn’t happen– but if the office/firm is conservative and the candidate isn’t, well, they’re not going to get an offer anyway. So maybe it’s better to just cut them up front.
No, because most of them are raging TTToiletiers.
David,
Remind us how susana dokupil got published on ATL? Let me remind you that it would be far wiser to admit it was political than to argue that she was the finest fiction writer you could afford. Enough hypocricy!
Bravo, commenter #2. You’ve aptly demonstrated the reason and civility of conservatives with your well-argued, intelligent post. And who knew conservatives were so witty too? You’re numerous references to dicks were ever so clever. You truly are a gentleman and a scholar.
ND should hire Tony Dungy even if he is colored.
2,
Riight. The conservative who belives in a boat carrying all the animals of the world and all the cool Jesus magic tricks is the the epitome of reason.
Partisan hacks are each dumb in their own way.
Right on #2!
2,
Riight. The conservative who believes in a boat carrying all the animals of the world and all the cool Jesus magic tricks is the the epitome of reason.
Partisan hacks are each dumb in their own way.
8 – “Hypocricy”?
Conservatives are better spellers.
Interesting post. But for the fact that almost everyone I know who joined the federalist society did so mostly as a strategic move to help their career. You have a ridiculously easier job landing a clerkship, for example, as a conservative. There are some ways, therefore, that this affirmative action should properly be reflected in hiring.
9 is 2. Strawman anyone.
Lat: Very true about how to liberals the political is personal. Just look at how ATL treats people who support traditional definitions of marriage.
Why nothing on this?
81% of Amlaw 100 partners think layoffs are “unlikely” in 2010: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/40_of_firms_cut_starting_pay_for_associates_while_44_consider_2010_cut
Oh wait I know why. Because ATL profits off of doom and gloom. Report good news too, Elie.
4 ftw
This partner should be outed. Sounds like a Skadden or Willkie guy. How is this sentiment different than refusing to hire a bull dyke lesbian?
Great post, David. Seriously. You know that if Elie ran a blog, there’s no way he’d ever hire you as an editor.
Did the Federalist Society have to pay for this advertisement, or do they get the space free?
9, fuck you.
At my firm, we always say, “love your brother, no matter what their political affiliation is . . . I mean, we don’t necessarily “say” it . . . we don’t necessarily mean it . . . but the message should be clear.
I have experience working on a presidential campaign. And even though it was a good experience, it is nowhere to be found on my resume. To the extent that placing political experience on one’s resume reflects a lack of understanding of how the system works, I think it is perfectly legitimate to consider it in hiring. Your views are nobody’s business until you make it their business.
22, you are spot on. 9 should sick his head back up his ass where it belongs. Liberals are the ruination of society as we know it.
If I am a running a business, my aim is to optimize it. If I don’t want to hire someone, for whatever reason, that should be my choice. If there are economic repercussions to the firm from my hiring practices (not of the legal sanction variety), I and I alone should be arbiter of the remedies. Private firms should have the liberty to discriminate against Fed Soc members, just as they ought not have to fulfill racial or gender quotas. No one owes anyone a god-damned job.
Former VP of my school’s Fed Soc Chapter.
Conservative beliefs tend to skew against regulations, lawsn and reason – not to mention conservative pet projects like “tort reform” which all lawyers know is purely political and ignores the inherent fairness and marketplace efficiency of the common law of torts. Anyone who think it is reasonable, for example, to put.a $300K cap on med mal liabilityn has no business being a lawyer.
I have served on my firm’s hiring committee (a prestigious NYC bigfirm) and it is clear that discrimination against folks with conservative views is rampant (particularly those who list the Federalist Society on their resume). It is joked about. I am liberal in my politics, and I despise the Federalist Society, but Lat is right that this is exactly the kind of closed-mindedness in others we on the left always rant about. I hate the hypocristy of it, but there it is.
Liberals are intolerant of opposing views because misogyny, homophobia, racism and class warfare is intolerable.
I don’t have to tolerate those things to be a good person (or fair).
Conservative are dickbags and I don’t apologize for loathing all of them.
You really shouldn’t have quoted the part of that article that mentions the DOJ hiring scandal. It really damages your unsubstantiated claims.
Yes 27. The only people that should be allowed to argue the law are those that believe we should have more of them. I hope you are joking, or else I feel sorry for your clients.
Spelling aside, 8 nailed it. Dokupil is a the conservative answer to AA.
MPRE results — today or tomorrow?
Check out the update Lat just added:
“UPDATE: And remember that this is for a summer associate or associate position at a law firm. If you were hiring a gigolo, you’d pick a conservative, because Republican men are better in bed.”
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/mens-lives/200603/republicans-in-bed-best
29 is President Obama. Or maybe Speaker Pelosi. Nah, too articulate and thoughtful to be Pelosi, so I am betting Obama.
it’s on my resume because I have a board position and it’s something to talk about. lots of interviewers pointed it out and flat out challenged my views on issues, appropriate or not, this was a risk I assumed.
You can put it on your resume, but people will discriminate. That being said, I think it made me more memorable, and because I was able to defend my beliefs well I got plenty of offers (well, it’s not the only reason, but I don’t think it hurt me).
I don’t think firms should discriminate on political grounds, but I can see how personality and general demeanor is important in a smaller firm, where “fitting in” is a huge factor.
Agree with 30 + Randy Ethicist is himself a liberal yet he’s being tolerant about hiring differently-minded folk. David Lat, you are being, if not douche-like (and prejudiced against liberals), then at least silly.
“racism and class warfare is intolerable.”
Wait, which is it 29, do you find conservative or liberals intolerable? The second half of your sentence seems to be directed at the latter.
As a Mormon, I found it hard to find a firm job. I asked in interviews what types of pro bono work the firm did and was dismayed to find out they were working against Prop 8. Luckily I was able to find a firm that supports my views (It rhymes with Smibson Smunn).
Who cares? Seriously Lat, quit being a douchebag and let Elie write about things that matter to your readership. Nobody wants to see your seventh, eighth, and ninth posts in two weeks trolling for FedSoc either.
Speaking as a liberal turned independent, I completely agree that the lion’s share of liberals are just as intolerant as the conservatives they so loathe. I’d like to think people, especially those who’ve benefited from year’s of education, would be able to think for themselves. In the end it’s just about hating the other side.
“We suspect there is more ideological diversity within the Federalist Society, which is marked by the whole “conservative vs. libertarian” tension, than within the American Constitution Society.”
Evidence?
As a Mormon, I found it hard to find a firm job. I asked in interviews what types of pro bono work the firm did and was dismayed to find out they were working against Prop 8. Luckily I was able to find a firm that supports my views (It rhymes with Smibson Smunn).
Lat is such an obnoxious twat.
I have served on my firm’s hiring committee (a prestigious NYC bigfirm) and it is clear that discrimination against folks with conservative views is rampant (particularly those who list the Federalist Society on their resume). It is joked about. I am liberal in my politics, and I despise the Federalist Society, but Lat is right that this is exactly the kind of closed-mindedness in others we on the left always rant about. I hate the hypocristy of it, but there it is.
I don’t think anyone is saying that hiring bias against conservatives should be criminalized. That is just silly (and any good Fed Soc member would oppose it).
It is just a question of whether it is “right,” in an ethical sense. It is not.
I forget, is the aclu a liberal, or a conservative organization? Me so confused. Who is more likely to zealously represent anyone, even if the client has opposing viewpoints? Ahhhh, yes, the liberal.
NOW Fed Soc members want restrictions on what can and can’t be considered in the market. Very convenient, guys.
So, Lat, is it OK when judges hire only fed soc clerks?
29 is President Obama. Or maybe Speaker Pelosi. Nah, too articulate and thoughtful to be Pelosi, so I am betting Obama.
What do folks think? Boxer maybe? Reid?
43 – Because Fed Soc has an obvious ideological divide running right down its middle, and ACS does not?
(It faces the same quandry as the Republican Party. Look out for the Republicans to split into two parties at some point in the next 30 years.)
Agree with 4 and 26. Also, if you put it on your resume it means it is something that you want to have considered in the hiring process; it is fair game
Liberals always want diversity, as long as you don’t disagree with their view or opinion. If a firm can discriminate against political views, then gender, race, or any of the other illegitimate reason should be allowed. Why is it that liberals can never see through their emotions? Why is it that liberals cannot accept that there are other legitimate viewpoints on this planet? Better yet, when are liberals going to put down their opinion, pick up a weapon and defend what they believe in, rather than riding on the freedoms typically defended by conservatives willing to die for this country? Oh sorry…I’m a conservative…I must keep my opinions and beliefs to myself…
This is a difficult issue; I think we should consult Adam Smith, Esq. for new approaches to this new reality.
50 – A judicial chambers would fall under the “Mrs. Murphy” point that Lat makes near the end of his post.
There is a world of difference between a judge hiring a right-hand man (or woman) and a law firm hiring one of 100 summer associates.
49 — its only an argument about ethics, not regulation. fool.
Liberals hate conservatives because we don’t believe in giving people plus factors to get into Harvard Law and onto Harvard Law Review based solely oe one’s “blackness”, or lack thereof.
Liberals, Hypocrisy is thy name.
57 – if you’re arguing that someone shouldn’t do this, there’s not much of a difference. Don’t you think?
Liberals are intolerant? Or at least moreso than conservatives? You have got to be kidding me. Conservatives are the ones that argue against women’s choice, gay marriage and rights for all people, insist that there’s only one valid religion, and that the interest of the rich and powerful are more important than everyone else. They are the people that won’t budge.
Heck, if our Congress wasn’t so heavily democrat sided to avoid filibusters, we wouldn’t even have healthcare/insurance reform on the table.
Maybe it’s wrong, maybe it’s not, but I will ding the sorry ass of any FedSoc-style resume to cross my desk at my Vault-1 law firm.
61, secretaries don’t usually make hiring decisions.
-DOJ SECURE
Repubs regulalry refuse to do their jobs when it clashes with their old testament world views e.g. Pharmacists who won’t sell the morning after pill. I law firms are hired guns, we have no time for whiny believers who deny basic science (evolution, dna, global warming) and basic reason (jesus did not ride dinosaurs 5K years ago, and fossils aren’t inventions of lucifer put here to test our faith).
“If a firm can discriminate against political views, then gender, race, or any of the other illegitimate reason should be allowed.”
54 needs to brush up on his Con Law.
59… There is a tremendous difference. Conservatives are fine with arguing over philosophy concerning limits market participants should impose on themselves, and certainly believe there should be self-imposed limits on behavior (i.e. ethics and morality). It is government imposed regulation that is the problem.
This kind of discrimination goes both ways. I had to sit in team meetings where the ultra-conservative team members would go on and on about “stupid liberals.” They didn’t make any effort to be respectful to the liberal people in the room.
49, what Fed Soc member said they want the restrictions you mention? I suggest you re-read the article and then take a full five minutes to think about how retarded you are.
60–
Lets decipher. “Women’s choice” = i.e. to kill babies.
“gay marriage” -=forced acceptance of homosexual lifestyle. “rights for all people” = whatever ‘rights’ liberals invent, like paying to educate illegal alien children, abortion, et. al.
Liberals were all educated at insular “pedigreed” universities in the Northeast in majors such as “women’s studies”, “anthropology” and “sociology” and think they are smarter than finance majors from Jow bumfuck U.
Liberals=elitist know-nothings.
–Sarah Lawrence ‘ 92.
If I have to scratch (APALSA, BLSA, Lambda, etc.) you have to scratch that Federalist shit.
Lat,
being from DC, what advice would you give to those of us who have worked exclusively in the political arena since matriculating from undergrad? From my resume alone you can tell my political leanings, you don’t play in the other parties pastures.
Thoughts?
Where is “My Job is Murder?”
The ABA comment is asine. Replace Fed society with ACLU and see if the assclown responds the same way.
In this market, where every year law schools churn out lots of attractive applicants, the applicant who chooses to list federalist society membership is as likely to get a slight edge in the competition as the person who lists Lambda Law society or whatever. And both hypothetical applicants can just as easily get snubbed for these affiliations, and the reason will be invisible.
It seems to me that the resume listing “federalist society” should have more linked to it than just as shorthand for a certain type of thinking–it should link to an accomplishment relevant to the position sought.
73 speaks for me.
LAT –
I work for a large firm that happens to have a large policy branch.
While we love folks from both sides of the aisle, it does make a difference for some clients initiatives.
So, hiring is probably not an problem, but staffing certain issues might present challenges — especially if the person in question publishes some extreme “theories.”.
Oh poor Sarah Lawrence ‘92…you do not realize the Pandora’s Box you just opened. The Sarah Lawrence ‘92 meme starts in 3…2…1…
66 – that’s horseshit. What’s happening is that Conservatives don’t like getting targetted, although they have no problems targetting minorities or gays. Of course dinging people because they’re a Fed Soc member is a ridiculous policy, but if you want to remain consistent, you would say let businesses run as they please.
What happen to no hire miso soups.
If it’s not something the the employer should consider, why put it on your resume?
I’d never ask a candidate their political views in an interview. But if they put “American Nazi Party – Regional Chair” on their resume, I’d be hard-pressed to ignore it and hire them.
Conservative lawyers are such a joke. If you people had any balls at all you would’ve gone into finance or business of some sort. You know you’re more cut out for it, but chose to be lawyers anyway.
Look at the poll results so far. About two-thirds of people think this is wrong.
This is turning into one hecjuva comment storm!
It’s not illegal, and you can do it. It’s just plain stupid to turn away qualified applicants because of this. Are you going to turn down clients as well, if they are conservative?
54: without agreeing or disagreeing with the point you’re trying to make, i’d point out that equating political beliefs are fundamentally different than things like race or gender.
political beliefs are a choice; race and gender are immutable characteristics. one can choose to be a Democrat or a Republican, just as one can choose to be friendly or a d-bag. one can’t choose to be white, or male.
It’s nice to see that the dick smokers are coming out to play in this thread.
I find it interesting that many conservatives throw free market ideals out the window when those ideas come back to bite you in the ass.
If you believe that a private organization should be able to hire whoever it thinks will do the best job, then you have to stand firm when some organizations decide that people with your political or philosophical beliefs will do a poor job relative to people with opposing beliefs. If those organizations are wrong about their hiring criteria they will perform poorly in the market , forcing them to change their practices or putting them out of business.
If you’re a true conservative quit your bitching and accept the potentially harmful (to you) outcome of those beliefs.
70 sounds like Richard Nixon, who committed huge crimes while President because he went to Duke Law School (toilet law, obviously).
Yes, 70, you should be forced to accept homosexuality, just as women are forced to accept the fact that a fat moron like you wants to have sex with them.
If it’s true of liberals in general that “despite their self-proclaimed commitment to “tolerance” — are far more intolerant of people with divergent views,” and you (understandably) don’t want people that are intolerant of those with divergent views working at your law firm, wouldn’t it be reasonable and effective to discriminate against liberals in hiring?
81 – Putting Fed Soc (or ACS) on your resume just shows you care about ideas and have a public policy bent. That is why it is relevant.
Gay Republican apologists make me ill. Sad, self-hating morons who don’t see the party hates you. I’m not discussing economic policy, here. Their social views should repulse you, Lat, from supporting them, you limp-dicked idiot.
-V10 midlevel
Lat, what is your favorite part of the male anatomy? Mine is the balls. I love balls.
79. You are a fool. Conservatives are against government regulation, but that doesnt mean they are for anarchy. Individuals are expected to act with dignity and responsibility and to be thoughtful about their choices. In other words, it is perfectly legitimate to argue about ethics and morality while being against government interference. For instance, as a conservative business owner I believe the government should not mandate who I have to hire, but I also believe that as an individual it would be wrong for me personally to discriminate on the basis of race. Perhaps it is a little too subtle for the liberal mind to grasp.
86 clearly is not familiar with Michael Jackson.
Thank you. Please tip your waitress.
the ACLU as an organization often represents groups that have unpopular claims, even claims and agendas that are against the personal views of its liberal dues-paying members. they represent these groups on the basis of their meritorious constitutional claims. and so if you truly understand and embrace the ACLU’s legal agenda, you have exactly the skills that clients want. you will zealously represent their legal interests even if they are unpopular, or even if you personally disagree with their agenda.
85 / 88 – Reading comprehension FAIL.
This is a matter of ethics, not law. Nobody is saying this should be illegal – certainly not conservatives / libertarians, who are opposed to beefing up employment discrimination laws.
Regardless of whether it was political activity or a recreational activity, consideration of the membership in the Fed. Soc. could be viewed as unlawful discrimination under NY Labor Law § 201-d.
Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any
employer or employment agency to refuse to hire, employ or license, or
to discharge from employment or otherwise discriminate against an
individual in compensation, promotion or terms, conditions or privileges
of employment because of:
a. an individual’s political activities outside of working hours, off
of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment
or other property, if such activities are legal, provided, however, that
this paragraph shall not apply to persons whose employment is defined in
paragraph six of subdivision (a) of section seventy-nine-h of the civil
rights law, and provided further that this paragraph shall not apply to
persons who would otherwise be prohibited from engaging in political
activity pursuant to chapter 15 of title 5 and subchapter III of chapter
73 of title 5 of the USCA;
b. an individual’s legal use of consumable products prior to the
beginning or after the conclusion of the employee’s work hours, and off
of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment
or other property;
c. an individual’s legal recreational activities outside work hours,
off of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s
equipment or other property; or
88 read 94.
60 – Here is a list of things that liberals will not tolerate:
(1) Anything that suggests that there may be a difference between the races (they claim diversity is a strength, but then make it a sin to discuss any differences)
(2) Anything that suggests there may be a difference between the sexes
(3) Teaching children about God in school (teaching them about sex is okay though)
(4) Teaching children conservative values in school (teaching them liberal values is okay though)
(5) Hurting people’s feelings
(6) Smoking tobacco (drugs are okay though).
(7) Any suggestion that America is better than other countries.
(8) Anything that suggests one type of behavior is better than another type of behavior.
(9) The rights to carry a gun
(10) The right to hire the best man for the job.
The list goes on and on and on…
60 – Here is a list of things that liberals will not tolerate:
(1) Anything that suggests that there may be a difference between the races (they claim diversity is a strength, but then make it a sin to discuss any differences)
(2) Anything that suggests there may be a difference between the sexes
(3) Teaching children about God in school (teaching them about sex is okay though)
(4) Teaching children conservative values in school (teaching them liberal values is okay though)
(5) Hurting people’s feelings
(6) Smoking tobacco (drugs are okay though).
(7) Any suggestion that America is better than other countries.
(8) Anything that suggests one type of behavior is better than another type of behavior.
(9) The rights to carry a gun
(10) The right to hire the best man for the job.
The list goes on and on and on…
I think if you put it on your resume, you have made it fair game. but on the other hand, i really don’t care about your politics, necessarily.
But there are difficult blurs there. for instance, if you don’t understand why the health care reform is going to bankrupt the insurance industry, then gosh, you are pretty clueless about both law and business. Now obviously there is a political element there, but there is also a knowledge issue, too.
Back in 2000 i went to several job interviews right after election day. they actually quizzed me on what i would do. The fact that my answers were precieved as pro-bush… i always suspected i didn’t help myself there. but i also can’t be false to myself.
When is this site going to fix that damn bug that turns a double click into two posts. Grrr. –100-101.
notable alumnae/i from Sara Lawrence:
Rahm Emanuel
Vera Wang
JJ Abrams
Julianna Margulies
Allan Gurganus
Alice Walker
http://www.slc.edu/undergraduate/individualized-education/alumnae/index.html
88,
I actually don’t see too many conservatives saying that firms should not be able to discriminate on these grounds. The ethicist is a liberal. the guy that wrote in admitted that he was not conservative. I think most of the conservatives posting here have agreed that its perfectly fine for this to factor into the hiring decision. Show me which conservative disagrees.
(Most of the conservatives posting are just using this as a reason to bag on liberals some more.)
The problem with the notion that someone who puts FedSoc on their resume is “looking for a dubious political connection” is that the liberal hiring attorney will not consider seeing the American Constitution Society on a resume as a political statement. Why? Because the ACS is obviously right about everything – they don’t speak of politics, but of truth.
Typical liberal intolerance – liberal like me or else.
The fact that the Federalist Society is *not* technically a political organization makes it more ethically acceptable to reject someone because of their membership. Joining the Federalist Society is either a reflection of a person’s legal views, and thus a big component of their job and judgment as a lawyer, or a calculated decision to try to bank on a connection with conservatives who require membership a condition of hiring, in which case judging the person based on their membership is both fair and expected.
The comparison to DOJ hiring is off the mark, because Monica didn’t just rely on resumes but googled people who didn’t flaunt their political views, and politicized hiring for low level position is specifically prohibited at DOJ. Biglaw doesn’t have a similar policy.
Discriminating on the basis of viewpoints is illegal. Further, I have never seen a mere listing of “member, Federalist Society” on a resume I was reviewing. It is usually only there if the person was an officer (e.g., “president, Federalist Society), which is a mark of distinction that deserves mention on a resume for the time and logistical commitment alone, regardless of your views on the ideology of the organization.
When is 103 going to learn not to double-click “post comment.” Grr.
Joke:
You know the difference between a wealthy educated white northern liberal and a working class white southern conservative?
The white southern conservative actually knows black / Latino people.
It’s perfectly fine to discriminate against conservatives because they’re mouth-breathing retards.
DEY TUK UR JAAABSS!!!
It’s perfectly fine to discriminate against conservatives because they’re mouth-breathing retards.
DEY TUK UR JAAABSS!!!
Liberals’ agendas only exist because they are contingent upon failure. If you eliminate poverty, then it’s no longer a party platform. Liberals talk about curing poverty, but actually doing so runs contrary to what liberals need to do in order to remain liberal. Democrats were, are, and forever shall remain members of the party of secession, Jim Crow, discrimination, atomic bomb droppers, quagmire war entrants, bridge to nowhere builders, and clown politics.
82
Your stupidity is amazing. If I as a finance guy (with a JD) think you as a communist asshole won’t do your finest to defend my raping and pillaging in the capital markets then why would I hire you.
Go sit in a circle jerk and bitch about how the government needs more money for the poor and ask yourself where it’s coming from. . . Short answer me.
liberals are a bunch of hypocrits who want to save both whales and terrorists.
112- Madame Speaker, if I told you once, I told you a thousand times, you should not be posting on the net.
CHECK YOU RESUMES
6, agreed. However, any good federalist would also agree that a private business should be allowed to not hire anyone for any reason or no reason at all, including what are currently considered to be “protected classes.”
“Discriminating on the basis of viewpoints is illegal”? Huh? People always uncontrollably discriminate based on viewpoints -our own and others. If nothing else, that is a practical way to make friends with people you like. Read some Gladwell, start with Blink. You might mean discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal – that’s a whole different concept and has nothing to do with “viewpoints.”
That said, as it reflects judgment, taking into account the extreme and fanatical off-the-charts beliefs of others is perfectly rational and legit when considering whether to offer a biglaw position. If this person denied the Holocaust, for example, or was a white supremacist, that exemplifies extremely poor judgment (among other things) and would indicate they were not qualified for the position. Some ideologies that are more middle of the road might be a closer call though.
“Discriminating on the basis of viewpoints is illegal”? Huh? People always uncontrollably discriminate based on viewpoints -our own and others. If nothing else, that is a practical way to make friends with people you like. Read some Gladwell, start with Blink. You might mean discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal – that’s a whole different concept and has nothing to do with “viewpoints.”
That said, as it reflects judgment, taking into account the extreme and fanatical off-the-charts beliefs of others is perfectly rational and legit when considering whether to offer a biglaw position. If this person denied the Holocaust, for example, or was a white supremacist, that exemplifies extremely poor judgment (among other things) and would indicate they were not qualified for the position. Some ideologies that are more middle of the road might be a closer call though.
Here is the difference, as a libertarian, I can discuss issues with conservatives, liberals, socialists, and people of all political stripes in a rational manner. While I may disagree vehemently with them, I do not “hate” them as a person.
To a liberal, an opposing viewpoint is automatically seen as “hateful” of something. Anyone who disagrees with them is seen as having a fundamental character flaw and needs to be marginalized. Liberals cannot divorce the personal from the political. Many conservatives are just as bad, but most do not resort to racial slurs and emotional ad hominem attacks when debating issues with people with divergent viewpoints.
I tend to agree that there is nothing wrong with a private employer discriminating based on political viewpoints. I do, however, believe it is morally wrong and does a great disservice to a business.
When a billion dollar business wants to hire your fancy “Big Law” firm to fight a takings case or an anti-trust suit, who will be the better advocate?
88: Conservatives do, but have to face the reality that because of all the PC protected groups, there’s inherently going to be a strong liberal slant to hiring, even to start. Ex, what percentages of blacks, homosexuals, and women voted for Obama vs. the percent of whites, Christians, and men voted for McCain? Conservatives are already at a disadvantage, as well, because of the strong “diversity” pressure to up the numbers of the former groups, by any means, even if there are much more qualified members of the latter groups applying as well.
In other words, yes, conservatives believe in free market hiring, but the current situation is so tilted against them because of PC discrimination laws and diversity initiatives that they have no choice but protest this type of treatment against them.
26, great post. However, the liberals don’t extend their own logic to any conservative issue. For example, liberals would fight tooth and nail against a law prohibiting employers or businesses from not allowing employees/customers to carry firearms into the building. They would claim, “It’s a private business! Employers have the right to ban guns!” but of course, if you tried to argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race or religion, they would get their liberal panties in a bunch.
More importantly, is Loyola 2L really working at the IRS these days? That’s nuts if true.
Unless you are applying for a partisan job like a job on the Hill as a counsel to a GOP or Democratic politician, it is wise to leave anything with a political overtone off the CV like the Federalist Society or some liberal school group. While I personally am a liberal, when I have interviewed people I have been more interested in their qualifications for the job and whether they click with me on a personal level than the person’s politics. I think a diversity of political views is a good thing – keeps people intellectually honest. Still, it is better to keep a CV non-partisan. Why make the politics an issue at all.
109 – I learned that lesson, as most of us did, the first time I posted. This site has a bug in its software, and has had the same bug for years. Don’t you think it is time they address the issue?
94 – so you’re saying you think the attorney should be allowed to do this, but I am just going to bitch bout it, whine about it, hope that I can intimidate people into not discriminating against me, and use this as a platform to promote an anti-liberal agenda? Great. Look, if you don’t like where lack of regulation leaves you, perhaps you need to reconsider it. Otherwise, stop bitching unless you enjoy this pointless masturbation.
Many lawyers have trouble making conversation, this leads to awkward silences, lost opportunities, and lost confidence. There are three main elements to great conversation that all revolve around taking an interest in other people. They are 1) Listening-listen to what the other person is saying and look for seeds (seeds-=things they may want to elaborate on) and ask questions about those seeds. 2)Asking/Answering Questions- If they ask a question, give an elaborate answer (more than one word) so they can ask you more questions OR if you are shy repeat the question back to them OR ask a question about one of the seeds they mentioned earlier. 3) Empathize – match experiences with a person, this really helps facilitate conversation.. If they tell you about a situation you respond with a story about a similar situation. If you practice the aforementioned skills every day with every conversation you have you will be able to converse easily with anyone, anywhere.
Sarah Lawrence men’s hoops team had a HUGE win over Hampshire College this weekend. Go Gryphons!
http://www.slc.edu/news-events/sports/index.html
D’Brickishaw Ferguson is pleased with this.
Nice one 110! I tend to lean more liberal than convervative, but you make a funny point.
106: Exactly, and I strongly doubt that conservative attorneys would discriminate against a liberal applicant who posted ACS on his/her resume. It’s extremely petty and closeminded.
Some other posters have nailed the difference between modern conservatives and modern liberals. Most conservatives are capable of disagreeing with you civilly, but still managing to find common ground and not holding the disagreement against you as a person. But oh liberals, if you disagree on any given point (affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, etc.), you’re almost instantly branded a bigot, racist, homophobic, and blackballed not only in their mind, but they’ll make efforts to let all their liberal friends know about your backward beliefs as a form of social ostracization.
If you don’t believe me, go to any college campus or crowded city area, and hold up an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-affirmative action, or pro war in Afghanistan sign, and see the type of reaction you receive. You’ll probably get spit on several times — whereas moonbat liberals regularly protest the other way and rarely ever get accosted.
63, global warming is a hoax. The fact that liberals have to shriek that it’s “settled” proves to me that it’s not.
123, can you possible re-phrase that in the form of a quintuple negative?
I HATE the argument that liberals are evil because they don’t tolerate conservative view points. It’s complete garbage.
First of all, certain viewpoints – regardless of political affiliation – should not be tolerated. For example, discriminating against minorities, INCLUDING GAY PEOPLE, is not acceptable. That’s not something about which reasonable people can disagree. Civil rights are not up for debate. There is only one viewpoint: respect everyone for who they are.
Second, just because liberals disagree with conservative viewpoints does not mean that they are intolerant of conservative viewpoints. Disagreement does not equal intolerance!
114 – I’m sorry, but you lost me in that rant of yours. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
82
114 – I’m sorry, but you lost me in that rant of yours. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
82
This entire post is a ploy to draw the flame war away from the NU story by bringing angry conservatives and defensive liberals here instead.
Why do gay men love glory holes so much?
hahaha, 104. Those are supposed to be prestigious alumni? A WH chief of staff is the only on of any import, and that is only very recently. No serious person thinks that Sarah Lawrence produces important people in any appreciable numbers.
41, 43, fuck you guys. It’s nice to have Lat writing to balance out the liberal bullshit Elie spits out while he chews his bacon.
9 More Principles Liberals Don’t Agree With (9/12 Project):
1. America Is Good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
[This is the ONLY debatable one whatsoever that liberals might agree with]
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Serious question: During college I interned with a senator from my home state. I tend a bit to the left while the senator identified as a moderate Republican, but I chose to work with the senator for the exposure to political issues in my home state and because of my interest in the legislative process. Should I put the internship on my resume? Will employers see it as an endorsement of a political viewpoint?
135, you just proved Lat’s point you imbecile.
I deplore the fact that I could be denied employment for my political views, but I would defend a company to the ends of the earth to uphold its legal right to do so
143: Better to have something on there, where you describe the skills you acquired, and the projects you worked on instead of a hole on your resume. (In my opinion)
82/137
The point I am making is that you disparage conservative lawyers by saying they could not make it in finance. If the people in finance (and amazing amount of whom are liberals FYI) think that all their transaction lawyers are liberals who don’t want to help them make money, then why should they hire you.
Since you are a liberal and therefore want to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, I instructed you to join several of your friends in a useless and pointless meeting where you lament the need for more wealth to redistribute, but don’t know where it is going to come from.
114
70 –
1) You’re a twat.
2) Your writing sucks.
3) Your TTT degree blows (see #2).
4) You’re a twat.
– not 60
135: Ah, the typical liberal “objective right” fiction. We can’t respect your viewpoint because there are some objectively wrong positions that *gasp* happen to be all of yours!
Pal, if anything, there’s government sanctioned reverse discrimination — it’s called affirmative action. But, you don’t give a crap if an Irish guy (using as example because discriminated against in history and had nothing to do with slavery, etc.) loses a college spot or a job offer to a minority applicant.
And, re: disagreement vs. intolerance, blackballing someone for a job (this situation, Thiogate) because of their beliefs goes beyond mere disagreement. As posted before, you can disagree with whatever the hell you want, but when it rises to the point of economic / career retaliation against them, you’ve lost the civil disagreement defense to stand on.
141 – I agree it is nice to have some ideological balance in these pages (Elie = liberal, Lat = conservative).
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals ask this question of an ethicist, and conservatives just discriminate politically without asking anyone. I don’t discriminate against conservatives – just douchebags, and it happens that the two groups’ Venn diagrams largely overlap.
100 -
(1) Anything that suggests that there may be a difference between the races (they claim diversity is a strength, but then make it a sin to discuss any differences)
What differences (other than skin color) are there?
(2) Anything that suggests there may be a difference between the sexes
What differences (other than the ability to have a baby) are there?
(3) Teaching children about God in school (teaching them about sex is okay though)
And conservatives don’t tolerate teaching sex and birth control in school.
(4) Teaching children conservative values in school (teaching them liberal values is okay though)
What specific values, other than abstinence being the only acceptable form of birth control?
(5) Hurting people’s feelings
Is there something wrong with that?
(6) Smoking tobacco (drugs are okay though).
I think the problem is not the smoking, its the getting people hooked on something without owning up to that fact. Drugs acknowledge that you can get hooked on them.
(7) Any suggestion that America is better than other countries.
Haven’t heard this one before, but at least when it comes to healthcare, I don’t think so.
(8) Anything that suggests one type of behavior is better than another type of behavior.
Oh and conservatives aren’t intolerant of those against their points of view regarding behavior?
(9) The rights to carry a gun
And conservatives are intolerant of any sort of regulation regarding said gun. They’d do away with gun registration, background checks and permits if they could get away with it.
(10) The right to hire the best man for the job.
When one’s standards for “best man” are narrowly limited to the most upper class white man you can find, then yes.
144 – I’m sorry, but there is no such thing as equal opportunity of ideas. It’s not okay to believe, for example, that Hitler was a good person and the holocaust was a positive event in world history. Those are not respectable, or tolerable, viewpoints. The same goes for any restriction of a minority’s civil rights.
Lat was the VP of the Yale Federalist Society. See NYT profile:
“After graduating in 1996, [Lat] went straight to Yale Law School, where he became vice president of the campus’s Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/technology/22njCOVER.html?pagewanted=all
135, I don’t think that reasonable people can disagree that punitive taxes are unfair and immoral. I also don’t think reasonable people can believe in gun control. See, I can play this game too.
I agree 35. Certain viewpoints – regardless of political affiliation – should not be tolerated. For example, killing babies. Ohhhh…see what I just did there. I am actually pro-choice, but so much of what is “intolerable” depends on how you define it. For many, the discrimination you seek to prevent is perpetuated by your methods. Not that I disagree with you, but you lull yourself into a false sense of moral superiority by claiming that those opposing you have “intolerable” view-points.
Oh, and anyone that says that Conservatives can handle different viewpoints better than liberals is full of shit. Look how the Republicans are tearing their party apart as we speak, because some people aren’t nearly conservative enough (Example: Lindsey Graham being accused of being a RINO). Both movements are full of intolerant douchebags, who are often incapable of seeing the other side or finding common ground.
I hate you all.
Oh, and anyone that says that Conservatives can handle different viewpoints better than liberals is full of shit. Look how the Republicans are tearing their party apart as we speak, because some people aren’t nearly consertave enough (Example: Lindsey Gramhn being accused of being a RINO). Both movements are full of intolerant deuchbags, who are often incapable of seeing the other side or finding common ground.
I agree 135. Certain viewpoints – regardless of political affiliation – should not be tolerated. For example, killing babies. Ohhhh…see what I just did there. I am actually pro-choice, but so much of what is “intolerable” depends on how you define it. For many, the discrimination you seek to prevent is perpetuated by your methods. Not that I disagree with you, but you lull yourself into a false sense of moral superiority by claiming that those opposing you have “intolerable” view-points.
Oh, and anyone that says that Conservatives can handle different viewpoints better than liberals is full of shit. Look how the Republicans are tearing their party apart as we speak, because some people aren’t nearly conservative enough (Example: Lindsey Graham being accused of being a RINO). Both movements are full of intolerant douchebags, who are often incapable of seeing the other side or finding common ground.
I hate you all.
Oh, and anyone that says that Conservatives can handle different viewpoints better than liberals is full of shit. Look how the Republicans are tearing their party apart as we speak, because some people aren’t nearly consertave enough (Example: Lindsey Gramhn being accused of being a RINO). Both movements are full of intolerant deuchbags, who are often incapable of seeing the other side or finding common ground.
114 – sorry, I’m still not grasping this….
155 – There is a distinct difference between holding a belief that discriminates against a group of people because of how they are born and holding a belief about tax policy or gun control. There’s no comparison whatsoever.
143, you clearly are from Rhode Island, and no one wants to hire you anyway.
114 – you are going to need to use one/two syllable words mixed in with some slang for 82
151: Yes, liberals ask the question of an ethicist, receive the morally upstanding answer that they didn’t want, and then STILL choose to discriminate. What’s your point? If anything, it looks worse that the guy still decided not to recommend any FedSoc candidates after receiving the columnist’s advice, because it comes off more like he just was trying to justify discriminating against them and would have done so regardless of the columnist’s reply.
I am liberal and many of my clients are very conservative in their political views. It would be stupid for me to make my political views an issue for them – I like doing work for them and I think they like the work I do. I think they know I am liberal, but I don’t push my views down their throats, nor do I take the bait when the big Obama bashing comes down.
I think the question above is worded in a way to garner more no votes. I don’t think lawyers should be judged on their political leanings, but how they choose to express those leanings is important.
I’d ding the applicant for poor judgment (or, at the very least, poor luck having me as an interviewer) if he/she put fedsoc membership on his/her resume. It’s one thing if it’s a leadership position, and demonstrates something of value…but mere membership suggests that an applicant put that on his/her resume as a signaling device to like-minded attorneys at OCI. DING!
Would you put your country club membership, or your church membership, or your party affiliation, or your gym membership on your resume? Generally, no, because they don’t evidence anything relating to your value as an employee, and only contribute to illustrating your personal values and ideologies. If you want to risk it, by putting that information on your resume, then risk having people judge you for it. Besides, if you have enough space on your resume to list fedsoc, then you clearly have a lack of more worthwhile things to put on there…
I actually haven’t had many experiences with conservatives who can disagree politely, lately. The ones I am friends with can, yes, but they’re also in favor of stupid shit like bombing Iran to the stone age while getting its policies re: women confused with those in Saudi Arabia.
Other things I hate: ATL commenting system and my poor typing/spelling skills.
156/157
Can someone kindly explain to me how “hispanics” have been “historically disadvantaged” yet Irish have not?
Many thanks,
Wow, the things you learn in this comments section…1) All “liberals” think exactly alike. 2) All “conservatives” think exactly alike. Now, that’s the kind of good, old-fashioned prejudice and bigotry that made this country great! A heary “fuck you” to all extremists. And the a-hole who touted his membership in the Federalist Society? Got what’s coming to him, imho. ‘Cause I am certain no good, God-fearing conservative would ever, ever draw generalizations from the actions of a few liberals…never…happened.
just for the record, – if the nuremberg trials were going on today, the liberals would be arguing that they should take place in U.S. federal court to ensure that the defendants had rights as human beings…
any arguement?
I have the misfortune of being a liberal from one of the reddest Red States (Utah). While I am more than willing to keep my politics in my pocket while at work, there are things on my resume that suggest my true feelings.
I have found it absolutely impossible to get a break from most Utahns (BYU or Utah grads) who work in larger cities. In 90 of cases, they are Republicans and then some, and they are totally uninterested in helping anyone who thinks differently.
So, I disagree that liberals are the real menances. And I have little sympathy for those Federalist society types who can’t find love among these people. Yea. It sucks. But it happens to everyone!
I’m very impressed with those of whom are able to discern these non-axiomatic characteristics of liberals and conservatives. I wish that I had your perspicuity; my ignorance only reveals to me groups of individuals with disparate beliefs.
Can someone kindly explain to me how aborting a three month old fetus is not killing a baby? Many thanks,
Since when has “conservative” become conflated with “religious wacko”?
- Conservative atheist
167: Not to mention the Asians who were used as virtual slave labor to construct the transcontinental railroad, and who weren’t allowed to immigrate to the United States for significant chunks of the 20th century.
“Historically disadvantaged” is hugely subjective, and in the eyes of many liberals, basically means groups that collectively haven’t been able to better themselves. Newsflash: almost every new immigrant / racial group started at the bottom. It’s just that the ones who managed to work themselves up despite discrimination (Irish, Italians, Asians, Jews), we just rewrite history to say they weren’t as discriminated against as blacks and hispanics.
163 raises an important point. As an in-house attorney, I don’t care about the political views of my outside counsel, as long as those views are reasonably mainstream. I would, however, decline to use an outside attorney who discriminated against potential hires or subordinates because of their political views. Of course, NAME WITHHELD knows this, just as she knows that discriminating against fedsoc members is unethical. That’s why she withheld her name in the first place.
Notable alumnae/i from Regent University:
Bob McDonnell
Monica Goodling
Nicole Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_University#Noted_alumni
171 – that’s exactly what some elitist liberal from harvard would say! take your stinkin’ education and fancy words and GET OUT!
I think law firms should hire conservatives so long as they are either queer or negro, better if they’re both. Otherwise, only liberals who like taking it from behind from conservative queers or negroes.
17 -
What part of the traditional definition are you hoping to save? Till death do us part? Treating the wife as legal chattel? The impossibility of raping one’s wife? Or just the one penis, one vagina part? Do hermaphrodites traditionally get to marry themselves?
I think our disparate political agendas are overshadowing the larger issue here: how long are they going to make us wait for the next installment of Ms. Dopukil’s scintillating tail of murder, intrigue, and stilted, artificial dialogue????
Mystal eats 3 month old fetus for lunch all the time, its no big deal.
181 nailed it.
13,
The story of Noah’s Arc is in the Torah. How many gentiles do you know named Noah?
9 More Principles Liberals Don’t Agree With (9/12 Project):
1. America Is Good.
Well, that depends. If you just blindly define something as good without any analysis, you’re an idiot.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
Some of the best people I know have been atheists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Mormoms . . . but whether they believe in a god or gods or not isn’t what makes them good. It is there actions and the examples they set for others that make them good.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
[This is the ONLY debatable one whatsoever that liberals might agree with]
Maybe because some of us are always being honest. So it isn’t some kind of struggle not to be a liar/crook. And that’s something I believe is true for many people who are liberal or conservative.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
To a point. Doesn’t mean you can beat your kid or neglect them. You can, however, send them to a school of your choice, raise them in a religious tradition if you wish it, and opt out of things like sex ed classes that you don’t agree with. Hmmm, sounds like on this point I *love* my country more than you do for striking a wise balance.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Which is why conservatives were so against the crack/cocaine sentencing disparity . . . oh wait they were not.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
No kidding. Y’all just want to pretend away uneven playing fields.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Is paying for roads charity? Wars? Education? Food so we don’t have people starving on the street? What, pray tell, is charity? How about paying for court systems that by and large are used by large corporations to redistribute wealth? Is that charity?
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
Damn straight. See your no. 1.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Also damn striaght. Unless you commit crimes or break the law, see your no. 5.
As a libertarian member of the Federalist Society both undergrad and in law school, I think it’s important for people to realize that the Federalist Society is not just a bunch of ‘conservatives’. I’ve had many discussions while interviewing about having the Society on my resume. I was able to get offers from more liberal panels of lawyers by simply explaining I’m also a member of the ACLU and am a big proponent of personal liberty and choice. People who think the Society is just about conservative morality should go to a panel about gay marriage or legalization of marijuana. Hint: we might have more in common than you think.
174—Blacks I can understand (frankly, they’ve been enslaved by liberals post civil war). But “hispanics”? The vast majority of them were NEVER enslaved by the United States. In fact, Brazil had the largest number of African slaves originating from the triangular trade, yet, it is the United States which, for some entirely illogical reason, deems “hispanics”, including brazilians, as worthy of special treatment for affirmative action purposes.
Our system is fatally flawed and no one has the balls to admit it. Do you honestly think that Obama would call the affirmative action system what it truly is, inherently racist? Never.
181 here. I have to apologize. My poor spelling (or general confusion of homonyms) may have obscured an even larger issue: the possibility that Ms. Dopukil actually may have a tail!
172 -
You answered your own question – killing a fetus is killing a fetus. Killing a baby is killing a baby. Different words mean different things. You’re welcome.
best to keep off the soapbox, mr. lat, lest you sound like more of an idiot.
I would not hire a federalist society member or a conservative at my firm. I don’t hire idiots.
- Partner, BigLaw (Moderate)
173 – Since so-called “liberals” (actually the opposite of “liberal” thinkers) decided that the best way to combat conservative thought in the absence of better substantive argument was to malign all conservative thinkers as deluded wackos and/or evil conspirators.
Ever notice that as soon as you start having a political conversation with liberals, they almost immediately find a way to bring discrimination, racism, homophobia, etc. into the conversation even if it has no even remote relationship with the subject at hand?
That’s a conscious effort – to them, conservative = evil, so it’s ok to just smear you as a racist, homophobic, xenophobic bigot and therefore dismiss everything you say as rooted in evil intent rather than actually address your arguments. And most people are sheep, so they are easily distracted by these labels rather than seeing the change of subject and inability to address the underlying argument for what it is.
189–
Many thanks for the clarification.
172.
153, except of course, that the minority to whom you refer is a white man. I don’t see liberals protesting on behalf of white Afrikaners. I also didn’t hear anything from the liberals when the Congressional Black Caucus would not allow Steve Cohen to join solely because he was white.
187: Unless you’re Thomas, you don’t bite the hand that feeds (or fed) you. So, no, I don’t think Obama is about to start bashing affirmative action even though the system is a fucking joke and a completely affront to the ideal of no more government-sanctioned racial discrimination.
I had a miscarriage where development stopped at 8 weeks, 6 days. It was 2.16 cm long. It could not feel pain, or see, or hear or think at that stage. They aren’t very large or developed at 12 weeks (I think that’s when they hit the inch mark). So while it is very, very sad to have a miscarriage, a 12 week-old fetus is not in any way a baby.
But during the first trimester, perfectly healthy women like me have their blood volume go up 10%, are constantly exhausted and many sleep 10-14 hours a day, and frequently vomit. There are plently of jobs in this country where you cannot get accomodations for those kinds of limitations. And if you lose your job, then you really can’t support the potential future kid. So if you want abortions to go down, increase contraception and decrease other (financial) incentives to abort.
But don’t pretend it is an infant, because it isn’t.
159, I fail to see why. If your main point of contention is that race isn’t changeable, then why should religion be protected?
Disparity is a matter of economics. Plain and simple. And for some reason nobody gets that. A rich black kid has a much better playing field than his poor white/hispanic/asian/etc/etc counterpart. But wealthy liberals don’t like this framework at all because they cannot dream of kicking their lattes and volvos for dunkin donuts and fords. Liberals made me unliberal.
Conservative is the new gay. Keep it in the closet or many of your coworkers will distrust you.
I personally put Federalist Society on my resume, not because I thought it would help me (in fact, I was near-certain it would hurt me at some firms), but simply because I wanted to make sure I worked at a firm where I would be tolerated as a conservative. My experience was that at some top firms no one seemed to care about my personal politics, but that at other firms, some people did, and probably rejected me for it.
In the end, I doubt there was any value in putting Federalist Society on my resume for firm jobs (clerkships may be another matter, depending on where you want to clerk), since most of the people I ended up working with were liberal anyway, and I’m better off keeping my political opinions to myself around them.
167, they haven’t been. The fact is, affirmative action only is used for groups that can’t make it on their own, due to a combination of poor culture and low average IQ. Historical disadvantage has nothing to do with it.
4 = FTW (still)
Also, is Suzanna dead?
Disparity isn’t just a matter of economics. Although I am perfectly in favor (like most liberals) of expanding affirmative action to encompass economically disadvantaged people of every race, blacks and hispanics are still discriminated against apart from socioeconomics. Being Irish myself, (and also Eastern Euro., and my Eastern Euro. forbears were discriminated against more than my Irish ones, FTR, two were actually killed because of their “race”) I can tell you that the reason Irish have done so well is because after a couple of generations, with all of the white people intermarrying, we all look the same. As far as discrimination against Asian-Americans go, it still happens, it is just more complicated, and while some Asian immigrants in my part of the country are very privileged (i.e, the children of highly-skilled Chinese and Japanese immigrants), many are also not, i.e., the children of less-skilled Chinese immigrants, refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
For those who are interested, below is a link to the 2009-10 dance concert schedule, at Sarah Lawrence College. Should be another terrific season!
http://www.slc.edu/undergraduate/study/arts/dance/concerts.html
If your political views are particularly unpalatable to a large proportion of said firm’s clientele, then yes you should not be hired.
There is only one answer to this question. Allow me to provide it:
Yes, a law FIRM may discriminate against a candidate because most members of the firm have a belief different than the candidate. Howerver, this particular question involved a single person (Partner?) rejecting an applicant because the individual did not agree with the applican’t beliefs. THAT is a problem.
The problem with the ABA commenters is that they assume that putting this information on the application is an attempt to receive credit. Speaking as a former Fed Chapter President and VP (from a non-T14 1st tier school), I can say that is not true.
I listed my Fed Society involvement on my resume after a significant amount of thought. I was proud of this achievement (along with others), and thought: “If the FIRM (not one individual) rejects me because of my political beliefs, than it wasn’t meant to be, and I probably wouldn’t have been happy there anyway.” In this situation, the administraTTTor was making the single-handed decision, regardless of firm makeup.
What a TTTool.
I got rejected from so many interviews my 3L year, my friend bet me I could get an offer from a large, well-known liberal law firm if I pretended to be gay. I went to the interview having no intention of working at this place or getting an offer. However, after being obnoxiously happy, talking with a lisp, and saying “I feel” a number of times, I wound up with an offer. Go figure.
201-
Yes. She used her thumb and index finger to type the latest installment of her novella, but unbeknownst to her, a gay genius lawyer, living in a tent on the roof of her building, had planted a dab of bachtraxotoxin on the +/= key.
So if I am a big time client who was a member of the Federalist Society and called this firm, would they decline my business?
Just don’t tell Mr. Roper, 206!
Liberals are unable to accept that some cultures/behaviors are better than others.
Conseratives are unable to accept that their own culture/behavior may not be the best.
209 -
thank you, the world needs more three’s company references.
Abortion kills babies. That is all.
-TIA [That Is All]
Between Sarah Lawrence College and Regent University, where would you guess
Tony Hale (aka, Buster Bluth from Arrested Development)
did his post-graduate work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_%22Buster%22_Bluth#Buster_Bluth
Law school kills people. That is all
if discriminating against conservatives is wrong, I don’t want to be right
5–Tim Tebow=crying baby bitch. God wasn’t so great for you on Sat, was he you crying, overrated baby bitch. I hope you get drafted into the NFL. You are going to get so cornholed when you get there.
Clearly you do not want to be right, 215.
217 FTW!
wait…
Is it really true that all liberals are dumb as shit?
169 — Why do conservatives always derive absurd conclusions based entirely on their prejudices and/or Fox News talking points? The current “Nuremberg” trial of alleged Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk is in Germany. At last check, no liberals were protesting. Duh!
The bitches at Sarah Lawrence like to take it up the ass, but only from liberal guys with small dicks.
218 here. Glad I added the “wait…” at the end of my previous comment.
After reading 219, I want to retract what I said about 217. 219’s comment is so much better than 217’s, it’s laughable.
219 FTW!!
196– Kindly do not attempt again to procreate.
210- Brilliant!
170- You really should have some sympathy for them, since you’ve probably been in the same place. If there’s anything these comments illustrate, it’s that the important distinction is tolerance vs intolerance, intellectually honest v. hack. Not left vs. right. I think most people realize this on some level. So I give credit to someone from a conservative milieu who ends up a thoughtful liberal, as well as someone from a liberal milieu (law) who ends up a thoughtful conservative. It’s not about whether the person’s right or wrong so much as what it says about one’s critical faculties. Of course, the danger is some people get carried away with contrarianism and can be nutso and strident, too–but they’re easy enough to spot.
All of this is why 92 is a fucktard and Lat is awesome. Being a gay Republican probably means you’ve thought threw your political beliefs, don’t you think?
196– Kindly do not attempt again to procreate.
218 and 222 here. Once again, I called it too soon.
217 and 219 were clever and all, but we have a new leader in the clubhouse.
221 FTW!!!
210- Brilliant!
170- You really should have some sympathy for them, since you’ve probably been in the same place. If there’s anything these comments illustrate, it’s that the important distinction is tolerance vs intolerance, intellectually honest v. hack. Not left vs. right. I think most people realize this on some level. So I give credit to someone from a conservative milieu who ends up a thoughtful liberal, as well as someone from a liberal milieu (law) who ends up a thoughtful conservative. It’s not about whether the person’s right or wrong so much as what it says about one’s critical faculties. Of course, the danger is some people get carried away with contrarianism and can be nutso and strident, too–but they’re easy enough to spot.
All of this is why 92 is a fucktard and Lat is awesome. Being a gay Republican probably means you’ve thought threw your political beliefs, don’t you think?
196– Kindly do not attempt again to procreate.
Just putting “Federalist Society” or any other organization on your resume, when you did nothing other than sign up is a fail. If you do, you are trying to get an advantage for something you did not work for and deserve to strike out. Some interviewer is going to ask about the organizations on your resume and you better be able to say you did more than eat the free pizza.
Also, If you are the slightest bit political you have to know what to emphasize when. If you are an active member of the society you ought to know which partners at the firm are also members of the society and target them. Leave it out when you don’t know or say you organized a debate on an issue, without saying which side you came down on.
- Chapter President, The Federalist Society: hosted Sen. Arlen Spector; Gen. Crosby Saint ret. Supreme Allied Commander Nato Forces Europe during fall of Soviet Union; Scott Bullock; Alan Gura and 5 others. Organized and Moderated Federalist Society Symposium on Sarbanes Oxley.
206 – i tried the same experiment at one of my interviews, except i dressed up in black-face and showed up 15 minutes late pretending to be an african american. as far as i recall, i don’t believe i got a call back.
“threw” = “through”
Fuck spelcheck
- 224
It is appropriate to list membership in the Federalist Society, the ACS, or the ABA on a resume, particularly if you have held a committee or leadership position, and particularly if you are a law student and thus light on actual working experience. All of those organizations are geared towards lawyers and focus on legal issues. Yes, all three have some political overtones (yes, the ABA is considered by many to be a liberal organization), but they are primarily professional organizations for lawyers that provide opportunities for networking and professional development.
Listing membership in other types of political organizations is of more dubious relevance. Being a member of the College Republicans or the ABC County Democrats is much more explicitly political than FC or ACS, and lot further afield from legal experience. And listing membership in any sorts of non-law related clubs, political or not, starts to look like filler.
For private law firms, it isn’t illegal in most places to not hire someone based on political views. But unless the views in question are so far outside the mainstream as to be a distraction, it is really stupid not to hire someone because you suspect you would not agree with them on political topics.
Federalist Society isn’t political!
That’s a riot!!
Good one Lat!
If a gay candidate were to put on his/her application that she were a member of a Gay/Lesbian organization, they would be doing so to take advantage of the fact that there is a desire by a firm to hire gays/lesbians. I find nothing wrong with this. I would find it wrong if the firm refused to consider an applicant because of membership in an organization.
Sir Denis Eton-Hogg, formerly of Polymer Records, had great difficulty finding a job after putting on his resume that he had run a camp for pale young boys. I’m not surprised. Keep it off your job application if it could be objectionable to your target employers.
Haha, #9 nailed it.
Why I parted ways with conservatives:
1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)
2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)
3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)
4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)
5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)
6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)
7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)
8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)
9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)
10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)
And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.
I won’t be going over the cliff with them.
African Americans make excellent F-16 pilots.
I put that I hated Tim Tebow on my resume and the only firms that didn’t give me an offer were filled with crying little bitches.
Go ahead and don’t hire Federalists because we may be libertarian or conservative.
Nevermind the fact that Fed Soc students think critically important topics and attend primo lectures and debates concerning current events (which is more than can be said about the Constitution Society).
As the hiring partner so eloquently said, “FIE ON THE FOOL!”
Surprisingly, the answer to 213 is Regent U.
And all this time I thought “funny conservative” was an oxymoron…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Hale
239, were they also firms that explicity relied on Jesus in helping them seek justice for their clients?
It is NEVER wrong to discriminate against conservatives, never.
Is it wrong? No.
Is it stupid? Yes.
242–indeed they did attempt that approach, but were misguided in their business model because, while Jesus may arguably be about justice, lawyers rarely have anything to do with justice–so they were praying to the wrong guy.
237: You were never a conservative if that’s what you believe. Good schtick though.
Sorry about your tiny pink liberal dick, bro.
196 – sorry for your loss.
237 stole that from the clown who runs Littlegreenfootballs.
196: I agree. The government and citizens of the U.S. are forcing all of these single women to have sex. It’s shameful. If only there were something that they could to prevent being pregnant. Ahh, there isn’t. The only way is to get the government to pay for something. I just wish there was another way.
Also, I feel that since midgets (AKA little people) are small versions of regular sized people, we should be able to kill them too.
228,
The majority of women who have abortions are already mothers.
Deal with it.
So, I shouldn’t procreate because I disagree with you about the personhood embryos and fetuses, having actually carried one myself and being familiar with their developmental stages? You’re making an argument from ignorance and inexperience. Exactly how is that supposed to be persuasive?
250 is Exhibit A as to why most law firms don’t hire conservative law students. They’re just not that bright.
250,
When contraception fails, your argument fails to explain why people shouldn’t be allowed to have abortions. Now you’re trying to shoehorn in a controversial red herring, who pays.
Also, the reason for mentioning the size of embryos and fetuses is that people tend to forget how small and how undeveloped they are. They cannot feel pain. They have only rudimentary senses and a rudimentary heart. They cannot see or hear. They do not have higher brain activity. They do not have those essential things that make the rest of us living breathing human beings. Aha, you might say, but if “left alone” they could develop into a living human being that is fully functional. To that I say 1) not always, 2) they aren’t there yet, so there’s no harm in destroying them, 3) every individual egg and sperm cell is also living and also has unique DNA and will die if it does not meet up with a gamete of the opposite type. There is no reason for there to be any more warm fuzzy feelings about the one egg that gets fertilized as opposed to the hundreds that never do.
Unless you believe that “every sperm is sacred.”
196 – very sorry for you loss. My wife is in the first trimester.
While this is not the place for a full debate of the issue, your post sounds a lot like Brave New World–tiers of humanity based on cognitive capacity with commensurate legal protections.
More protections for higher “humanities”.
I’m sure glad I’m not a Beta.
- Alpha Plus
206-
For real? I’m a 3L at Columbia without a job offer, and I’d be half tempted to try that.
My answer to the question:
There’s nothing wrong with not hiring FedSoc people in any situation. The reason is because there are always many highly qualified applicants, and so any decision on who to hire would be arbitrary anyway. I also don’t think it would be wrong to use as hiring factors the sports teams applicants like, whether an applicant went to the hiring partner’s alma mater, any other activities applicants engage in (chess, hiking, drinking), or any other aspect of applicants’ personalities. The fact is that we have an employers’ market for law firm associates, so they can always find someone who is highly qualified for any job, who also has a personality that fits with the hiring partner or the firm. In fact, looking at these characteristics should make everyone happier, as applicants get sorted into the firms that best fit their personalities.
While I think it is always appropriate to consider political leanings for the reasons above, I believe that three additional factors can affect how strongly the ideology of an applicant should be weighed. The first is the area of law the practice is in- some legal work tends to be politically charged (labor, etc.) The second is whether the applicant openly stated their political leanings on a resume (by listing FedSoc or etc.) and, if so, did they have a leadership position. The third factor is the size of the law firm and of the hiring partner’s working relationship with whichever applicant who is hired.
In summary- I think it’s always acceptable to look at an applicant’s politics, just as it’s appropriate to look at sports team loyalty or to favor one’s undergraduate college. But it may sometimes be more appropriate than at other times.
Yes, I’m a liberal, but the way I’m thinking about this, I don’t think my answer is unfair to conservatives. Conservative or libertarian hiring partners may not want to hire liberals, and that’s fine. People want to hire people they like. End of story.
253: So at what point do you draw the line? And before you answer that, explain to me why you should be able to decide who lives and who dies?
every sperm is sacred
every sperm is great
if a sperm is wasted
god gets quite irate
On the margins, it’s up to a woman, her partner, and their doctor.
I can’t imagine that any good Federalist would want the government to make that decision on behalf any individual.
Would they?
- not 253
Once I’m in a position of power, anywhere, I certainly plan on discriminating against job applicants on the basis of their political beliefs. In my twenty-nine years on this earth (four in college, four in politics and three in law school), I have come to the conclusion that conservatives are generally not that bright, are unable to appreciate analytical nuance and complexity and have a difficult relationship with the physical and social sciences, especially when science conflicts with their worldview. Mind you, I’m not referring to all conservatives I’ve met, just a solid majority – enough to convince me that my law firm or business or organization will do fine without hiring them.
Tim Tebow thought he was an Alpha, but some boys from Tuscaloosa taught him that he is most assuredly a Beta at most. I guess you will have to fall back on your education. With the best degree in Family, Youth and Community Sciences (that really is his major) that you can get in Alachua County, you would think that Best Buy or someone might hire you. Either that or you can’t teach Home Economics at the local middle school.
I put in a ‘depends,’ becuase some advocacy-type law firms might have to discriminate in order to provide good service. Mind you – I’m not a lawyer so may be letting my imagination go wild in thinking up possible types of law firms . .but . . The Law Firm for the Defense of Reid, Dodd, Pelosi et al should be able to avoid hiring Republicans. A Law Firm for the Catholic Church shouldn’t have to hire Robert Sherman.
If no such law firms exist, please change my vote to “no.” A general purpose law firm should hire general purpose people. A law firm purporting to be general purpose, but in practise only having liberals on its staff, would likely be lousy at defending someone on a second amendment case. IF a law firm does discriminate in such a manner, they should clearly state so at minimum, so clients have the option of finding more competent, professional attorneys to represent their views.
& I will throw out a question while I’m here – what about the “creed” business in the anti-discrimination laws? Does a political affiliation count as a creed?
Thanks for your time and bandwidth.
Just because its on your resume doesn’t open it up for discrimination. Tons of people I know have BLSA on their resume and no one with any sense of reason could suggest you should be able to discriminate on that. Political leanings are certainly different than race but both have nothing to do with how well you are able to practice law and as such, should not be grounds for rejection.
Strict Scrutiny sucka’s
253, how do you know that fetuses can’t feel pain?
256,
You’re the one saying it is even a who. I am saying it is no more a who then the eggs I shed every month are a who. Because it cannot yet think and it cannot feel pain. And I would say viability. Because that’s a good balancing point between the physical demands on the gestational parent (which are pretty damn significant, and lead to permanent changes after a certain point in the pregnancy) and the emerging ability to think and feel pain and exist in the world as a person.
But what I lost was not a person. It did not have a personality. It did not feel. It was less neurologically complex than my pet turtle as a kid.
I’m sure all the women on this thread have shed some pretty genetically gifted eggs. Ah, for what might have been.
255 – what if i was on the hiring committee somewhere and recommended that the firm reject each person that mentioned they were a member of the Jewish Law Students Association? would that be acceptable?
All those people advocating discrimination based on political leanings ironically are the ones pushing for other types of “diversity.” I would venture to guess that ideological diversity is as valuable (if not more so) as diversity based on race or sexual orientation.
All conservatives and libertarians are asking for is equal treatment not a preference. Is that really so bad?
And as Lat pointed out there is ideological diversity amongst FedSoc members. At many of the t-14 schools, many of the FedSoc members are very socially liberal and in some cases even Democrats who just want to encourage diversity of thought.
263,
Because their brains aren’t complex enough. They react to stimuli, but so do plants. Reacting to touch, for example, is called “thigmotropism.”
There is no evidence of fetal pain before the third trimester. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947
And the structure of their brains, as the review article discusses, makes it impossible.
Question for 262: does strict scrutiny apply to political affiliation?
Before you answer, I should say that I graduated from Regent University School of Law, and that we didn’t spend a ton of time on things like “Constitutional” Law.
265: that’s a Title VII violation, numbnuts. Employers can’t discriminate on the basis of religion.
This post suggests it is liberals who discriminate, but speaking with 3Ls who tried out for clerkships, when it comes to working for a federal judge, it appears the opposite is the case. A friend on FedSoc (full disclosure: I sit on the board of ACS at a top 10 law school) told me that most liberal judges will take people from across the ideological spectrum because they seem to value open debate, while many conservative judges are looking for FedSoc to appear at the top of your resume. Some conservatives even make it clear in their letter stating qualifications that they actually will not hire liberals. So I think it is quite unfair for this post to characterize liberals as discriminators when its clear that FedSoc and its judges have built as clubby and insular a society as one could imagine.
206–Brilliant! I’m gonna try pretending to be gay. I thought of the idea some time ago, but have not tried it yet. Any tips on how to sound gay? The lisp seems kindof obvious, so I’m thinking of the gay stare (with the eyes wide), and the head tilt (with maybe an eyebrow arch). Seems a no-loose situation–after you are hired, what are they gonna do if you turn out not to be gay after all–fire you cause you’re straight? Also, its tough for women to report you for sexual harassment when everyone thinks you’re gay! It seems to me there is an epidemic of firing men for trumped up sexual harassment charges–you can fire anyone that way no questions asked by just by asking some women in the office leading questions.
262, I have a sense of reason and I think that employers should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
272, just because you can type “I have a sense of reason” doesn’t make it so.
144 here again,
135/153, Are you the judge? What objective metric do you offer to ascertain what falls within the set of “respectable” or “tolerable” viewpoints?
And since you mentioned the event, I am the grandson of Holocaust survivors. I see no problem with society tolerating the views of deniers. You furthermore beg the question that certain minority groups’ claims constitute legitimate civil rights that forces opponents’ silence.
You really just don’t understand Lat’s claim, do you?
273, great argument! You win a prize for that one?
270-are you nuts?
“A friend on FedSoc (full disclosure: I sit on the board of ACS at a top 10 law school) told me that most liberal judges will take people from across the ideological spectrum because they seem to value open debate, while many conservative judges are looking for FedSoc to appear at the top of your resume.”
Your friend isn’t a judge but a fellow law student. He has no way of making such a sweeping statement. But lets look at the facts. Scalia and Alito have had plenty of liberal law clerks. I knew a liberal African-American who clerked for Thomas. I know a liberal who clerked for Kozinski. Most of the professors who clerked for Posner are liberals.
There is not a single prominent conservative who clerked for Ginsburg or Breyer. Brennan had a few conservative clerks but they were all liberal at the time of the clerkship.
Please let us know which of your Fedsoc friends obtained a clerkship with a prominent liberal judge. I would be curious.
I love liberals.
-Affirmative Action Secure (V10 law firm)
As a hiring partner, we often look for affiliates (eg: lamda, blsa, etc…) when seeking candidates to fill diversity quotas. Aside from that activities showing a candidates politcal affiliation is just that–not important.
234: But what if the hiring partner doesn’t like gays or lesbians? Can s/he use applicant’s disclosure of his/her sexual identity and community activism as a reason NOT to hire him.
If its ok to hire someone based on this, then it is just as ok to not hire them for the same reason.
Federalists crying discrimination — now i’ve seen everything
243 summarizes the position and feelings of most so-called liberals in this country: they call themselves open minded, but the truth of what they feel and practice is hate and discrimination.
Anyone who disagrees with the communist agenda deserves either death or everything short of that.
They won’t own it other than in places like this, but that is the state of our nation – a war of mediocrity against achievement, of conformism against freedom, waged using the insecure, underachieving and mediocre, who necessarily outnumber achievers (the danger of unfettered democracy), working toward a fully redistributive planned economy operating under the shell of what used to be limited government until the Supreme Court decided that almost any law or regulation whatsoever passed muster under the Commerce Clause.
Swift and Company v. U.S., NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. have paved the way for a totalitarian planned economy – if you don’t like it, you’d better find a new place to live, because the Obama kids have already won, starting early in the last century, and are just taking some time to convert the U.S. to something more like the USSR than what the founders could ever have imagined.
There’s no law whatsoever prohibiting discriminating against people for any reason other than them being a member of a protected class. That does not include political leanings. Both right and left leaning businesses are entirely free to refuse to hire or to fire people for their political beliefs. Whether or not this is a good idea, it is hte state of the law. You would think a member of the Federalist Society would support the rights of a corporation to hire as it pleases, but I guess their beliefs change depending on what’s convenient.
What 281 is trying to say is that he is a fucking idiot and wanted some excuse to call liberals communists. Also, he disagrees with some Supreme Court decisions on the scope of Congressional power.
In sum, 281 is a perfect example of why it’s economically efficient for businesses that require a high degree of intelligence to discriminate against applicants on the basis of their political beliefs.
What objective metric do you offer to ascertain what falls within the set of “respectable” or “tolerable” viewpoints?
And since you mentioned the event, I am the grandson of Holocaust survivors. I see no problem with society tolerating the views of deniers.
274 What do Jews call Uncle Toms?
Denial of documented historical fact is an ‘objective Metric.’ You went way too far to make a point.
282, liberals can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim on one hand that the government should prohibit discrimination you don’t like, and then accuse Federalist Society members of hypocrisy when they want YOUR rules applied to themselves too.
Not all conservatives are in the KKK, but KKK members are always conservatives. Funny how that works.
34 – So, ARE Republican men better in bed? I don’t know – I’ve never slept with one – but I wonder.
I work for Big Law and I if I interview a Republican, I almost always recommend against hiring him/her. I have found in my years as a lawyer that right-wing conservatives have much worse judgment than liberals. Any group of people that respect Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh/Coulter/et al. have something seriously wrong with them. Republicans 40 years ago were fine. But those today are off the reservation (see polls showing that more than half of current Republicans do not believe in Global Warming and believe President Obama was not born in the U.S.A.) I simply do not want my firm to risk its clients and its cases with people who have wacky beliefs and are not quite all there. Today’s Democrat is 40 years’ ago Republican, while Republicans have become mentally insane loons.
288, you are a moron. Global warming is a farce. The fact that many Americans still believe it is a testament to the power liberalism has over America. As for Obama not being born in the US, why won’t he produce his birth certificate?
Conservatives argue that government should step back and let individuals be governed by a sense of morality/responsibility. This worldview lacks a basic understanding of human nature. Do conservatives really think that if murder and rape were not crimes, some moral compass would prevent people from killing each other?
289 did a great job of proving 288’s point. The fact that conservatives do not want to accept the fact that indiscriminately polluting our planet is a pretty bad idea demonstrates how clueless conservatives tend to be.
No more than liberals think that politicians are acting to increase the size of government because they’re trying to help people rather than to increase their own power, 290.
Definition of a liberal: Someone who wants to take from others and give to either himself or others of his choice, but doesn’t have the balls to take from anyone directly and so votes for a government to do that work for him.
291, there are a lot of conservative environmentalists, self included. (Do you bring the recyclables they won’t process at the office home from work? I do. Been to an environmental cleanup event lately? I have. Do you bicycle to work? I do. And if you don’t, which of us is taking care of the environment, you hypocritical, worthless fuck?)
And even among those conservatives who don’t describe themselves or act as I do, I think you’d find few who think “indiscriminately polluting our planet” is ok. Your resort to gross falsification in describing conservative thought reveals the gross intellectual dishonesty typical in people who think and vote like you.
Liberals are filthy liars. They cry about personal freedom (which means their philosophy only) yet idolize scum like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon who meet with the likes of Castro and Chavez , who kill and imprison people who exercise personal freedom.
LIBERALS ARE HUMAN COCKROACHES.
On a brighter note, Ted Kennedy is still dead.
Amen 293. Most of my so called liberal friends consistently throw recyclables in the trash simply because they’re too lazy. I am also a conservative environmentalist. I recycle diligently, only buy efficient cars, and I’m in Texas. I acknowledge that sulfur pollution is bad, and causes negative things like acid rain. I just don’t buy into the anthropogenic global warming theory.
291, if you haven’t noticed, conservative and conservation share the same root.
291,
What is CLULESS is people like yourself who think, for example, that green power is the new engine of economic growth that will bring prosperity and happiness. Instead of making generalizations (like every liberal does) why not explain the benefits of how switching to solar power and the like is so great, even though it is so uneconomical, that it causes the loss of 3 or 4 jobs for every “green” job created.
I think basically saying “I am a conservative” these days without any explanation can and should be the kiss of death in hiring.
Of course there are exceptions (I have known a few nice, generous, smart, self-described Republicans), but the Republican party as a whole has become defined by total whackos like Coulter and Palin. Religious Republicans have taken over, and literal interpretations of the Bible are informing policy platforms of a party that represents roughly half the nation. Yikes.
Anyone who boasts that he is a conservative Republican these days, without any qualification or explanation, must be presumed to be a) completely ignorant of anything not broadcast on Fox News, b) fundamentalist Christian (which is like completely believing in JRR Tolkien books–fascinating, but NOT REAL), and/or c) just plain mean.
Of course, if someone is a Republican because of economic policy or judicial philosophy or something we can have an actual conversation about, I can respect that a bit more (unless I found out he voted for McCain/Palin, which is just RIDICULOUS). However, resumes don’t allow much space for explanation about why one belongs to a party or to the Fed Soc, so assumptions will be made.
If there were any doubt that liberalism has become a form of fascism, I think the comments to this post have resolved them.
Bingo 299. I like how 298 thinks that voting for McCain/Palin is ridiculous, but voting for the alien in the White House is the act of a true patriot.
299 FTW.
A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
– Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, page 218. Knopf, 2004
Sounds like modern liberalism to me. Conservatives are evil and “just plain mean” – their so-called “freedom” is only built on destroying the earth and stealing from the underprivileged! They must be purged, and should not be, e.g., hired for jobs or permitted freedom of speech. Yes we can! Unity, energy, purity! Yes we can!
294 — Go back on your meds.
302 – You forgot “Ban Fox News!”
I think Randy Cohen’s comparison between DOJ giving preference to Fedsoc members under Monica Goodling and law firms refusing to hire Republicans is way off mark for a number of reasons:
1. Degree-there were and are plenty of liberals at DOJ. Goodling was just allegedly given preference to those who shared the President’s philosophy. At biglaw, many partners and associates won’t even grant a callback to a conservative, who otherwise would be getting an offer.
2. While DOJ is officially a non-partisan gov. agency. In reality, it is a little more complicated and partisan considerations play a role in many things. Given how liberal most gov. agencies are (I summered at one), it is not surprising that a conservative President’s staff would want to hire some people who actually voted for him and wouldn’t go out of there way to undermine his policies. I assure you that the majority of DOJ lawyers under Bush were still liberal.
3. Democrats claim to celebrate diversity.
4. Many Fedsoc members aren’t Republicans. Point in case, David Lat, who supported Clinton. Fedsec members are just more conservative than their classmates.
It’s such a tired old conservative trope to label everyone they disagree with fascists.
And yet, despite being all about “personal freedom” who wants to limit abortion, contraception, truthful sex education, divorce, what type of sex is lawful.
Conservatives–if I don’t invite you into my bedroom (and I won’t thank you very much) don’t use your laws to force your way in there.
Limited government indeed. Like the limited government necessary to fight two wars?
Now, see? That’s someone pointing out hypocrisy instead of arguing by slapping on a label.
303– Go back to wetting yourself at the sight of BO.
306, do liberals give me the right to keep my money or buy a gun?
306,
Then don’t use “your laws” to force gay marriage, socialized medicine and public school indoctrination into “our lives”.
BTW, you must be the 90,000,000th idiot liberal to talk about the “two wars” that have cost about 5,000 lives while ignoring the Democratic/Liberal wars of the past century (WWI, WWII, Korean and Vietnam) that have cost over 500,000 lives.
305,
1. Degree–it was *illegal* for Goodling to give those preferences. Sorry you happened to join a profession that is by and large liberal. That doesn’t mean you get to ask for equal numbers in all things under the guise of equality.
2. See 1, this is the same argument, except for with some kind of spurious appeal to our “feelings” that people should be able to hire people who voted for them. That’s the illegal part.
3. Diversity is fine. I don’t have a problem hiring fed soc members, and have recommended that certain ones be hired. I do have a no douche rule though, and if that disparately impacts feds socs, I don’t see tha tas being my problem.
4. See above re: no douche rule.
“That doesn’t mean you get to ask for equal numbers in all things under the guise of equality.”
Why is it okay for blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims to do this?
If nothing else, the comments on this thread prove that modern “conservatism” is a political position (I dare not call it a “philosophy”) which is based on pure spite and little more.
You can’t expect to run a prosperous, democratic nation based on name-calling, religious fundamentalism, and bigotry. If you try to do so, well…don’t ask me. Go to Iran and see for yourself.
312, and modern “liberalism” is a political position based on the God of “non-discrimination.” It doesn’t matter how destructive it is, it must be the highest principle.
Has it ever occurred to any of the self-styled “conservatives” here that maybe non-conservatives would rather not hire you because they associate your views with the teabaggers, birthers, and the type of behavior demonstrated on this very blog?
If I could put names to the faces of most of the posters here, you bet your ass I wouldn’t hire the ones who post stuff like “ZOMG liberals are teh STOOPID!!!!1!!1! GLENN BECK RULZ!!11!!2!!”
314, why won’t Obama release his birth certificate? To claim that the birthers are just a group of nuts is really not the case.
I am not forcing you to be gay married. And you can always take your kids out of sex ed.
Interesting that you ignore the lives of Afghanis and Iraqis. I guess they don’t count. But my problem with modern conservatives is that you pretend you’re fiscally conservative while spending money like it is going out of style.
You’re the ones that are spending this country further and further into debt, not us. It’s kind of pathetic to whine about using government money to feed the hungry when you’re using it to contract an expensive, badly run war. But if you want to argue that the two most recent wars were as meaningful as WWI and WWII, go for it. I’ll give you Korea. Bad fucking war. But I wasn’t alive, so I couldn’t exactly protest the spending of money. I can protest that y’all pretend to be all about limited government.
312,
Bigotry? The Democrats were the pro-slavery and anti-civil rights party. And as far as running a prosperous nation….of the 10 States most likely to go insolvent in a recent report, 8 are Blue States. Just a coincidence, I guess.
315: Obama has already established that he was born in the U.S. Independent sources (e.g. FactCheck.org) have confirmed it.
Why should Obama accede to every crackpot request out there if he has already addressed the situation? He doesn’t owe you birther nutbars a goddamned thing.
316, it isn’t the wars that are spending the country further and further into debt. It is the entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the biggest culprits.
318, how has it been verified? All I’ve seen is that a Hawaii state employee has said that he is satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii, but he refuses to give the basis for that belief. And saying that he doesn’t need to prove his citizenship is very convenient. All he has to do is claim something as axiomatic, and if challenged, say that he doesn’t want to negotiate with crackpots.
318,
The 9/11 Truthers outnumber the birthers by about 50-1, so lets not get started on nutbars. Like 315 said, why not just release a certified copy of BO’s BC and put an end to all this???
321, exactly. To be quite honest, I don’t know enough to know whether he was or wasn’t born in Hawaii. But his refusal to release his birth certificate is very telling. Also, I’m starting to get the impression that even if it was 100% proven that he was not born in Hawaii was thus not a citizen, that most liberals wouldn’t care.
320, what evidence do you have that he wasn’t born in the USA? The burden of proof is on the people making the claim against the evidence that is already available.
When being a natural born citizen is an explicit requirement for the Presidency, the onus should be on the person running for President to prove that he is a natural born citizen. The federal judiciary is full of cowards who hide behind ridiculous antiquated doctrines of standing, but that doesn’t change this fact.
319,
Wrong. The military budget for this year outweighs about a decade of outlay on the programs you want to cancel. Pull the numbers. This is an expensive war.
I am a libertarian working at a very liberal firm. In many ways, I am “in the closet.” I CANNOT come out about my views for fear of losing my job. The fact of the matter is that all people discriminate on some level, the problem is that liberals often take a holier than thou approach to it. These “liberals” are the most narrow-minded, ignorant people I have ever encountered and that includes the Jesus freaks.
319, and yet Republicans are the ones that are fighting health care reform, which would CUT Medicare and Medicaid spending. Oh yeah, get yourself a map of the states that receive the most federal aid. Guess what color they are? Hint: rhymes with Ted.
325, that is an outright lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
Mandatory spending is nearly $1.9 trillion, of which the three entitlement programs total almost $1.3 trillion. That is one year. To argue that the $650 billion defense budget is greater than a decade of entitlement programs is just mind bogglingly stupid.
328 can’t read good.
327, you are clearly a deluded idiot if you think that the bloated pork health “reform” bill will reduce health care spending. Oh yeah, get yourself a map of the states that receive the most federal aid. Guess what racial group they have a very high percentage of? Hint: rhymes with quack.
325,
YOU are wrong. Entitlement programs far outweigh the military budget. Iraq and Afghanistan have cost 1 trillion dollars so far. More than that is spent annually on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc. The unfunded liability for these entitlements is in the 10’s of trillions. That’s the problem with you liberals…ALWAYS with the generalizations, never with the facts.
327,
Yes, you are extremely deluded. FYI, MASS enacted Universal Healthcare in 2006 and the costs have skyrocketed out of control. Drastic rationing is now being planned,such as, limiting the number of doctor visits per year. The same stupidity is in Obamacare. I swear to Christ, you liberals celebrate idiocy.
330, I’m going by what the bills actually say and what the experts say. You are living in a world where if you say something that means it’s true. Your typical conservative tactic of labeling something as pork means nothing to me. There are people smarter than me AND you that say it will reduce costs.
I also look at who is fighting the bill. Insurance companies and doctors have been lobbying hard against this thing. Odds are that anything those groups oppose reduces their bottom line, as in reduced costs.
Yes 332, the Massachusetts government and the federal government are comparable. You are brilliant! Next time, try comparing the plan to that of another central government. Try Canada or France maybe. That would be brillianter!!!
328, costs of the wars are not included in the budget, they are appropriations…it says so right there in your link.
334,
Uhhh, genius, they are quite comparable. If you think that what has happened in MA is not comparable because it is a State or that no comparison can be made between the US and other nations’ healthcare sysytems, then you truly are beyond help.
335, it is not included in the defense budget. It is included in the $150 billion war on terror budget right below.
333, what “experts?” The idiots at the “non-partisan” CBO or liberal advocacy groups? No one has explained how government subsidizing health plans for uninsured people could possibly reduce costs.
336, um, dumbass, I was saying that the valid comparison is the health care systems of other countries, no that of a state. Because of things like economies of scale and the resources/regulatory power available to the federal government, comparing the bills to the failure in Massachusetts is stupid. Like I said before, try Canada or France.
I realize that this comment might get buried in the chaff, but if a contributor to ATL is a member of the Fed. Soc., should there be a disclaimer? Not that most of us don’t already know, but just sayin’
Once I’m in a position of real power, I certainly plan on discriminating against job applicants on the basis of their political beliefs. In my twenty-nine years on this earth (including four in college, four in politics and three in law school), I have come to the conclusion that conservatives are generally not that bright, are unable to appreciate nuance and complexity and have a difficult relationship with the physical and social sciences, especially when science conflicts with their worldview. Mind you, I’m not referring to all conservatives I’ve met, just a solid majority – enough to convince me that my law firm or business or organization will do just fine without hiring them.
339,
Uhh, retard, what has happend in MA is a quite vaild comparison. The “cost cutting” initiatives are the same. Such as, expanding the pool by mandating that everyone buy a policy and pay into the system. A big part of Obamacare. Guess what, dumbass, people aren’t paying their premiums. What a surprise. But they are using the system with abandon and cannot be turned away. Another big surprise. But according to you, the Feds will get it right.
There are other examples and the resources/regulatory power of the Federal Government doesn’t change squat. Mass has gotten concessions from big pharam and the insurance companies just like BO has promised. Mass is a mini-me of what Obamacare will do. The result is just the same. 1 plus 1 = ??????
I went on a job interview recently where the interviewer made clear his discomfort with my conservative politics and indicated that it would otherwise be an easy decision to hire me but that he would have to think carefully about hiring a conservative. Seems kind of dumb because it is illegal to discriminate based on political beliefs in some of the jurisdictions where the firm has offices.
343: you should have interviewed in those offices.
341: right on. agreed. most conservatives just aren’t that intelligent. look at the field of history. there are scholars, a vast majority of whom are not conservative, and then there are people like ann coulter, who write “history” books about joseph mccarthy and huac. conservative “scholars” are an exercise in contradiction.
Do the liberals in this thread have any arguments that don’t consist of name-calling? It appears not.
Sure, 345. What do you want to argue about? I’m open to anything. I still haven’t seen an intelligent conservative best an intelligent liberal in anything legal or policy-related yet.
I could say the opposite, that I haven’t seen an intelligent liberal argument on anything up to this point.
“Do the liberals in this thread have any arguments that don’t consist of name-calling?”
You mean there are occasions when they have something else?
346,
You are so full of shit. Liberals do NOTHING but make generalizations. It is to be expected from people who live in an alternative universe where money grows on trees and churning out legislation will solve our problems.
Here’s the best argument against the stupidity of liberals….Of the 10 States most likely to go insolvent in a recent report, 8 are blue.
And the best argument against Democracy….having a conversation with an Obama voter.
Right on 326 – one more libertarian here and find the liberals more closed minded and judgmental and relying FAR more on idiotic stereotypes than all but a tiny proportion of the conservatives.
Such hypocrites, they call themselves “tolerant” but tolerate no dissent whatsoever and few have even thought through or researched the issues of the day enough to have a cogent conversation about them without veering immediately into ways they can label you and thereby disregard anything you could possibly say, be it religion or calling you a racist or homophobe. Left wing style “debate” in this country seems to have degenerated largely to “You disagree with me, ergo you’re evil, ergo I can ignore the substance of anything you have to say and just keep referring back to you being evil.”
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
349,
I’m sorry you are so angry. Let me see what I can do to soothe your worried mind.
(1) On liberals doing nothing but making generalizations, I don’t have much to add other than my promise that I won’t likewise engage in rampant rhetorical hypocrisy.
(2) On liberals living in an alternate universe, I am pleased to have you as an alternate neighbor.
(3) On liberals churning out legislation, I recommend you consult the track record of the formerly Republican-controlled Congress. Two can play at this game.
(3) I think you mean to say, “Here’s the best argument [supporting] the stupidity of liberals, ” not “against.” That eight blue states are likely to go insolvent out of the top ten is an interesting proposition. Please provide a cite. It is well-known that the wealthier, more liberal coastal states generally receive less back from the federal government as aid and subsidies than the poorer states, almost all of which are Republican.
(4) Is that really the best argument against democracy? I’m sure there are better ones. Perhaps we can explore.
-346
344- “and then there are people like ann coulter”
I won’t say I like Ann Coulter, but I do enjoy watching her f’k with you guys.
Your side worships Jon Stewart, considers Keith Olbermann respectable, regularly labels anybody who disagrees with you a racist/bigot/homophobe…and yet as soon as that woman starts speaking your skin turns red and you start spewing foam. God love her.
As for conservative scholars, I could list them (Sowell, Friedman, Hayek, Buckley, Burke, etc.), but let’s be honest, you haven’t read any of them much less little else that contradicts your politics and this isn’t going to start you down that route.
“(3) I think you mean to say, “Here’s the best argument [supporting] the stupidity of liberals, ” not “against.” That eight blue states are likely to go insolvent out of the top ten is an interesting proposition. Please provide a cite. It is well-known that the wealthier, more liberal coastal states generally receive less back from the federal government as aid and subsidies than the poorer states, almost all of which are Republican.”
It’s late so I can’t provide you a cite (I’m not 349), but to toss out something, the states with easily the biggest budget crises are California and New York.
“(3) On liberals churning out legislation, I recommend you consult the track record of the formerly Republican-controlled Congress.”
I’d also add Republican =/= conservative, a lesson our side has had to learn over the past 15 years.
-353
352 -
i don’t think anyone worships jon stewart or keith olbermann; i find the daily show to be amusing and stewart to be pretty effective at skewering both liberals and conservatives (though mostly conservatives because, to be fair, there’s so much more there to skewer). on the other hand, olbermann is just a blustery partisan warrior, like every personality on fox news and in the right-wing media universe.
i also disagree that my “side” labels anybody who disagrees with us racist/bigots/homophobes. of course there are many conservatives who are racist and who are homophobic, but they’re pretty easy to spot and i’d be surprised if it was actually controversial that people who make jokes about obama being a monkey or being muslim are racist, and that people who think gays will burn in hell and don’t deserve equal rights are homophobes. i’d be saddened to learn that you think those positions are respectable ones for policy discourse, but not surprised.
also, there’s a list of about 5-7 conservative “scholars” that people will list when the usual anti-intellectualism claim gets tossed around. the funny thing is that i’ve read all of them, buckley is not a scholar, and once you compare this so-called “list” to the thousands of scholars who aspire to neutrality and who also, coincidentally, tend to gravitate away from conservatism, it’s kinda like an unfair fight.
“i don’t think anyone worships jon stewart or keith olbermann;”
I disagree completely. Not so much with Olbermann, but definitely Stewart. Sorry, I can’t cite anything but watching his audience discuss the guy whenever he’s attacked–it veers towards a cult.
“stewart to be pretty effective at skewering both liberals and conservatives ”
Sorry, again, disagree completely. The old Daily Show, pre-Stewart actually was pretty good at skewering liberals and conservatives. In fact, I’d argue it even leaned conservative to an extent in that in made fun of liberals for being liberals. That’s something Stewart does far more rarely (I will give him credit for being one of the few comedians for being willing to joke about Obama). To the extent Stewart makes fun of liberals it’s usually just been re: their incompetence at fighting Republicans, it’s joking about the core of what they–something Stewart’s happy to do when it comes to the other side.
“i also disagree that my “side” labels anybody who disagrees with us racist/bigots/homophobes.”
355, you’ve really got to be kidding. I’m sorry, but this is like arguing over water being wet. I’ve known too many people from your side, and there’s not a Presidential election in three decades if not more where the Democratic Party has not implied the other guy is racist.
“many conservatives who are racist and who are homophobic, but they’re pretty easy to spot and i’d be surprised if it was actually controversial that people who make jokes about obama being a monkey”
Name me two prominent conservatives who made a joke about Obama being a Monkey. I’ll admit the Muslim thing is more common but among lay conservative, not prominent ones, and given that Barack Obama unquestionably at one time was a Muslim (yeah, he hasn’t been since he was kid), I fail to see how that’s racist even if it is offensive.
“also, there’s a list of about 5-7 conservative “scholars” that people will list when the usual anti-intellectualism claim gets tossed around”
So now I have to list every single one of them? Every economist from that past few decades who thinks Democratic policies are idiotic? Really?
“the funny thing is that i’ve read all of them,”
Okay, let’s play–on what do you disagree with Hayek and Sowell?
“buckley is not a scholar”
What grounds? The guy was as much a public intellectual as anybody on the left in the past few decades. He didn’t teach at a university, but that’s about it.
“once you compare this so-called “list” to the thousands of scholars who aspire to neutrality”
And once I compare the list to people who are actually experts in the areas they disagree with you on, much less the harder sciences, it becomes a little less favorable.
-352
Sorry, typo:
“it’s joking about the core of what they–”
Should be”
“it’s not joking about the core of what they believe–”
It’s late.
Also, if you name which works of Hayek/Sowell that you had a problem with, I’ll go from there.
356:
if you consider college students among the educated liberal set, then yes, there are many liberals who worship john stewart. amongst the intelligent people i know in DC, not a one “worships” stewart or even watches olbermann.
and, you clearly have watched more daily show than i have, so i take your word that stewart has become less of a liberal lampooner over the years. the fact remains, however, that there is no conservative equivalent to stewart (and i don’t think there could be), just like there’s no liberal equivalent to rush or hannity (nor could there be).
sorry, who in the democratic party implied mccain was racist? also, who said racist conservatives had to be “prominent”? there are myriad examples of conservative racism directed towards obama; i don’t need to post them here.
here’s some info on how economists lean liberal nearly 3:1. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/21/politics
i don’t really want to type hundreds of words about my disagreements with sowell and hayek, but suffice it to say i’ve read some of their academic works as well as sowell’s (ceaseless) opinion work.
and please don’t try to say that academic liberals vs. conservatives is a fair fight. my side has 100x more troops than your side with 100x the brainpower.
355, the way you describe Jon Stewart as if he were neutral and of course, anyone on Fox News as a partisan warrior is pretty classic – so if you don’t echo the DNC agenda like the other major networks, which led to Fox’s success in the first place, you’re a partisan, but if you parrot the DNC talking points, you’re reporting fairly and neutral – I think I’ve got it. (Funny how liberals never seem to acknowledge the 5 out of 6 Washington correspondents who are registered Democrats and never question the neutrality of the reporting on this basis, but the Fox News guys, jeez, they’re off the reservation!)
Here’s some food for thought – when you say your “side” doesn’t label anyone who disagrees racists/bigots/homophobes/etc., you clearly haven’t had many arguments in the shoes of a conservative, or even a libertarian – anyone who disagrees with the liberal orthodoxy. Because I’ve had people bring up racism, homophobia, call me a Jesus freak, etc. quite a number of times (I’m agnostic and have never practiced or believed any form of christianity, which makes it funny if it weren’t so sad) in the midst of arguments having absolutely NOTHING to do with these subjects – why just last week, literally I was told I was one of those people who was a racist and homophobic heartless bigot because I didn’t agree with the proposed health care takeover.
This was not the first time, or the second, or the tenth, a conversation like this has happened – if you honestly and in all seriousness think it hasn’t become almost customary for liberals to pull out these labels immediately in discussion to try and stake out a position of good vs. evil irrespective of the issue at hand, you’re truly and dangerously deluded. I would suggest you review the comments above, though I’m sure you’ll find all such accusations justified for some reason or another.
“if you consider college students among the educated liberal set”
359, it’s you who was making appeals to academia for support.
“the fact remains, however, that there is no conservative equivalent to stewart (and i don’t think there could be)”
I didn’t realize that this was a fact being argued–however, the old Daily Show actually did lean conservative in a lot of ways.
“also, who said racist conservatives had to be “prominent”? there are myriad examples of conservative racism directed towards obama; i don’t need to post them here.”
I did, because anybody can cite extremists or a fringe in any political movement covering anything. A prominent person, especially a prominent person who is subsequently still considered respectable would indicate there is a wide amount of it. (btw, how the hell Al Sharpton not a pariah among liberals yet?) If racism is going to be tossed out as an attack, I’m not interested in just citations of a fringe. As far as who called McCain racist, off the top of my head–the digging up that he was descended from slaveholders, the claim that Sarah Palin came from an anti-Semitic church and was a bigot in other respects. Yeah, Obama didn’t come out and charge that himself, but he could have pulled his guys away from pushing that sort of stuff out there and if liberals are going to spend a couple decades decrying Lee Atwater and George Bush as racists for not preventing outside guys from spreading the Willie Horton mess, I’m not about to give Obama a pass.
“here’s some info on how economists lean liberal nearly 3:1. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/21/politics“
Hence “when it comes to what the subjects they are actually experts in.” I also knew my far share of economics professors in college. They were mostly Democrats…except when it came to taxes, spending, and fiscal policy (yeah, there was a time when Republicans claimed to budgets cutters once; humor me here, like I said Republican =/= conservative).
I’m reviewing the commenters, above:
Only a dick sucking liberal could ask this question. Liberals make terrible attorneys, mostly because they can’t seem to ever take the dick out of their mouths. Moderates and conservatives make the best attorneys, because they have reason and common sense, not to mention superior intelligence. It’s hard to say, “May it please the Court” when you have a dick in your mouth, not to mention one sticking out of your ear.
This partner should be outed. Sounds like a Skadden or Willkie guy. How is this sentiment different than refusing to hire a bull dyke lesbian?
Great post, David. Seriously. You know that if Elie ran a blog, there’s no way he’d ever hire you as an editor.
Liberals always want diversity, as long as you don’t disagree with their view or opinion. If a firm can discriminate against political views, then gender, race, or any of the other illegitimate reason should be allowed. Why is it that liberals can never see through their emotions? Why is it that liberals cannot accept that there are other legitimate viewpoints on this planet? Better yet, when are liberals going to put down their opinion, pick up a weapon and defend what they believe in, rather than riding on the freedoms typically defended by conservatives willing to die for this country? Oh sorry…I’m a conservative…I must keep my opinions and beliefs to myself…
Liberals hate conservatives because we don’t believe in giving people plus factors to get into Harvard Law and onto Harvard Law Review based solely oe one’s “blackness”, or lack thereof.
Liberals, Hypocrisy is thy name.
Lets decipher. “Women’s choice” = i.e. to kill babies.
“gay marriage” -=forced acceptance of homosexual lifestyle. “rights for all people” = whatever ‘rights’ liberals invent, like paying to educate illegal alien children, abortion, et. al.
Liberals were all educated at insular “pedigreed” universities in the Northeast in majors such as “women’s studies”, “anthropology” and “sociology” and think they are smarter than finance majors from Jow bumfuck U.
Liberals=elitist know-nothings.
–Sarah Lawrence ‘ 92.
79. You are a fool. Conservatives are against government regulation, but that doesnt mean they are for anarchy. Individuals are expected to act with dignity and responsibility and to be thoughtful about their choices. In other words, it is perfectly legitimate to argue about ethics and morality while being against government interference. For instance, as a conservative business owner I believe the government should not mandate who I have to hire, but I also believe that as an individual it would be wrong for me personally to discriminate on the basis of race. Perhaps it is a little too subtle for the liberal mind to grasp.
60 – Here is a list of things that liberals will not tolerate:
(1) Anything that suggests that there may be a difference between the races (they claim diversity is a strength, but then make it a sin to discuss any differences)
(2) Anything that suggests there may be a difference between the sexes
(3) Teaching children about God in school (teaching them about sex is okay though)
(4) Teaching children conservative values in school (teaching them liberal values is okay though)
(5) Hurting people’s feelings
(6) Smoking tobacco (drugs are okay though).
(7) Any suggestion that America is better than other countries.
(8) Anything that suggests one type of behavior is better than another type of behavior.
(9) The rights to carry a gun
(10) The right to hire the best man for the job.
The list goes on and on and on…
Liberals’ agendas only exist because they are contingent upon failure. If you eliminate poverty, then it’s no longer a party platform. Liberals talk about curing poverty, but actually doing so runs contrary to what liberals need to do in order to remain liberal. Democrats were, are, and forever shall remain members of the party of secession, Jim Crow, discrimination, atomic bomb droppers, quagmire war entrants, bridge to nowhere builders, and clown politics.
liberals are a bunch of hypocrits who want to save both whales and terrorists.
63, global warming is a hoax. The fact that liberals have to shriek that it’s “settled” proves to me that it’s not.
9 More Principles Liberals Don’t Agree With (9/12 Project):
1. America Is Good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
[This is the ONLY debatable one whatsoever that liberals might agree with]
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
ugh,
“far share” = “fair share”
screw it. It’s late.
“far share” = “fair share”
-
That was for post 361
351, sorry for the delay in responding. I left work after my last post. For the Top 10 States most likely to go insolvent link…………………..
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/11/news/economy/states_economies/index.htm
As you can see, 8 are BLUE STATES. NV and AZ are red. You can also save the argument about Federal dollars, because CA gets more than it sends. NY doesn’t, but it is hardly an excuse for a State with a GDP of about 800 billion dollars to be in such shambles. I hope this doesn’t qualify as a generalization, like every comment by a liberal on this thread.
As far as the Obama voter comment, it speaks for itself. It’s the same mob now turning against the Great Liar.
Oh, and thanks for the correction. Gee, I never went to Law School and only have a degree from a nondescript New Jersey college.
362: you really put a lot of time in that post didn’t you?
Here’s a list of things conservatives won’t tolerate:
1. Science
2. Facts
3. Reason
4. Education
5. Minorities
Luckily, being a lawyer requires none of these things. I can’t see any reason not to hire a conservative associate… not at all.
365,
C’mon, now. Two of those states are clearly red and three are purple (Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin). I don’t see the connection of which you speak. California is in financial trouble for vastly different reasons than Illinois or Arizona is. Apples and oranges.
If you never went to law school, why are you posting on this blog? Seems a bit strange.
Yay more liberal name calling!
Take that, conservatives!
Michigan and Wisconsin are purple???!!!! WTH are you smoking?
Michigan and Wisconsin are purple state?
196,
Your right, a fetus is not an infant, just like an infant isn’t a toddler, and a toddler isn’t a teenager, and a teenager isn’t an adult. But they are all human beings.
poor people without healthcare are human beings too, but who gives a shit about them right?
It’s funny how conservatives care so much about your little blastocyte, until it actually pops out of your vag… then it’s Lord of the Flies bootstrap time!
It’s “you’re,” 371. And who the fuck wants to debate whether a fetus is a human being? Who the fuck cares? It’s not a human being under federal or state law (and has never been) or under the laws of the vast majority of countries around the world (I’d say every country, but there’s always Poland and Ireland).
A fetus will never be a human being. The arc of female equality bends towards greater autonomy and that autonomy necessarily means that her interests will not be subordinated by that of a fetus. Roe should have been based on the Equal Protection Clause, not substantive due process, but no matter. You’re still wrong.
Anybody who drifts too far to the left or the right is likely to have horrendous judgment, meager critical thinking ability, and a complete lack of intellectual honesty. I like a little Socratic ignorance every once in a while.
There is no conservative Jon Stewart because comedy requires “empathy”
“poor people without healthcare are human beings too, but who gives a shit about them right?
It’s funny how conservatives care so much about your little blastocyte”
Well, I don’t think it should be legal to kill a fetus and I don’t think it should be legal to kill poor people, so I say that’s consistent.
There may be a day when both you and I believe it should be legal to stab everybody who I’m not willing to pay healthcare bills for, but I don’t think that’s today.
“The arc of female equality bends towards greater autonomy…”
Unless that female is a five-month old in the womb…then it’s okay to stab her head with a pair of scissors and suck her brains out with a straw, her wishes be damned.
377,
a ball of cells has no wishes. Also, pro-choice does not mean support for late term abortions.
376,
Because no one ever dies from a lack of healthcare unless you stab them
“a ball of cells has no wishes”
So you’re willing to limit abortion to the first month? Cool.
“Because no one ever dies from a lack of healthcare unless you stab them”
They do. They die from many things. They also die from using poor and outdated cars, having too much stress at their jobs, etc. Unless you’re willing to pay to alleviate all that, you are equally the hypocrite as me for believing it should still be illegal to kill them.
That’s our new criteria now: Unless I’m willing to pay to support you, it should be legal to kill you.
Plebeian.
I could get used to this idea.
Incidentally, it’s your side that wants to cut Medicare to pay for this whole universal healthcare business. So, fortunately, it will now also be legal to kill old people–both figuratively and literally.
This is illegal under California law. California Labor Code Section 1102 makes it illegal to retaliate against an employee for engaging in political activity or holding particular political views. http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/bulletins/bulletin411.html
379
1. I do not know many prochoicers who would not agree to some term limit on abortion. If we base that on when a fetus develops the ability to “wish not to die” like you seem to be suggesting, it would be WAY later than the first month, perhaps even the first few years after birth. I think the framework in Roe is pretty reasonable. At least you seem to agree that the issue is not if, but when.
2. Conservatives frame the pro-life stance based on respect for life. In actuality, whether a human being lives or dies has little to do with it. It’s all about shoving the teachings of their Skydaddy down everyone’s throat.
346,
If you want an example of an intelligent conservative besting an intelligent liberal on policy see Palin best Biden on the constitutional role of the Vice-President.
For those of you who missed what I am talking about because the media never pointed it out, Biden argued to Palin that the Vice-President is clearly part of the executive rather than the legislative branch, because his function is described in Article I of the Constitution.
For those of you too slow to figure out what the problem is with that assertion, I will help you out. Article I describes the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH not the executive branch, in other words Biden proved himself wrong. FactCheck.org must have missed that one though.
What is more embarrassing for you liberals- seeing a humble non-lawyer humiliate a con-law professor on con-law minutiae, or the fact that the humble non-lawyer was Sarah Palin?
“It’s all about shoving the teachings of their Skydaddy down everyone’s throat.”
381, I’m agnostic. Pro-lifers view it as murder. You don’t have to be religious to do so. Either you think it’s a ball of cells, in which case, cut away, or you think it’s something more than that–religion be damned. If you’re a die-hard libertarian and an atheist, the ideology could still take you either way, it’s the previous issue that is the crucial one.
-379
CA’s crisis, terrible as it is, must be attributed to both parties. The Dems are spending as if there were Dem fiscal policies and the Conservatives are taxing as if there were Conservative social policies. Prop 13 is terrible policy and has wrecked the state.
A look at the messages here, and it shows me why to never hire a Republicans. They are assholes and they have awful, awful judgment. Comments by Republicans have shown how fucking stupid they are. For instance, 289: in your stupid, wacko, weirdo, Limbaugh-inspired comments showed exactly why people like 288 think Republicans have bad judgment. And 309: you are essentially equating the justification of the deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan with deaths in World War II. You called WWII a “Democratic” war, thus suggesting that a Republican with better judgment would have kept us out of WWII. (Hello Ford and Lindbergh) Only a Republican would fail to realize how unbelievably tasteless that is. I could never hire someone who would say something like that for fear of offending a client.
384: Not exactly. It’s more the idiot referendum-crazy voters who are to blame. You can’t keep enacting expensive “social good” programs from the ballot box just because you feel bad for the downtrodden, the environment, etc. and want to help them. In the real world, there’s something called a budget, and the money to fund things like super subsidized college tuition, aggressive environmental programs, extremely favorable union contracts and pensions has to come from somewhere. The (few) responsible California legislators, faced with all these expensive referendums that passed had no choice, but to fund them and drive the state into an increasingly precarious financial situation.
Long-run, this was clearly unsustainable and once the Internet and housing bubbles popped, California’s budget went to pieces. As you allude to, the California populace seems to want socialist-level government support with pure unregulated free market democracy-level tax rates. The combination was unrealistic and now that we’re in a recession, California is finally paying for its fiscal recklessness.
367: Michigan hasn’t voted Republican in a presidential election since 1988. It’s had one (1) Republican U.S. Senator since 1979, Spencer Abraham, who served exactly one term in office.
Wisconsin hasn’t voted Republican in a presidential election since 1984. It’s had one (1) Republican U.S. Senator since 1963, Robert Kasten, who served only two terms in office.
These don’t exactly sound like characteristics of purple states.
288
Today’s Democrat is the Republican of 40 years ago? Way to demonstrate your own ignorance and bad judgment.
385,
In re your 309 comment, “you are essentially equating the justification of the deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan with deaths in World War II”. No I’m not idiot. I’m merely responding to another liberal calling Republicans war mongers when there have been 500,000 US war dead under the Democrats and 5,000 under the Republicans in the past century. How the hell do you draw such a stupid conclusion?
Even the person I was addressing caught the jist of it in her/her response at @316. You want to talk about “bad judgment” and “assholes”, go look in the mirror.
It’s been said once, but I’ll say it again:
If discriminating against conservatives is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Not all conservatives are in the KKK, but KKK members are always conservatives. Funny how that works.
Not all liberals are convicted felons, but 90% of convicted felons are liberal Democrats. Funny how that works.
Not all liberals are in the Weather Underground, but Weather Underground members are always liberals. Funny how that works.
Not all conservatives commit hate crimes, but 90% of people that commit hate crimes are conservatives. Funny how that works.
The second worst act of terrorism on American soil was committed by a libertarian.
394, most hate crimes are committed by blacks and Hispanics. I’d rethink your statement.
396, you’re an idiot if you really believe that.
Not all conservatives supported slavery, but slave-owners by the Civil War were all conservative Southerners. Not all conservatives supported Jim Crow, but Jim Crow supporters were all conservative Southerners. Not all conservatives resisted the Civil Rights movement, but all resisters were conservative (Democrats, I might add, but that Changed after the mid-1960s). Not all conservatives resisted equal rights for women, but the opposition consisted primarily of conservatives (standing athwart history, yelling “Stop!”). Not all conservatives resisted allowing states to criminalize the conduct of gay men and marginalize gays and lesbians in public accommodations, employment, housing, relationships, etc., but the primary opponents of the modern gay rights movement are overwhelmingly conservative and religious.
That’s about all that’s required. End of discussion.
389:
You are the retard. The several hundred thousand killed in WWII do not count against Democrats. That was a necessary war to defeat true evil and someone who killed 6 million Jews.
Those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan do count against Republicans because they were not necessary wars.
Republicans are mentally ill deranged fuckers and phony Christians brought here by Lucifer intent on wrecking a great country.
Save the miscarried babies!
Oh, wait, nobody gives a fuck that your “God” is the greatest abortionist of all.
four hundred and first?
399, and Vietnam and Korea were necessary wars too? asshole.
397, you’re truly a moron if you don’t believe that. There are numerous cases every year of black on white crime, but very few instances of white on black crime. The media dwells on the few there out of ideology.
403, so the black people committing those crimes target their white victims out of some racial animus? Or do they just assume, justifiably, that robbing a white person will probably net more loot than robbing the black people living in the same shitty neighborhood? Hate crime doesn’t mean what you think it means. Again, if you really believe that, you’re an idiot.
Anyone who things law firms shouldn’t have a right to at least some rudimentary screening based on political beliefs is, in my estimation, moderately rétard.
Should you get dinged for being liberal/conservative/agnostic/jebusy/pro life/pro abortion etc.? Absolutely not.
Should they absolutely distance themselves from people with views excessively foreign to the firm’s culture? Absolutely. Think Strom Thurmond was on to something? Ding. Believe immigrants should go back where they came from? Ding. Think those people who blow up are justified? Thanks but no thanks.
Yes, 404. Read up on the Wichita Massacre. Then read up on the Knoxville murders of Newsom and Christian. What about the black man who killed 4 white cops in Tacoma? Oh right, not racially motivated at all.
What about this black man who viciously assaulted a white greeter for no reason?
http://kdka.com/local/Walmart.greeter.punched.2.1348981.html
What about this story:
http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-akron-student-txt,0,6189107.story
If you’re dumb enough to believe that these numerous instances (of which most were in the past two weeks) are not racially motivated, your mind has been so infected by the liberal poison that nothing will ever straighten it ou.
406,
First, I would like to point out that violence against innocent people is pretty much never justified.
With that said, there is an obvious explanation for why the “liberal” media views black on white crime in a different lens from white on black crime.
White racists commit hate crimes because they view themselves as inherently superior. Thus society often sees these crimes as motivated by “putting someone in their place.”
Black racists commit hate crimes because they feel marginalized in a white-dominated society with a history of slavery. Thus society often sees these crimes as acts of retribution.
407,
If you’re being beaten within an inch of your life, I don’t think you give a fuck why the racist is doing it.
So much for content of character.
408,
irrelevant to my post
Hey 151, you stupid fuck,
Venn diagrams illustrate syllogism validity (or lack thereof). You wanna try Euler diagrams.
Regards,
Yet another conservative smarter than you
fk venn diagrams. If they were so important, Jesus would’ve used one. But did he? No! he rode on dinosaurs
You are incredibly naive if you actually think the federalists are non-political. The presence of a small amount of dissension on a single social issue does not make a strong case for diversity. The federalists are lock step on almost every economic issue and think that their economic conservatism is actually not harmful to the masses because there are no “political roadblocks.” My analysis is generalized, I know, but I’ll leave you with this: The federalists themselves will admit that disagreement fractionalizes and cripples the left. There is more thought a vibrancy there than you suggest. Anyway clearly you sympathize with the right on this blog, that’s to be expected from elitists.
“Federalist” is code for dick-sucking closet-case child molester republican shitbag.
We don’t hire them, nor blacks or women.
Republicans don’t deserve jobs, they forfeited their rights 2000-2008.
407, perhaps blacks feel marginalized because they know that as a group they can never achieve what whites can. They’re racist out of resentment.
412- “My analysis is generalized”
It’s also wrong. Sorry, it just is. The “lockstep” thing is just complete bullshit.
“The federalists themselves will admit that disagreement fractionalizes and cripples the left.”
Not as a matter of policy, but it’s a statement I’d agree with and I’d imagine many others in the group would. Now, if I were a person on the left, I’d take that statement as a rebuke and a troubling sign about the strength and merit of liberal ideas. You, as a liberal, apparently take it as a warning and a call to close ranks. This is the kind of thinking that makes me laugh most whenever liberals describe themselves as in any way intellectual.
414 is right they could never fly planes, become billionaires, president, governor, become doctors oh and most importantly in this country they could never play quarterback or coach a super bowl champion or build prosperous businesses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
Don’t thump your chests so-called liberals.
Joke:
Do you know the difference between a elite northern liberal and southern working-class conservative. A northern liberal would vote a black man president but move if a black family moved on his street.
My agenda:
Gay Marriage – I don’t care one way or the other
Abortion – A woman’s business up to 28th week of pregnancy
Economy – Fix it, low taxes. I favor estate tax.
Iraq, Iran, etc – Do not send soldiers but if they get out of line bomb them to the stone age.
Affirmative Action – If you are actually disadvantaged ok , race alone not enough. Private schools it is their business.
Global Warming – likely bullsh&t or at least wildly exaggerated
What am I liberal ? Conservative? Neither I think for myself
After having attended the ACS convention this past summer, I can say that, as a progressive, if I am ever in a position to give recommendations, I will count ACS membership against applicants. I know that legal academia lags behind regular academia, but the lack of ingenuity and intellectual engagement I witnessed there was just appalling.
Fed Soc has legitimate debates on current issues, between people who actually know the issues. The ACS has someone read party line fluff.
As 417 said, the ACS (Liberal professor’s counterpoint to the supposed Fed Soc boogieman) is the real detriment to your resume, not Fed Soc.
Politics is personal. Politics is the relation between people, which is the true definition of the business of the polis. It changes how you view and practice the law and it changes how you view and interact with your fellow man. Would you hire a member of the nazi party? Of course not as being a fascists, a political ideology, DOES in fact make you a bad person.
It’s absurd to say politics doesn’t effect their job performance.
What would seem fair is to disclose where that character works so we can decide if such as they deserve our custom.
Wow, flame war.
If commentators like 366 are lawyers, I pity their clients. Anyone so willing to make blithe judgments about a wide swath of political opinion–I somehow doubt that anyone who was on the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy doesn’t believe in science, for example–is dumber than a sack of hammers.