Top Law Schools

I'm curious if it can hurt you -or help you- to join clubs like the Federalist Society or American Constitution Society, let alone get involved in an overtly political club.

Do firms appreciate that you may hold a certain view, or is it better to simply remain a clean slate? I'm curious about the general implications of this in the legal world. Do lawyers view each other as peers who may have their differences (therefore they like people with outspoken views) or are you generally meant to be as politically correct and innocuous as possible?

CordeliusX wrote:I'm curious if it can hurt you -or help you- to join clubs like the Federalist Society or American Constitution Society, let alone get involved in an overtly political club.

Do firms appreciate that you may hold a certain view, or is it better to simply remain a clean slate? I'm curious about the general implications of this in the legal world. Do lawyers view each other as peers who may have their differences (therefore they like people with outspoken views) or are you generally meant to be as politically correct and innocuous as possible?

I dunno about with firms, but I think it could play a role in potential clerkship opportunities. I heard on here once that a student felt like working at the ACLU one summer hurt them with conservative judges (fwiw, totally anecdotal). I'd imagine clubs could potentially have similar consequences, if you're interested in clerkships.

Don't join any club this student is associated with: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/from-all ... of-law-1l/

You could go to UC-Hastings and join the bigots in the Christian Legal Society. If you act quick, you might be able to somehow figure into the SCOTUS decision on whether UC-Hastings can de-fund it. It really is an interesting legal case.

You don't have to include a particular club on your resume. So if you knew a judge or firm to be liberal, you could just omit the Federalist Society. One girl at the BU ASD said she thought she had secured so many clerkship offers because her resume could read either way based on diverse political interests. I think there is no harm participating, it is a good way to network with like minded peers. Just be smart when submitting resumes.

jks289 wrote:You don't have to include a particular club on your resume. So if you knew a judge or firm to be liberal, you could just omit the Federalist Society. One girl at the BU ASD said she thought she had secured so many clerkship offers because her resume could read either way based on diverse political interests. I think there is no harm participating, it is a good way to network with like minded peers. Just be smart when submitting resumes.

So join both and omit one depending who I talk to.

CordeliusX wrote:

jks289 wrote:You don't have to include a particular club on your resume. So if you knew a judge or firm to be liberal, you could just omit the Federalist Society. One girl at the BU ASD said she thought she had secured so many clerkship offers because her resume could read either way based on diverse political interests. I think there is no harm participating, it is a good way to network with like minded peers. Just be smart when submitting resumes.

So join both and omit one depending who I talk to.

Ha, I guess that would be one way to do it. Depending on your political leanings you'd need to be one patient and open minded individual to sit in on all those meetings.

sumus romani wrote:You could go to UC-Hastings and join the bigots in the Christian Legal Society. If you act quick, you might be able to somehow figure into the SCOTUS decision on whether UC-Hastings can de-fund it. It really is an interesting legal case.

Way to show your tolerance.

Sauer Grapes wrote:

sumus romani wrote:You could go to UC-Hastings and join the bigots in the Christian Legal Society. If you act quick, you might be able to somehow figure into the SCOTUS decision on whether UC-Hastings can de-fund it. It really is an interesting legal case.

Way to show your tolerance.

Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."

jks289 wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:

sumus romani wrote:You could go to UC-Hastings and join the bigots in the Christian Legal Society. If you act quick, you might be able to somehow figure into the SCOTUS decision on whether UC-Hastings can de-fund it. It really is an interesting legal case.

Way to show your tolerance.

Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."

Now now WUSTLers... play nice.

jks289 wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:

sumus romani wrote:You could go to UC-Hastings and join the bigots in the Christian Legal Society. If you act quick, you might be able to somehow figure into the SCOTUS decision on whether UC-Hastings can de-fund it. It really is an interesting legal case.

Way to show your tolerance.

Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."

Being part of a religion that believes certain things are immoral, does not necessarily equal being a bigot. Some people can believe something is wrong and still be friends with someone that does such and such action.

Do you agree with everything your friends do?

Sauer Grapes wrote:

jks289 wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:

sumus romani wrote:You could go to UC-Hastings and join the bigots in the Christian Legal Society. If you act quick, you might be able to somehow figure into the SCOTUS decision on whether UC-Hastings can de-fund it. It really is an interesting legal case.

Way to show your tolerance.

Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."

Being part of a religion that believes certain things are immoral, does not necessarily equal being a bigot. Some people can believe something is wrong and still be friends with someone that does such and such action.

Do you agree with everything your friends do?

I gotta side with jks on this one. Anyone who uses their religion to suppress or stifle the rights and dignity of others are not okay in my book.

romothesavior wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:

jks289 wrote: Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."

Being part of a religion that believes certain things are immoral, does not necessarily equal being a bigot. Some people can believe something is wrong and still be friends with someone that does such and such action.

Do you agree with everything your friends do?

I gotta side with jks on this one. Anyone who uses their religion to suppress or stifle the rights and dignity of others are not okay in my book.

What rights are they stifling? The right to join their "club?" They should have every right to form their group, as should others that don't agree with them.

Edit... anyway, I won't argue this here... It is the internet after all. I tend to be a little more libertarian than most here.

Sauer Grapes wrote:

jks289 wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:

sumus romani wrote:You could go to UC-Hastings and join the bigots in the Christian Legal Society. If you act quick, you might be able to somehow figure into the SCOTUS decision on whether UC-Hastings can de-fund it. It really is an interesting legal case.

Way to show your tolerance.

Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."

Being part of a religion that believes certain things are immoral, does not necessarily equal being a bigot. Some people can believe something is wrong and still be friends with someone that does such and such action.

Do you agree with everything your friends do?

Having a certain belief doesn't (necessarily) make one a bigot. Starting a group and excluding anyone who doesn't share one element of those beliefs makes one a bigot. Attempting to do so via a public law school group, and continuing to expect the same privileges extending to inclusive groups, makes one delusional.

Also, not related to the court case, but as a Christian I take issue what the use of the "Christian Legal Society" proclaiming homophobia to be a core Christian value. It isn't.

Sauer Grapes wrote:What rights are they stifling? The right to join their "club?" They should have every right to form their group, as should others that don't agree with them.

10 bucks says this group rails against policies promoting homosexual equality, so no, this extends beyond their right to simply join the club. Again, like jks said, no one would be opposed to the decision to shut down an anti-black group on campus.

Sauer Grapes wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:

jks289 wrote: Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."

Being part of a religion that believes certain things are immoral, does not necessarily equal being a bigot. Some people can believe something is wrong and still be friends with someone that does such and such action.

Do you agree with everything your friends do?

I gotta side with jks on this one. Anyone who uses their religion to suppress or stifle the rights and dignity of others are not okay in my book.

What rights are they stifling? The right to join their "club?" They should have every right to form their group, as should others that don't agree with them.

No one objects to the formation of the club. The objection is to them enjoying the same rights (use of space, permission to distribute materials, funding) and receiving official recognition from the school. I support the right of the KKK to exist and assembly peaceably. I don't think Hastings should be forced to fund them or give them a classroom

this thread has been a valuable contribution to first amendment law as well as moral philosophy. i am forwarding this to SCOTUS and ronald dworkin

btw the joining both clubs would probably backfire as in getting a bunch of people to hate you cause of that. joining those clubs is really not going to help you get jobs. if you want to just do it, just do it and omit from resume if you think it's necessary

romothesavior wrote: Again, like jks said, no one would be opposed to the decision to shut down an anti-black group on campus.

And this is the point. Hiding bigotry behind "religious beliefs" is pathetic.

Anti-gay rights groups are one of the few groups in America that somehow get a pass on blatent bigotry because its supported by their religion (in their eyes), and there are enough Americans that are afraid of gay people that they either agree or are willing to turn a blind eye.

Sexism is "supported" by Christianity to some people, but popular opinion has generally agreed thats just outrageously stupid as well. The only difference is conservative public opinion taking sway on this one.

"Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."

Oh JKS, arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old, but I will engage once again to demonstrate your utter lack of intelligence and reasoning. Can you really not see the difference between being gay and being black? If you cannot, I wish you the best of luck in your legal academic endeavors.

Let me explain. The christian faith finds the actual "acting out" of one's homosexual nature immoral, not the intrinsic nature of their homosexuality. In this is sense, this is the difference between being black and being gay. In no way can one "act out" through behavior or action his or her "blackness". Put another way, being black is an intrinsic quality that in no way can be manifested into any form of behavior or action. However, the intrinsic nature of homosexuality can indeed be manifested into a specific action or behavior, i.e. "homosexual intercourse". In this sense it is intellectual dishonest to claim that being black and being gay are equivalent.

I understand you will try and make the argument that the intrinsic nature of one's skin color and one's sexual orientation are equivalent; however, this is not the point at issue. If I did not already make it clear, the contention of the christian faith is not with the intrinsic nature of homosexuality, but rather with the manifested action of it, i.e. the engaging in homosexual behavior.

If you were confused about what the christian faith teaches on homosexuality I sincerely hope I provided you with some clarification. However, I suspect you really could care less about this and still hold your same intolerant views. You make the claim that anyone who finds the "act/behavior" of homosexuality morally offensive is an intolerant bigot. Having a disdain for a particular "behavior or action" does not make someone bigoted. A bigot is someone who has disdain because of the "intrinsic qualities" of another human being. I will grant you the fact that anyone who shows disdain for a homosexual merely based upon the homosexual's "intrinsic nature" can be considered prejudiced and bigoted. However, as I have said repeatedly, the "intrinsic nature" of homosexuality is not the point of contention with the christian faith, it is the actual "acting out" or homosexual behavior that the christian church finds moral offensive.

I say your views are intolerant because you completely ignore this axiom and label other as bigots merely because they have a different moral perspective than yourself regarding the specific actions of homosexual "behavior".

jks289 wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:

sumus romani wrote:You could go to UC-Hastings and join the bigots in the Christian Legal Society. If you act quick, you might be able to somehow figure into the SCOTUS decision on whether UC-Hastings can de-fund it. It really is an interesting legal case.

Way to show your tolerance.

Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."

Oh JKS, arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old, but I will engage once again to demonstrate your utter lack of intelligence and reasoning. Can you really not see the difference between being gay and being black? If you cannot, I wish you the best of luck in your legal academic endeavors.

Let me explain. The christian faith finds the actual "acting out" of one's homosexual nature immoral, not the intrinsic nature of their homosexuality. In this is sense, this is the difference between being black and being gay. In no way can one "act out" through behavior or action his or her "blackness". Put another way, being black is an intrinsic quality that in no way can be manifested into any form of behavior or action. However, the intrinsic nature of homosexuality can indeed be manifested into a specific action or behavior, i.e. "homosexual intercourse". In this sense it is intellectual dishonest to claim that being black and being gay are equivalent.

I understand you will try and make the argument that the intrinsic nature of one's skin color and one's sexual orientation are equivalent; however, this is not the point at issue. If I did not already make it clear, the contention of the christian faith is not with the intrinsic nature of homosexuality, but rather with the manifested action of it, i.e. the engaging in homosexual behavior.

If you were confused about what the christian faith teaches on homosexuality I sincerely hope I provided you with some clarification. However, I suspect you really could care less about this and still hold your same intolerant views. You make the claim that anyone who finds the "act/behavior" of homosexuality morally offensive is an intolerant bigot. Having a disdain for a particular "behavior or action" does not make someone bigoted. A bigot is someone who has disdain because of the "intrinsic qualities" of another human being. I will grant you the fact that anyone who shows disdain for a homosexual merely based upon the homosexual's "intrinsic nature" can be considered prejudiced and bigoted. However, as I have said repeatedly, the "intrinsic nature" of homosexuality is not the point of contention with the christian faith, it is the actual "acting out" or homosexual behavior that the christian church finds moral offensive.

I say your views are intolerant because you completely ignore this axiom and label other as bigots merely because they have a different moral perspective than yourself regarding the specific actions of homosexual "behavior".

cwkenneth wrote: Oh JKS, arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old, but I will engage once again to demonstrate your utter lack of intelligence and reasoning. Can you really not see the difference between being gay and being black? If you cannot, I wish you the best of luck in your legal academic endeavors.

What about the view some Christians say the Bible has on a woman's place in society? Is that wrong? How does one pick and choose the different aspects of a religion that they agree with?

Because its a personal choice, a personal belief. This particular belief just happpens to also make that person a bigot. This particular view on the immorality of homosexual actions are part of a political movement to keep and further restrict the rights of fellow Americans.

No matter what a person's reasoning is for someone not deserving the same rights as someone else, at the end of the day, a "Christian" is saying they don't believe another human being deserves equality.

.

cwkenneth wrote: I understand you will try and make the argument that the intrinsic nature of one's skin color and one's sexual orientation are equivalent; however, this is not the point at issue. If I did not already make it clear, the contention of the christian faith is not with the intrinsic nature of homosexuality, but rather with the manifested action of it, i.e. the engaging in homosexual behavior.

If I did not already make it clear, the contention of pro-LGBTQ groups is not with the intrinsic nature of one type of Christianity's beliefs, but rather with the manifested action of those beliefs, i.e. when they are not allowed to visit their partners in hospitals.

This little distinction always makes me roll my eyes. I frankly don't care why or in what whats people rationalize not wanting some Americans not to have the same rights as other people. You're saying that at the end of the day, people who want to love other people and whose actions do not affect anyone else in any way, there is a valid argument to why they shouldn't enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Bullshit.

Its not like we have a religious test for straight people to get married. If two people, regardless of gender, are full enough of love and want to make the incredibly intense and challenging commitment to get married and give a child that doesn't have a home a good place to grow up and be loved then quite frankly...god bless them.

Nightrunner wrote:
GTFO.

This.

This thread. Right here.