I am a new attorney and member of The Federalist Society. I like the group not necessarily because of it's politics, but because they believe in open, multi-sided and lively debate on particular issues, sometimes political but sometimes not. This allows the audience to hear more than a single opinion on an issue so that a listener is able to make an informed decision, and not just a decision. As my favorite college professor, the late Glenn Martin used to say... "Nothing is knowable in a vacuum" which was sometimes followed by "Know what you believe and why, as opposed to what you don't believe and why" (smart guy, check his book out here). The Federalist Society, and in particular the student chapters, offers points of view that students will not normally hear in a standard law school environment.They also publish the Bar Watch Bulletin which summarizes the happenings of the American Bar Association (ABA), another group I belong to and one that is supposed to be representative of the entire legal profession. However the quoted portion below from the Bulletin goes against much of what I understand the profession to be about and in clear opposition to a few things that I learned in law school, namely #1. when writing an essay or answering a question in class, do not be "conclusory" (From The Volokh Conspiracy, "Conclusory Argument"- an argument that is long on conclusions and short on supporting evidence), and #2. never ask a witness a question you do not know the answer to.
First, re "conclusory"; if you want to make a claim in a law school essay, you must back it up. Not "the defendant is negligent and must pay for what he did" but, "the defendant is negligent because he swung his fist with significant force in a crowded space making contact with the plaintiff which caused serious injury to the plaintiff's face." Second, never ask a question to a witness if you don't know the answer- when trying to make a point in court, you must control the flow of information by controlling the questions and eliciting particular responses.
See if you can identify some mistakes below...
*Note: this is not a commentary on the substance of the ABA's same-sex marriage policy or whether I agree or disagree with it- it is simply a commentary on the method of arriving at this decision, and that the approval of this policy looks like it was a foregone conclusion. The full text of this piece is here.
"The ABA House of Delegates met again Tuesday [August 10, 2010] morning to wrap up its deliberation for the 2010 Annual Meeting. The policies adopted concerned same-sex marriage... What follows is a summary of what was discussed.
Recommendation 111, sponsored by the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities (IRI) and 26 cosponsors, "urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry." No salmon slips were held in opposition, and the rules of limited debate applied.
[FAVORS] Past ABA Chairman Robert Grey introduced the resolution. According to Grey, "[T]he denial of civil marriage to same-sex couples harms them and their families, excluding them from critical legal protections that married persons take for granted. Let us be clear: this is a legal issue. It is also important to recognize that our colleagues of same-sex relationships deserve the same protections that we all have enjoyed under the founding documents of this country." He compared the rights of same-sex couples to women, the disabled, and members of different races. "Same-sex relationships are clear, they exist, and they are here to stay," stated Grey. He concluded, "We can choose to stand on the sidelines, or we can be on the field. There were times when this Association was on the sidelines. Today we should be on the field."
[OPPOSES] Les Jacobs of the Ohio State Bar spoke in opposition. He stated, "I have reluctantly concluded that silence on an issue of political correctness is cowardice, and that we owe it to this House to avoid action that would jeopardize the welfare of the Association. So I rise to urge restraint, not that you pocket your views or cease to advocate...But I personally believe it could be suicidal for the House to defer to an impulse to impose social and cultural values on the entire membership of the ABA, rather than to endeavor to reflect some clear consensus of the bar." An organization that purports to speak for all lawyers should be careful to speak on this issue. He challenged individual House members to consider their constituents' views on this issue. He did not believe this issue received the consensus of the bar, and Jacobs urged the House to table the recommendation.
[FAVORS] James Silkenat of New York challenged the motion to table the recommendation according to Robert's Rules of Order. Jacobs responded that the House should consider the balance of its agenda and the House should not be continuing the debate at this time. Silkenat asked why this was urgent, and Jacobs responded, "Everything is urgent, Mr. Silkenat." Grey stated there was no emergency or exigent circumstances that would require the House to table this recommendation. The motion to table was ruled out of order.
[FAVORS] Tommy Wells, past ABA president, spoke in favor of the recommendation: "Eliminating legal barriers to civil marriage...does not redefine marriage." He asserted that same-sex couples want to share in the legal blessings of marriage. This resolution will strengthen, not threaten, marriage. He also emphasized that this resolution would not threaten religious liberties, because religious groups could still determine who they wished to marry. Wells concluded, "This is a matter of simple civil justice, nothing more and nothing less."
[FAVORS] Steve Zack [ABA President Elect] also spoke in favor of the resolution. Zack queried: "Why would anyone in this country not want two people who love each not to enjoy the blessings of marriage and full protection of law? Would any one of us want our marriages that we hold so sacred be called civil unions? Aren't all Americans entitled to the same right? Our fundamental purpose of being is to reject and deny discrimination anywhere and anytime. Please vote for this recommendation."
Other salmon slips were identified as being from past and president ABA leaders including Laurel Bellows, Neal Sonnett, James Silkenat, Steve Saltzburg, Bill Anderson, Martha Barnett, Karen Mathis, and Michael Greco, among many others.
The resolution was adopted with weak opposition."
*Note: this is not a commentary on the substance of the ABA's same-sex marriage policy or whether I agree or disagree with it- it is simply a commentary on the method of arriving at this decision, and that the approval of this policy looks like it was a foregone conclusion. The full text of this piece is here.
"The ABA House of Delegates met again Tuesday [August 10, 2010] morning to wrap up its deliberation for the 2010 Annual Meeting. The policies adopted concerned same-sex marriage... What follows is a summary of what was discussed.
Recommendation 111, sponsored by the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities (IRI) and 26 cosponsors, "urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry." No salmon slips were held in opposition, and the rules of limited debate applied.
[FAVORS] Past ABA Chairman Robert Grey introduced the resolution. According to Grey, "[T]he denial of civil marriage to same-sex couples harms them and their families, excluding them from critical legal protections that married persons take for granted. Let us be clear: this is a legal issue. It is also important to recognize that our colleagues of same-sex relationships deserve the same protections that we all have enjoyed under the founding documents of this country." He compared the rights of same-sex couples to women, the disabled, and members of different races. "Same-sex relationships are clear, they exist, and they are here to stay," stated Grey. He concluded, "We can choose to stand on the sidelines, or we can be on the field. There were times when this Association was on the sidelines. Today we should be on the field."[OPPOSES] Les Jacobs of the Ohio State Bar spoke in opposition. He stated, "I have reluctantly concluded that silence on an issue of political correctness is cowardice, and that we owe it to this House to avoid action that would jeopardize the welfare of the Association. So I rise to urge restraint, not that you pocket your views or cease to advocate...But I personally believe it could be suicidal for the House to defer to an impulse to impose social and cultural values on the entire membership of the ABA, rather than to endeavor to reflect some clear consensus of the bar." An organization that purports to speak for all lawyers should be careful to speak on this issue. He challenged individual House members to consider their constituents' views on this issue. He did not believe this issue received the consensus of the bar, and Jacobs urged the House to table the recommendation.[FAVORS] James Silkenat of New York challenged the motion to table the recommendation according to Robert's Rules of Order. Jacobs responded that the House should consider the balance of its agenda and the House should not be continuing the debate at this time. Silkenat asked why this was urgent, and Jacobs responded, "Everything is urgent, Mr. Silkenat." Grey stated there was no emergency or exigent circumstances that would require the House to table this recommendation. The motion to table was ruled out of order.[FAVORS] Tommy Wells, past ABA president, spoke in favor of the recommendation: "Eliminating legal barriers to civil marriage...does not redefine marriage." He asserted that same-sex couples want to share in the legal blessings of marriage. This resolution will strengthen, not threaten, marriage. He also emphasized that this resolution would not threaten religious liberties, because religious groups could still determine who they wished to marry. Wells concluded, "This is a matter of simple civil justice, nothing more and nothing less."[FAVORS] Steve Zack [ABA President Elect] also spoke in favor of the resolution. Zack queried: "Why would anyone in this country not want two people who love each not to enjoy the blessings of marriage and full protection of law? Would any one of us want our marriages that we hold so sacred be called civil unions? Aren't all Americans entitled to the same right? Our fundamental purpose of being is to reject and deny discrimination anywhere and anytime. Please vote for this recommendation."Other salmon slips were identified as being from past and president ABA leaders including Laurel Bellows, Neal Sonnett, James Silkenat, Steve Saltzburg, Bill Anderson, Martha Barnett, Karen Mathis, and Michael Greco, among many others.
The resolution was adopted with weak opposition."
This is precisely why I won't join the ABA. Though I support same-sex marriages, I realize that it is not a clear-cut issue, either legally or politically. Why is the ABA spending time on this? The legal profession is in shambles, thousands of new grads are without jobs, and worse are without hope of a future. Our profession will lose this talent unless we find ways to support and engage the new generation. The ABA should be helping new lawyers identify opportunities and eliminating barriers that complicate part time practice, online advertising and other tools that new lawyers might use to gain a toehold in the profession. Instead, the ABA is debating and taking sides on an issue that is being addressed in courts and legislatures across the country. I don't need to spend my money on that.
ReplyDeleteCarolyn, Thank you for the comment- I could not say it better. The ABA should save a little time and stop issuing non-binding policy/opinion blips. I would be surprised if a single court or legislature seriously took note of this resolution. The ABA must focus on their core competency- serving lawyers. The politicos and talking heads will sort out these issues, and they will do so without paying any attention to what the ABA thinks on the matter.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback, welcome to The Logic of Choice blog!
I find that organizations that supposedly represent professions don't usually have representing those in the professions fairly low on their priority list. (E.g. The AMA supporting a healthcare bill that will ultimately the doctors). Disclaimer: This is only my opinion and is not necessarily backed up by any anecdotal or factual evidence.
ReplyDelete