Despite the down economy and big firm layoffs, college students are still beating down the doors of law schools in America. More people — 60,746 — took the most recent LSAT on September 26 than had ever taken the exam before. The number of LSAT takers has been on the rise since 2007, but this is the largest jump since 2001— nearly 20% over last year.
LSATs Administered 1988-2009
I won’t dig into the reasons for this increase too much. (If you are interested, this thorough post on Most Strongly Supported has a good discussion.) But for any person considering law school or a legal career, this is a good excuse to discuss the question of whether you really should go to law school.
There has been a flurry of articles and blawg posts lately about whether a legal education is really a good investment. Vanderbilt Law professor Herwig Schlunk wrote an entertainingly-titled article “Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be … Lawyers,” and Paul Caron of TaxProf Blog asserted that “Going to Law School Is Like Starting to Smoke.” There’s a healthy dose of humor and pessimism in both those pieces, but even the most optimistic observers have to recognize that the legal profession is undergoing a shift that is destroying many of the institutions that made it so lucrative. Aspiring lawyers must now realize that they might not have a job waiting for them when they graduate from law school. And law schools, particularly those in the top tier, have become more like big businesses than halls of learning. While the median income of lawyers increased by 25% from 1987 to 2002, the average law school debt increased 400% over that same period. In 2005, the average graduate of a private law school had $78,000 of debt from law school alone.
Young LDS students considering legal careers should carefully consider these sobering number, in light of Mormon Church advice on avoiding debt. I have heard many people within the Church say that borrowing money is okay for purchasing a home, obtaining an education, and sometimes to purchase a vehicle. But given the housing market collapse and the rising costs of a legal education, students should understand that neither a house nor an education is always a good investment.
While some parts of the country are still under-serviced, there are probably too many people getting into the practice of law. Last month Justice Antonin Scalia commented that he thought that America is “wasting some of our best minds” on lawyering, when other fields lack qualified applicants. After last September’s jump in LSAT takers, the ABA Journal took the unusual step of suggesting that applicants “consider the alternatives.“
My advice to people considering law school is the same that it has always been. If you are interested in the practice of law, then by all means, pursue it. But if you don’t know what to do with your life and you know lawyers can make a lot of money, I think it’s a bad decision. I also recommend that future law students find out for themselves whether they will like legal practice. Most law schools will let you sit in on first-year law school classes, and you can volunteer or do internships at legal offices to find out what the practice is really like. It is better to find out early on that you wouldn’t really like being a lawyer, and if you do like it, the experience will cement your decision.
Several news sources have reported on the Salt Lake City law passed on Tuesday night that explicitly prohibited employment and housing discrimination against gay, bisexual and transgendered persons. The law was apparently passed after the LDS Church announced its support for the measure. There is already talk about passing similar provisions in other cities in Utah, or extending the law state-wide.
Just as I like to see accommodation for religious beliefs in same-sex marriage legislation, I also like to see a recognition of the rights of all people that don’t interfere with religious beliefs. The AP article quoted Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council as saying: “It’s disappointing and I’m fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way.” I think Sprigg is likely right that this move was at least in part a reaction to the Prop. 8 fallout, but I don’t think this is an attempt to show tolerance. I see this as an attempt by the LDS Church to clarify its position on homosexuality. After all, there’s no doctrinal tenet in Mormonism that says that people not adhering to the Church’s teachings (such as living a homosexual lifestyle) should be subject to discrimination at work or at home.
The first line of the AP article about the Salt Lake law reads: “It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.” But it shouldn’t be surprising. Since the family plays a central role in Mormon theology, there certainly are gay rights issues that the Mormon Church opposes, such as same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, or perhaps school curricula. But asserting those positions need not take on the form of absolute opposition to all gay issues. LDS Church spokesperson Michael Otterson mentioned other issues that the Church does not oppose, such as equality in probate matters and hospitalization/medical care issues.
I think the cooperative approach should go both ways: while supporters of same-sex marriage disagree with religious groups on various issues, they can (and should) recognize the right of religious groups and individuals to believe and teach religious principles that may include opposition to homosexuality. For the past few years it has appeared that the gay rights movement and religious liberties were on a collision course, but cooperation like that in Salt Lake is a good reminder that the conflict is both unnecessary and avoidable.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of whether minors convicted of crimes other than murder can serve life sentences without parole. In a lot of ways, this is a case that stems from the 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons, which eliminated the death penalty for minors. On the day of the oral arguments for Roper, I happened to be at the Supreme Court to attend another case (U.S. v. Booker, which dealt with the unsexy topic of upward departure in the federal sentencing guidelines). I remember standing outside the Supreme Court building and talking with some of the other people in line about the Roper case, and we all agreed that we were glad we weren’t judged for the stupid things we had done in our teenage years.
The LDS Church has no official opinion or policy on appropriate sentencing for juveniles. Even in a topic such as capital punishment generally, the Church is avowedly neutral. But certain aspects of criminal law invoke concepts of mercy, justice, forgiveness, and redemption—ideas that are a central part of Mormon theology, as well as that of mainstream Christianity and other faiths. Different Mormons might reach different conclusions within the same religious and legal framework, but I think both are important considerations when we consider criminal sentencing, particularly for juvenile offenders.
I have thought about some of these issues before, a few years ago when I worked at a district attorney’s office prosecuting child sex offenders, and more recently in a post about capital punishment. On the one hand, young people can commit some pretty heinous offenses before the age of 18, and even supporters of today’s case acknowledge that some juvenile offenders should be locked up for a long time. And having dealt with child sex cases, I feel very strongly that some people need to be imprisoned in order to protect the general public. But my religious beliefs also lead me to believe that people can change, and that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ makes forgiveness possible. And without at least some rehabilitative aspect, imprisonment seems futile or counterproductive for most offenders. As many prison administrators can testify, the last person you want to deal with is someone who has no hope of getting out an no incentive to improve behavior. Where is the balance between the consequences that result of our exercise of agency, and the mercy and forgiveness made possible by the atonement of Christ?
Both Terrence Graham and Joe Sullivan, the plaintiffs before the Court, are model inmates and good candidates for release. Legal analysts say their life sentences were the result of an extreme combination of two Florida sentencing laws. In my mind, the case actually hinges on the interpretation of “cruel and unusual punishment” and principles of federalism, but the concepts of accountability and redemption linger in my mind.
Photo credit: Still Burning.
Voters in Maine passed Question 1 on Tuesday, rejecting same-sex marriage legislation in the state by an even larger margin than California voters passed Proposition 8. Many analysts were quite surprised by the result—pre-election polling showed that the sides were close. There was a record turnout of around 60% of voters. Same-sex marriage supporters vow to continue their efforts, but the referendum result is clearly a setback.
Punditry inevitably abounds in the wake of a dramatic vote like this, but I have a few thoughts on the matter that I think are worth mentioning. First, as I mentioned earlier, the Mormon Church was not directly involved in the Maine campaign, having used up its political capital in the California campaign in 2008. Individual Mormons certainly participated, and there are plenty of allegations that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a front for the LDS Church, but I think it’s clear that Mormon Leaders stood on the sidelines on this one. Much more active was the Roman Catholic Church. I will be interested from a free speech and free exercise perspective to see whether Catholics and the Catholic Church face the same animosity as did Mormons after Prop. 8, and whether some of the anger at Mormons will be transferred to other groups. My guess is that the backlash, if any, will be far lesser, since the whole process has been much more measured and quiet than the tumultuous history leading up to Prop. 8, and many people have already fixated on the Mormon Church.
My second thought is that Maine’s decision to stay implementation of the same-sex marriage legislation seems to have been justified. This avoided the retroactive problems experienced in California, and will likely result in less litigation. Regardless of your opinion of the result, I think Maine’s leaders and legislators deserve recognition for taking the right approach to this sort of legislation.
Thirdly, it seems that legislation is an increasingly common tool or weapon by both sides of these sorts of contentious issues. Question 1 opponents accused NOM of hiding its financial records, and NOM fired back by subpoenaing financial information from the group Californians Against Hate. Litigation is ill-suited for this sort of dispute, but unless it is somehow curtailed, lawsuits may inevitably precede, accompany, and follow controversial legislation or referendums in the future.
The fourth thought is that critics of the result of Prop. 8 cried foul over the amount of money poured into the California campaign by out-of-state contributors. The situation in Maine was reversed, with millions of dollars in support of the No on 1 campaign coming from out of state. The No campaign had roughly twice the amount of money that the Yes campaign did, but the result was the same. (This may say a lot about how ineffective campaign advertising can be.) I wonder if these two situations might not spur some states to limit the amount of out-of-state funding available for a state referrendum.
My fifth and final thought is that the result in Maine will likely produce a shift in focus away from the state level to the national level. This will almost certainly come in the form of litigation, since federal legislation would likely require a constitutional amendment in order to supercede the states’ exclusive authority in regulating marriage. Two major lawsuits are already in the works, including a lawsuit out of California and another equal protection challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Since the last mention in these Blawgernacle Round-ups, Jeff Breinholt of Mormon Matters has written several excellent posts. As usual, they are recommended reading. My favorite was his post on cases that challenged the impartiality of Mormon judges or jurors. I was extremely surprised to learn that more Mormon judges had been challenged than even Catholic judges, and that challenges to Mormon jurors are similarly common in comparison with other religions. Jeff’s post about the Civil Rights movement at BYU garnered quite a rather extensive comment thread. Less controversial but still quite interesting was this post about the litigators for the Church, both past and present. Jeff’s most recent post takes a look back at the infamous “Mormon will” of Howard Hughes, a holographic will that purportedly left a portion of his estate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Adam Greenwood of Junior Ganymede writes about some of the motivations for abortion law advocates.
Finally, some of you may have heard of the passing of BYU Law professor Michael Goldsmith after a long struggle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease). I actually heard the news tonight during Game 5 of the World Series between the Yankees and the Phillies. Goldsmith was a life-long baseball fan and spurred Major League Baseball to do more to help combat the disease named after one of its most famous players. The New York Times has a good article on Goldsmith, but I found a more personal set of memories from BYU Law alumna and blogger Gurrbonzo, complete with memorable quotes from Professor Goldsmith’s classes.
The campaign has mostly stayed below the radar, but voters in Maine will soon decide whether same-sex marriage will be legalized in their state. Question 1 on this November’s ballot is very similar to last year’s California Proposition 8, but there are some big differences that I think are important.
Same-sex marriage was briefly legalized in California as a result of the state Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases. The court refused to stay its holding to allow legal challenges, resulting in the voter initiative know as Prop. 8. That vote and the subsequent California Supreme Court review brought gay marriages to a halt in California, but did not invalidate those already performed.
Contrast that tumultuous history with the background in Maine. Like in New Hampshire, same-sex marraige was legalized in Maine through legislative act rather than judicial opinion. I consider this to be a far preferable method of implementing new laws, for several reasons. For example, the Maine statute included specific language about religious freedoms and addressed how the new law would (and would not) alter the obligations of religious organizations, clergy, and individuals. I don’t think the Maine statute went far enough to protect individuals, but it’s a lot better than the silence in California on the topic.
Maine was also prudent enough to delay issuing marriage licenses to gay couples pending the outcome of Question 1. While this may delay the ability of some couples to marry, I think it is much better to avoid the legal limbo and further litigation that happened in California. The Maine statute also seems to address legitimate interests of gay citizens, rather than the ephemeral social acceptance the California Supreme Court attempted to mandate. In general, I think legislators and officials in Maine have taken a far better approach to the question of legalizing same-sex marriage than their counterparts in California.
For Mormons, one of the biggest differences in the two campaigns is that the LDS Church has not taken an active role in the Maine initiative like it did in California. Individual Mormons are active in the campaign, but there have been no letters read from the pulpit or public statements from Mormon officials like in Prop. 8. I think this may be due to the fact that there is a smaller LDS population in Maine than in California, and perhaps the legislative approach to the law change and religious protections were more palatable to Mormon leaders. However, given the backlash and hostility following the outcome of Prop. 8, perhaps Mormon leaders are reluctant to get involved in a firefight again.
Despite their differences, Maine Question 1 and California Proposition 8 do have one thing in common: just days before the election, both initiatives were too close to call. Maine Question 1 is running about even in the polls, so it won’t be until November 3 before we know the outcome.
Photo credit: J. Stephen Conn.
It’s time for a long-overdue Blawgernacle round-up, and this time there are some excellent guest posts. Peter LLC, a guest writer and frequent commenter on By Common Consent, wrote about the Mormon section of the city cemetery in Vienna, Austria. This cemetery section is one feature of the Austrian government’s regulation of public religion that is very foreign to Americans. It also represents one of the privileges the Mormon Church now enjoys, having obtained a recognized status in Austria similar to that sought in Italy.
Marc Bohn of Times & Seasons posted a very entertaining (if nerdy) piece by Eric Taylor Woodbury entitled “The Doctrine of Revelatory Justiciability.” It’s probably borderline heresy to apply legal concepts such as standing to prayer, but that’s what we law nerds do sometimes. Be sure to read the comments as well.
Finally, there were quite a few posts around the larger Bloggernacle about Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ address about religious freedom. Geoff B. of Millennial Star wrote one of the first posts, followed by Steve M.’s series of posts on Dissenting in Part. I also recommend Kaimi Wenger’s post in Times & Seasons about claims of intimidation by both Mormons and gays.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ address last week on religious liberties at Brigham Young University-Idaho triggered some strong reactions. Many of the criticisms seem directed at this statement, comparing harassment or violence against members of the Mormon Church to that experienced by civil rights advocates in the 1950’s and 1960’s:
“. . . [W]hile this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.”
The Salt Lake Tribune quotes Jeanetta Williams, president of the Salt Lake City NAACP, as saying: “I don’t see where the LDS Church has been denied any of their rights. What the gay and lesbian communities are fighting for, that is a civil-rights issue.” Her sentiment echoes that of many bloggers, including some who might otherwise expected to support religious liberties. (For a thoughtful comparison of the claims of persecution by Mormons and gays, see Thomas Jefferson School of Law prof Kaimi Wengner’s post on Times and Seasons.)
I agree with these critics that the cases of harassment, vandalism, or violence experienced by Mormons over the last year as a result of Prop. 8 are small peanuts compared to the widespread, institutionalized acts of intimidation in the Civil Rights Era. And when he was asked, Elder Oaks agreed that the intimidation “was not as serious as what happened in the South.” But most of these bloggers seem hung up on the fact that they consider gay marriage a civil rights issue, focusing on the large amounts of money donated by Mormons to the Prop. 8 campaign. In the process, they miss the point and discount the valid concerns in Elder Oaks’ speech.
I still think the voting intimidation issue is an important one. Any time violence, vandalism, or threats are used to achieve or discourage participation in the democratic process, that’s a civil rights violation. The intimidation does not—and should not—have to rise to the level of 1960 Birmingham to be considered wrong. Nor should you have to agree with the intimidated parties for the intimidation to violate a civil right. As Elder Oaks noted, the hostility directed towards Mormons stems more from political disagreement than religious disagreement. (A few media outlets have observed the inconsistency of this response.)
But focusing on same-sex marraige clouds the rest of his arguments, and they deserve consideration. Although other intelligent people disagree, the focus of the speech was not Prop. 8 or same-sex marraige. Rather, it was on the threats to American religious liberties in general. Elder Oaks said Prop. 8 was not the primary inspiration for the talk, and he seemed to focus much more on challenging the notion that religion does not belong in the public square. It seems his primary focus was to address movements such as Richard Dawkins-esque “new atheism” rather than same-sex marriage proponents. While gay rights supporters don’t like the Mormon Church’s involvement in the Prop. 8 campaign, a growing number of atheists in America think the Mormon Church or any other church shouldn’t even be allowed to participate in public discourse. That hostile position holds wider consequences than one state voter referendum. A lesser concern in Elder Oaks’ talk was that of religious tests for public office, a topic he acknowledged stemmed from Mitt Romney’s 2008 Republican Primary campaign. Elder Oaks is making his argument for what he thinks is the appropriate role of religion in society, and he’s looking at groups like the Center for Inquiry or anti-Mormon evangelical groups just as much as he’s looking at a group like Equality California.
Unfortunately, Elder Oaks’ multi-faceted argument seems to have been ignored as soon as he uttered the phrase “Proposition 8.” Some seem to even to have confused his remarks to say that gay-rights advocates are mostly atheists, a reading that I don’t think is supported by the text of the address. Though you may disagree with his conclusions, it is clear that Elder Oaks is no dummy. Other law professors, such as the University of Michigan’s Douglas Laycock, agree with him that the backlash on Prop. 8 carries free speech concerns. Professor Laycock noted that courts in Sweden and Canada have ruled unconstitutional preaching that homosexuality is a sin, so in the U.S. “it’s not unimaginable.” Bloggers and legal scholars alike need to break out of the gay marriage paradigm and take an honest look at the future of religious liberties in order to find an appropriate balance between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause.
Photo credit: Intellectual Reserve. Low-resolution photo used pursuant to fair-use provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 117.
On Sunday the L.A. Times reported on a speech by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George. Chief Justice George is best known on the national stage for authoring the 2008 In re Marriage Cases opinion that legalized same-sex marriage in California. His most recent address was about California Proposition 8 and his criticism of the voter initiative process. And while I have profound disagreements with Chief Justice George’s In re Marriage Cases majority opinion, I agree at least in part with his criticism of voter initiatives
Voter initiatives in most states require a certain minimum number of signatures in order to place the initiative on the ballot. Chief Justice George laments that these initiatives are often funded by “special interests,” and that the legislature and even the courts are thereby restricted by the use or threat of voter initiatives. I agree this can be problematic, but so also can judicial decisions that overstep the general boundaries of the separation of powers model. I am much more concerned with the fact that in some jurisdictions, such as California, laws and even constitutions may be altered by a simple majority.
Individual rights are relatively meaningless if they can be taken away by a simple majority of voters. If the small, unpopular minority doesn’t enjoy the same enumerated freedoms as other citizens, then it isn’t truly a free society. This goes for any minority protected by state or national constitution or law. The major flaw with the California initiave scheme isn’t that interest groups can get measures placed on the ballot. It’s the fact that only a simple majority of votes is required to change the law or state constitution. Thus, with 52% of the vote, a measure like Proposition 8 can pass.
I think Chief Justice George and the other signers of the majority opinion were dead wrong in In re Marriage Cases. Frankly, I don’t even think several of the plaintiffs properly had standing to bring suit. And I am not opposed to the possibility of voter referendums overturning judicial opinions. But there must, at the very least, be a super-majority requirement or some other mechanism that ensures that unpopular minorities will still be protected. Mormons, of all people, can appreciate the peril of being unpopular and small in number.
The excerpts from Chief Justice George’s remarks make it clear that he is focused on other issues, such as California’s funding problems and any curtailing of his own judicial power. But I agree with him that the voter initiative process needs an over-haul.
Photo credit: Judicial Council of California.
Bruce Crow of Amateur Mormon Historian cites an amusing historical anecdote about the arrest of two Mormon missionaries in Tennessee in 1885. A warrant was sworn out for the arrest of four missionaries for preaching polygamy, but only two were arrested. Apparently the two missionaries preached while they were in jail and ended up converting one of their jailers. Elders Chirstensen and Garner were then brought to trial, but they insisted on representation and the trial was postponed. In the meantime, the mission president, John Morgan, rode up from Chattanooga and got the two missionaries out on $500 bond. They eventually went home without ever standing trial, so President Morgan lost the cost of the bond. However, when he returned to examine the paperwork, he discovered that the court clerk had inadvertently listed the bond as $5 instead of $500.
The LDS Church History blog, which is covering all of Church history through the year 2009, had a segment on the attempt to create the State of Deseret in 1849. Almon Babbitt was sent to Washington as the representative of the provisional state, and he hired Stephen Douglas to represent him. However, the House of Representatives refused to seat him. The Committee on Elections stated at the time: “The admission of Mr. Babbitt would be a quasi recognition of the legal existence of the State of Deseret; and no act should be done by the House, which, even by implication, may give force and vitality to a political organization extra-constitutional and independent of the laws of the United States.”
Jeff Breinholt has a post on Mormon Matters about a couple of Free Exercise claims brought by Mormons. Jeff concludes that most such cases are ill-advised, and I agree. These cases are probably evidence that Mormons have become just as over-litigious as the rest of America. There may be some genuine Free Exercise conflicts that Mormons will encounter, but they probably won’t involve country club golf tournaments.
Last week various news outlets reported that Christopher Gribble, a young Mormon man, was one of several arrested for the arbitrary and premeditated murder of a family in New Hampshire. Mormonism Unveiled links to several articles that provide some background on Gribble, including his troubled past, family problems, and depression. Gribble apparently had submitted application papers to serve a Mormon mission but his stake president told him to resolve some problems at home first.
Mormonism Unveiled also took a look at the LDS members of the House of Representatives that voted on the hate crime bill that was buried in a defense spending bill last week. The blog’s pseudonymous author, Jack Mormon, opposes the hate crime legislation, and while I take issue with some of his characterizations, I generally agree. For more background on hate crimes and hate speech , see this LDS Law post from earlier this year.
