To the editor: Like most legislation professors, Erwin Chemerinsky and Jeffrey Abramson take into consideration civil rights from the highest down, beginning with the federal courts. From that perspective, we first attempt to shield civil rights on the U.S. Supreme Court docket. Subsequent we attempt Congress. If that fails, we work extra domestically. (“What can we educate legislation college students when we've got no religion within the Supreme Court docket?” Opinion, Jan. 16)
However there may be one other means to consider civil rights: from the underside up. I've spent my profession doing precisely that, first as a lawyer, then as a legislation professor.
Chemerinsky and Abramson argue that in relation to legislation college students and civil rights, “there actually are simply two selections: Hand over or battle tougher.” They're proper that we should educate legislation college students to battle. However we should additionally educate them to construct.
If legislation faculties helped each metropolis construct and run an in-house civil legislation enforcement unit, it will ship civil rights enforcement by way of the roof. What else might graduates do to construct civil rights protections? Off the highest of my head:
They might draft new charters (native constitutions) that comprise civil rights protections and enforcement mechanisms. They might run for metropolis council to broaden native civil rights ordinances. They might create and construct out native civil rights commissions and inspector common workplaces that supervise legislation enforcement. The record goes on.
The professors are proper that we should educate our college students to battle. However we should do greater than that. We should additionally educate them to construct.
Kathleen Morris, Oakland
The author is a professor at Golden Gate College College of Regulation.
..
To the editor: Chemerinsky and Abramson, who've “misplaced religion” within the U.S. Supreme Court docket, inform college students to maintain up the nice battle. OK, however what’s religion bought to do with it?
Amid their handwringing concerning the current Court docket, the authors level out that, traditionally, there have been justices and selections which have happy them. The authors additionally lament that Court docket appointments have turn out to be extremely partisan. Once more, the authors level out that appointments and nominations have run the edge-to-edge spectrum of mainstream worldviews.
Nicely, welcome to the rough-and-tumble world of legislation and politics.
Litigators, versus authorized academicians, could higher perceive the ups and downs concerned with representing shoppers earlier than numerous judges in numerous kinds of instances.
Most of the authors’ college students shall be practising within the a whole lot of decrease courts and never within the lofty confines of the “Marble Palace 9.” In these authorized trenches, it behooves litigators to know one thing concerning the judges earlier than whom they seem to allow them to use essentially the most persuasive arguments for his or her shoppers.
It’s merely a part of the job.
Edward A. Voci, River Forest, Sick.
The author is an teacher within the justice research division at Northeastern Illinois College.
..
To the editor: Who is that this “we” who've misplaced religion within the Supreme Court docket? Possibly you, however not me.
It's refreshing to see a semblance of widespread sense return to the Court docket. Would you like the Warren Court docket once more?
George Gawlik, Van Nuys
Post a Comment