I am grateful for Steve Bainbridge's post on the Glendon nomination. I think when a person (including a lawyer) is nominated to some public office, he or she may well have some expertise that comes from a past professional background. Steve has mentioned one example. Regardless of what a person has done in the past, this individual takes on a new position with new responsibilities, sometimes accompanied by an oath of office. I would like to expand the category that Steve identified by suggesting that there are many judges who have worked for "one side" in their past careers; but when they are appointed or elected to a judicial post, they must put aside past affiliations in some hope and sense that they will now be impartial. New duties, and new responsibilities; new responsibilities, new duties. Think of the judges who now hold office having been lawyers for defendants, for the state, for corporations, for the ACLU (e.g., Ruth Bader Ginsburg); but now they hold judicial office. I am sure that their respective pasts provided a foundation in experience that contributed to their qualifications--but with new responsibilities come new duties. I am confident that Professor Glendon would be amongst the first to acknowledge that with new responsibilities come new duties and with new duties come new responsibilities. RJA sj
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
A Glendon follow-up
Wills is wrong, cont'd
A few days ago, I expressed my doubts about Garry Wills's recently-expressed-in-op-ed-form arguments relating to Christianity, the Bible, abortion, and reason. Here's a snippet, from a recent lecture by Archbishop Chaput, that provides still more reasons to regret the mistakes in Wills's piece:
From the start, to be a Christian meant believing that sex and marriage were sacred. From the start, to be a Christian meant rejecting abortion, infanticide, birth control, divorce, homosexual activity and marital infidelity -- all those things widely practiced by their Roman neighbors.
Athenagoras, a Christian layman, told the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the year A.D. 176 that abortion was "murder" and that those involved would have to "give an account to God." And he told the emperor the reason why: "For we regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care."
As this audience already knows, Christian reverence for the unborn child is no medieval development. It comes from the very beginnings of our faith. The early Church had no debates over politicians and communion. There wasn't any need. No persons who tolerated or promoted abortion would have dared to approach the Eucharistic table, let alone dared to call themselves true Christians.
And here's why: The early Christians understood that they were the offspring of a new worldwide family of God. They saw the culture around them as a culture of death, a society that was slowly extinguishing itself. In fact, when you read early Christian literature, practices like adultery and abortion are often described as part of "the way of death" or the "way of the [devil]."
There's an interesting line in a Second Century apologetic work written by Minucius Felix. He was a Roman lawyer and a convert. He's talking about a birth-control drug that works as an abortifacient. He describes its effects this way: "There are women who swallow drugs to stifle in their own womb the beginnings" of a person to be.
"The So-Called Church Autonomy Theory"
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that I will not agree with this new paper, "The Waterloo for the So-Called Church Autonomy Theory: Widespread Clergy Abuse and Institutional Cover-up," by Prof. Marci Hamilton. Just a hunch.
A Market Valuation of the Genius of Women?
From a Reuters report on how "Female U.S. Corporate Directors Outearn Men":
They may be a small minority in corporate boardrooms, but women directors typically earn more than men, a new U.S. study has found.
Female directors in corporate America earned median compensation of $120,000, based on the most recently available pay data, compared with $104,375 for male board members, research group The Corporate Library said in its annual director pay report on Wednesday.
At the same time, the study said, women in corporate boardrooms are outnumbered eight to one.
The disappointed law student
As I hand out midterm grades today, I was struck by this paper, Preparing Law Students for Disappointing Exam Grades: Lessons From Casey at the Bat. (HT: Prawfs) Here's the abstract:
It is a statistical fact of life that two-thirds of the law students who enter law school will not graduate in the upper one-third of their law school class. Typically, those students are disappointed in their examination grade results and in their class standing. Nowhere does this disappointment manifest itself more than in their attitude toward their classes. In the fall semester of their first year, students are eager, excited, and willing to participate in class discussion. But after they receive their first semester grade results, many students withdraw from the learning process - they are depressed and disengaged. They suffer a significant loss of self-esteem. This article considers whether law professors should prepare their students for the disappointing results - the poor grades - that many are certain to receive. I assert that professors do indeed have a role to play - in fact, a duty to their students - to confront this problem. I offer a strategy by which professors can acknowledge students' pre-examination anxiety and deal constructively with their impending disappointment. There are lessons to be learned from Casey at the Bat, Ernest Lawrence Thayer's immortal poem about failure.
It seems that Catholic law schools should be even more inclined to minister to students in their disappointment, and to utilize resources even more insightful than Casey at the Bat. I try to remind students to identify the source(s) of their worth, especially at exam time, and to resist the temptation to define their worth in terms of their accomplishments. It's a lesson I'm still learning myself, but I think it warrants continued focus in the classroom and in casual conversation. Perhaps the richness and breadth of the conversation that can occur in a setting where faith is "on the table" is one aspect of the pastoral dimension that should distinguish Catholic legal education.
Believe It or Not . . .
Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani.
More on Glendon
At the risk of being deemed "pissy," let me play devil's advocate on the Glendon appointment. Over on my personal blog, I expressed my considerable admiration for her while still wondering whether her long service to the Hoy See in various capacities doesn't raise a conflict of interest. It seems a bit odd to hire someone who has devoted much of her life to representing the interests of State A to be the ambassador of State B to A. Would we hire a lawyer who spent much of her professional life representing China in global trade negotiations to be our ambassador to China (recognizing that the cases are not on all fours)?
More on Mary Ann Glendon
I begin by thanking Tom and Elizabeth for their informative and great posts on Mary Ann Glendon and her nomination to be the next US Ambassador to the Holy See. In my friendship with her that extends for more than two decades, I have always encountered one of the most charitable and gracious people that I have ever met. She sets the standard for anyone who wishes to consider himself or herself a contributing member of society who welcomes respectful debates, encounters, and dialogues with other people. Mr. Jon O'Brien of Catholic's For a Free Choice is mistaken in using the term reactionary. He might consider the possibility that his views and those of his organization are, in fact, reactionary to authentic human rights. He might also profit from reading Professor Glendon's book on Eleanor Roosevelt and the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--"A World Made New." As for Fr. McBrien's comments about her in the context of feminism, I am puzzled. It is, I suggest, difficult for him to argue seriously that she is somehow opposed to feminism for she is :a remarkable professional woman; a mother of three adult daughters; and a devoted wife of a loving husband. One can also glean insight from her perspectives on feminism by reading her review of Elizabeth Fox Genovese's "Feminism is Not the Story of My Life" which is HERE. RJA sj
Mary Ann Glendon's Nomination
I share your assessment, Tom, of the acclamation that ought to accompany Mary Ann Glendon's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. But just to show that it's simply impossible to underestimate people's ability to be "pissy" (sorry, Rob's grandmother!), take a look at the Boston Globe's coverage of this news.
I find particularly offensive (and, frankly, idiotic) Notre Dame's Father McBrien's comments:
"She has also been an outspoken critic of feminism, tending to write it off as a relic of the 1970s," said the Rev. Richard P. McBrien, a University of Notre Dame theologian, "all of which endears her to conservative Catholics and makes her an ideal choice for President Bush."
From that comment, it strikes me that his understanding of the term "feminism" must be a relic of the 1970s, if not the 1950s.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Congratulations to Mary Ann Glendon ...
... on the announcement of her forthcoming nomination as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. See also here. This is one confirmation that can go forward by acclamation!
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
