We're #1 (Too)!

I'm having a Lake Wobegone sort of day here. Eugene has already Eugene noted that the VC is #1 in one ranking. And OpinionJournal has proclaimed GMU Law School "the most competent professors of any law school in the nation" in a process even less scientific than the other one reported by Eugene. Of course, both are exceedingly important and persuasive reports and should be treated as gospel truth by all.

Justin (mail):
How competent could they be if they couldn't even figure out where their school's own personal interest lay? Even if GMU had no desire to keep out the military, they may in the future have a desire to keep out other groups... academia should always be concerned when the first amendment gets chipped away from, particularly when its the first amendment rights of the academia itself, and the law school takes an unorthadox view of the law...
3.8.2006 9:21pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Sometimes it's ok to take a position against your personal interest if you happen to believe it's objectively the right position. Of course, that requires accepting that there is an objectively "correct" view of the law in the first place.

Hah! Now the thread has been hijacked to "living constitutionalism!" Anyone want to go for the hat trick and turn this into a 2nd amendment discussion?
3.8.2006 10:38pm
Kovarsky (mail):
This is so stupid. GMU's dean is preening as an achilles dragging the Yale hector outside of the ivory gates. "They're so out of touch" the people who don't actually read the briefs say.

The law profs filed on on the statutory question, not the constituitonal one. They therefore didn't lose on the constitutional question. They still lost, but they lost on the minutae of statutory interpretation, not constitutional meaning. They can't be out of touch on "statutory interpretation," because 99.5% of the public has no informed position on it.

That being said, the Chief rules.
3.8.2006 11:14pm
Kovarsky (mail):

GMU can still exclude employers if it wants. All the decision says is that Congress can override it. The long term self interest you're talking about is therefore more attenuated than you suggest.
3.8.2006 11:17pm
Kovarsky (mail):
Correction, apparently on the Harvard and Columbia faculties wrote the statutory question. I don't know whether Yale filed a brief independent from the university. I overstated my case based on a limited sample.
3.8.2006 11:21pm
Anonymous Jim (mail):
One thing this whole episode proves is that GMU can be as insufferably self-promoting, arrogant and obnoxious as the liberal academy they are taking on. Soon enough you will be number one in that ranking as well.
3.9.2006 7:56am
gmustudent (mail):
If they are so incredibly competent, how did they completely bungle this credit requirement change? Increasing credits required for graduation from 84 to 89 after students are 2/3 of the way through their first year? They had to know it would cause a massive backlash and didn't care. Not very competent.
3.9.2006 9:22am
Come on (mail):
The problem with you GMU guys is that you try too hard. The self-promotion is a little cloying.

Also, even if right-wing legal scholars are undervalued by the market, stocking an entire law school full of them hardly seems like a way to give students a well-rounded legal education. Law and econ isn't the end all be all of the world.
3.9.2006 10:07am
tefta (mail):
Whoa! The and your mother wears combat boots comments about GM law school from what I would suppose are mostly law students, lawyers or law profs is enlightening. I hope they do better when they are representing us at those scandalously high hourly rates they charge.

Congratulations to the VC for capturing first place as the most visited law blog. The most important category in my opinion because the diversity of bloggers reaches the most readers.

Come on, Come on. Law students and/or any other students in college or university haven't had a well-rounded education in three decades or more since the moonbats took over academia in the hippie dippie era.
3.9.2006 11:24am
Houston Lawyer:
Self promotion is often resented by those whose star is no longer rising. Since conservatives are underrepresented in the legal academy, GM presents an opportunity for a market correction. If their star rises based upon their intentional differentation, who is to complain.
3.9.2006 11:40am
Walter Sobchak:
I think Dean Polsby should be cut a bit of slack. GMU was the only law school to stand up for the JAG recruiters and for law students seeking jobs.

There were law professors who wouldn't sign on to GMU's amicus brief b/c they feared it would be held against them when it was time for tenure review. And others who simply didn't want to be labeled homophobic (even though the merits of don't ask don't tell were never at issue in the case).

Obviously GMU (correctly, according to all eight Justices who considered the matter) didn't feel the Solomon Amendment "chipped away" the First Amendment in any way.
3.9.2006 12:29pm
From the linked site:

[In the FAIR case] Only one law school, George Mason in Arlington, Va., filed a brief on the winning side. Given that not a single justice agreed with the views put forward by profs at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, NYU, Chicago, Penn, etc., it seems fair to say that George Mason has the most competent professors of any law school in the nation.

Context is everything. The WSJ seems to be joking.

If you don't think so, consider the implications. Is everyone who filed briefs on the government's side automatically smarter than everyone who filed briefs on FAIR's side? Is Walter Dellinger now officially an idiot? If I filed a completely crazy brief saying that because of the divine right of sovereigns, only the President can declare a law unconstitutional, would I be "smarter" than everyone on the losing side because the petitioners won? Given that (1) most laws aren't unconstitutional, and (2) the Supreme Court grants cert more often to reverse than to affirm, the respondents faced some long odds in this case.

I'd go on about this further, but it seems like a fairly tongue-in-cheek reference from the WSJ.
3.9.2006 2:17pm
Mikeyes (mail):
Who cares? It's Law School!

Did I say that? Must be the overwhelming feeling of pride that I have for being on the number one blog of it's kind.

I have a feeling that Todd's note is all in good fun and functioned to see how many readers have absolutley no sense of humor. Those USN&WR rankings seem to be all important judging from the responses on other threads, for what reasons other than economic, I don't know, but the point was made that in the last contest it was GMU 1, Harvardyalecolumbiavariousivyleaguestanfordetc 0. Since this is the time of the NCAA men's basketball tourney we have to expect some upsets. Maybe we sould play this off in the tourney, I believe that GMU will make it along with Penn and possibly a few of the others ;~)

BTW, I am not a graduate of any of these schools but am a huge basketball fan.
3.9.2006 5:56pm

Come on, Come on. Law students and/or any other students in college or university haven't had a well-rounded education in three decades or more since the moonbats took over academia in the hippie dippie era.

And yet America still stands. How...odd.

/gmusol '05
3.9.2006 7:21pm
tefta (mail):
Adam, Not odd at all. America still stands after decades of assault from the left because when most people leave school and enter the real world, they understand that while the U.S. is far from perfect, we are the closest to that ideal of any nation past of present. With any luck, even you may come to that realization in the very near future.

Good luck on pursuing a future in the law.
3.10.2006 2:40pm
I'm not surprised that GMU would be the #1 law school when you have 3Ls at Yale writing this:

which badly mischaracterizes Raich v Gonzales, stating, among other things, that Justice Scalia dissented.
3.10.2006 4:00pm