"The program works like this. Law schools with a particular affinity for left wing causes--count Georgetown, George Washington, Cal Berkeley, and NYU among them--promise to pay a law graduate's student loan payments up to a certain amount, provided they are engaged in "public interest" law.
"Because these school-sponsored subsidies to leftist lawyers often are limited to only ten years after graduation, the borrower-lawyer is forced to pay any loan payment after that.
"That's where the federal government program kicks in. The federal government program forgives the remainder of the loan, as long as the lawyer is practicing in left-wing dominated "public interest" law.
"While the program relates to "public interest" lawyers, public interest law is widely understood to be the practice of law with left-wing causes. Conservative law students who wish to work for conservative public interest organizations are routinely denied access to school benefits reserved for leftist "public interest" practices. Conservatives wishing to adopt the label do succeed sometimes, but usually must fight an entrenched institutional bias against them at American law schools.
"The program says employment with the government or a 501(c)(3) organization qualifies. The number of leftist 501(c)(3) organizations dwarfs the handful of conservative 501(c)(3) organizations engaged in public litigation. The qualification has the discriminatory impact of subsidizing the left.
"Law school student organizations and "public interest" clubs are also nearly exclusively leftist in orientation, especially at the most elite law schools. You don't find many Second Amendment clubs on campus.
"The federal program, combined with the ideological biases of elite American law schools, has created incentives to produce increasing numbers of leftist activists with law degrees who will then practice at groups pushing for racial quotas and discrimination, against election integrity measures, against the free market and any other of the foundation-funded anti-freedom causes."
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Big News For the Left: FEDERAL PROGRAM: BECOME AN ACTIVIST LEFTIST LAWYER, FOR FREE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
How do you go from
'work for U.S.-based government agencies or nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations' to
'practicing in left-wing dominated "public interest" law' ?
You just copied the conspiracy-leaning reasoning of the breitbart.com writer?
Yes; when the column is indented and the entire works is in quotes and italics, then it has been quoted from the source given.
You can't merely defame a writer, you must give evidence for your accusations; I know that you are not used to having to do that, but it is required of an argument before it can be given weight.
And of course the most natural thing for a conspirator to do is to charge the Ad Hominem "conspiracy theorist" in order to Poison the Well without ever addressing the actual ergument being given. Not that you are a conspirator, of course, but merely a sympathizer.
It's truly a bad habit.
If you have an actual argument, then make it.
"argument", not ergument. You'd think I was typing with my nose.
Addressed an argument; didn't make one.
How do you go from
'work for U.S.-based government agencies or nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations' to
'practicing in left-wing dominated "public interest" law' ?
LV,
I didn't make the argument, I reprinted it. If you challenge it, then go to the source. That should be obvious. Presumably the author has the evidence to support his contention; I have seen evidence which would support it, but I don't have it on hand. Given the revolving door of the White House to K street, to PIRG groups, and to law firms, it seems to hold up, though. Prove otherwise; falsify it if you can.
There is nothing to falsify; that's the point. He jumps from 'work for U.S.-based government agencies or nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations' to
'practicing in left-wing dominated "public interest" law' without any evidence...
Your double standards are dully noted; your opponents have to support every single statement they make, present argument even if they are merely expression an opinion. Your friends and yourself just spit stuff left and right and it's yet again your opponents who need to refute the claims. Fascinating.
Hmmm. LV, one would think that you would at least have some argument to make regarding evidence that what the author has claimed is false. But you do not.
Do you deny that the government bureaucracy is completely loaded with Democrat activists? The evidence being produced daily shows otherwise.
Do you deny that universities are organized to discriminate against conservatives when hiring professors? The evidence is fully available to show otherwise.
Do you deny that the open door between the current Leftist government and K street, PIRGs, MSM media and other Leftist advocacies is a constant flow? Current evidence being produced daily shows that it is.
So why can you not make a case?
Must I dig up the information for you? I think you don't make your case specifically because you know the truth. However, should you continue to present merely this simple issue as a helpless question, then I suppose I will help you out one more time. So: do you really, actually not see the connection?
"Hmmm. LV, one would think that you would at least have some argument to make regarding evidence that what the author has claimed is false. But you do not. "
I repeat that quote I copied on another thread: what is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You do fall into conspiracy theory when you claim that universities, government and the media are all biased against 'conservatives' or 'the Right'.
Post a Comment