Speaking just to the elite law school angle, her concerns are not illegitimate or unfounded, but they are blown out of proportion. Doing my best on phone; this isn't as thorough or nuanced as I'd like.
I myself was extremely irked that many of my progressive law school classmates were basically like Trump supporters in that they cared more about their desired policy goals and outcomes than the underpinnings of the law, and didn't have much of a value system beyond their ideologies. They would love to pack the courts with ideologues like conservatives have been fairly successful at doing.
But that was a minority of people. What's more, our professors were definitely not of the same mind. The prof I had for con law, for example, is a prominent, highly regarded young liberal intellectual who posed hypotheticals to challenge the class's liberal assumptions, chiding us with "you guys are good liberals right?" He also regularly attends FedSoc panels (the FedSoc chapter at Columbia is doing just fine btw).
She also simply fails to understand how unmoving and slow-to-change the law is. She presents it as much more fungible and modifiable than it is. Her pointing to Breyer re: preemptory challenges is dumb, and almost a counter-argument, given that Breyer is not a particularly ideological justice.
Weiss is an uncredentialed pseudo-intellectual who has latched onto a real problem, but who does not have the knowledge or experience to write competently on the subject.
This entire discussion is about the law and the legal system. For Weiss’ degree to be remotely relevant to this discussion she has to have a law degree from Columbia. She doesn’t. She graduated in 2007 with a BA.
Meanwhile the person you’re speaking to claims to have graduated recently from Columbia Law.
She didn't go to law school, she's not part of that world.
Think about how many articles get tech stuff wrong. Articles about law tend to be even worse because of the political/emotive aspects, which writers (such as here) try to inflame.
Thats was me. It is unconfirmed based on a third party website. Its so weird that despite her being a very well known public figure, that this info is not out there.
Neither she nor the actual author are lawyers. They don't know that world. They don't know the law. They aren't experienced in its operation. They've cherrypicked quotes and sutuations to depict a situation different from what's happening in the profession of law itself.
It seems impossible to find her actual degree anywhere. Its like it has been scrubbed from the internet. Do you know what she actually majored in? The best I could find was a BA in History but I am unsure as it came from a third party source.
Given that she worked for the WSJ and NYT and they most likely thoroughly vet their hires, I doubt she lied about having a degree from Columbia. If that is what you are implying.
"Weiss is an uncredentialed pseudo-intellectual who has latched onto a real problem, but who does not have the knowledge or experience to write competently on the subject."
I was simply trying to find out what she actually majored in to gauge whether there is any truth to this statement. Furthermore, the difficulty in finding the exact degree program seems very suspicious.
Its very strange that such a public figure has no record of her degree program anywhere on the internet. I can understand if she was a nobody but this person is famous enough to have a wikipedia page and many years of publications.
I myself was extremely irked that many of my progressive law school classmates were basically like Trump supporters in that they cared more about their desired policy goals and outcomes than the underpinnings of the law, and didn't have much of a value system beyond their ideologies. They would love to pack the courts with ideologues like conservatives have been fairly successful at doing.
But that was a minority of people. What's more, our professors were definitely not of the same mind. The prof I had for con law, for example, is a prominent, highly regarded young liberal intellectual who posed hypotheticals to challenge the class's liberal assumptions, chiding us with "you guys are good liberals right?" He also regularly attends FedSoc panels (the FedSoc chapter at Columbia is doing just fine btw).
She also simply fails to understand how unmoving and slow-to-change the law is. She presents it as much more fungible and modifiable than it is. Her pointing to Breyer re: preemptory challenges is dumb, and almost a counter-argument, given that Breyer is not a particularly ideological justice.
Weiss is an uncredentialed pseudo-intellectual who has latched onto a real problem, but who does not have the knowledge or experience to write competently on the subject.