The JW urban legend I've heard my whole life is that first-year law students routinely hear about the JW's record before the U.S. Supreme Court.
What was your experience?
om
John Doe & other leagles: Is JW Supreme Court record LAW 101?
by Open mind 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
JeffT
I'm not a lawyer, but I know one I'll see if I can find out. They did establish a few major precedents, such as freedom to avoid the flag salute. I doubt any lawyer thinks about them the way they think about Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Education.
-
blondie
I have worked in the legal field for about 15 years. Many lawyers mentioned to me that they studied jw Supreme Court cases in school.
-
Open mind
Thanks JeffT & Blondie. I knew the cases were real, but was curious about where they registered on the average law student's radar.
JD?
om
-
jamiebowers
We have a JWN poster who just passed the bar in July. I'll send a FaceBook message and ask.
-
blondie
OM, I did say this.
Many lawyers mentioned to me that they studied jw Supreme Court cases in school.
I currently work with 30 lawyers and judges and have worked with county district court jduges, DA office, and criminal defense lawyers, civil cases, etc.
They all admitted to me that they had studied some jw cases at the Supreme Court level. Some of those cases established precedents nationwide and are used by lawyers when handling cases of a similar subject. Why re-invent the wheel.
Blondie
-
jonathan dough
Thanks JeffT & Blondie. I knew the cases were real, but was curious about where they registered on the average law student's radar.
JD?
Not sure what that means. What is register and what is radar? Law students in general don't account for much and don't know all that much while students. Enough to get in trouble. You need to ask a Constitutional lawyer that question. And he/she will tell you it depends on the issue being litigated. Then it matters if there is a relevant case or controversy. Until then it's just hypothetical what-ifs. If those decisions will make or break the case, then it's important to both sides. Some of the JW Supreme Court victories and losses are substantial by no stretch of the imagination.
Here is some info on their cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_by_country
I only wish the JWs would acknowledge all the work the ACLU has done on their behalf instead of villifying them. In that sense the JWs are hypocritical.
-
neverendingjourney
The curriculum in a constitutional law class varies greatly depending on the professor. If the professor chooses to spend a great deal of time on the First Amendment, then the 1st year law student might very well be exposed to a case or two dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses. It's doubtful Jehovah's Witnesses would get prominent treatment in a first-year class, though. If JWs are covered at all, it would likely appear in the casebook editors' notes that follow excerpts from seminal court decisions.
The only way a law student would be exposed to cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses in any great detail would be if the student decides to take an elective focusing on constitutional law as is relates to religion and the First Amendment. I can confidently say Jehovah's Witnesses do not get any extensive treatment in first-year con law classes. Like I said above, con law curriculum varies from professor to professor, so it may be that a particular professor in some law school somewhere might choose to cover JWs in some detail, but that is generally not standard practice. The notion that most law students graduate knowing all about how important Jehovah's Witnesses were to development of religious freedoms is simply not true.
To put things in the proper perspective, the Mormons had U.S. Supreme Court cases that were much more fundamental to the development of the law and American history in general. For example, The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States was a 1890 case that upheld the Edmunds-Tucker Act. The Edmunds-Tucker Act disincorporated the Mormon Church and allowed for the Church's assets to be seized by the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court (applying dubious legal analysis) upheld the Act and the federal government moved forward to take away the Mormon Church's property. Months after this ruling, in a reversal of long-held previous practice, the Mormon Church prohibited polygamy, which led to a reversal in the federal government's plan to take away the Church's property. Utah had not been admitted into the United States because of the Mormon Church's polygamy practice, but it was accepted into the Union soon after the change. This case was important because the Supreme Court legitimized the federal government's authority to destroy a religious denomination. The result was a complete reversal on polygamy by the Church of LDS, which resulted in the admittance of Utah a state in the Union.
This Mormon case makes JW door-knocking and flag-saluting cases look petty and insignificant by comparison.
-
John Doe
Did study a couple of jw cases first year. It was mainly dealing with tort law though, and their wacky stance on blood transfusions. One case involved a jw pedestrian getting hit by a car, refusing blood, and dying. The question was whether the driver was fully responsible since the jw refused necessary medical treatment. Been a while since I read the case.
A more recent case I studied involved a custody disupte where one parent was jw and one was not. The question was whether the judge could take religion into account when making a custody determination, specifically considering things like education and extra curricular activities.
-
Open mind
Sorry about "orphaning" this thread.
I've been a little preoccupied with other matters.
Thank you all for the replies.
And thank you Blondie, for getting me to re-read the answer right in front of my nose. If JWism was ever to be revamped from top to bottom, I'd nominate Blondie for elder!
Of course, I'd also recommend getting rid of the entire elder "arrangement", so.........never mind. It was supposed to be a compliment, but I think I've mangled it.
Thanks again.
om