David L. Faigman, dean of UC Hastings College of the Law, bemoans the high “cut score” resulting in what he asserts is a pass rate on the California bar exam that is “too low.” He notes with some chagrin that 1,789 people could’ve become lawyers had they only attempted to do so in New York instead of California. (“The California bar exam flunks too many law school graduates,” Opinion, March 21)
As my grandmother would’ve said, “You call this a problem?”
In this era of partisan rancor, I’d be willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of Californians would agree on one thing: The last thing our state needs is more lawyers.
As you know if you have been reading this blog for the past few months, my main concerns in getting Donald Trump elected president were (1) keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House and (2) getting law-abiding Supreme Court justices. This first of these has been accomplished and the second is well on its way to being accomplished (beginning with Neil Gorsuch). Although I have views on other issues, such as the border wall, health care, tax reform, and national defense, these were my main concerns. If President Trump gets anything else done, it's gravy.
I was ambivalent about the Trump-Ryan health-reform bill, which was pulled this afternoon before reaching a vote. On the one hand, I want ObamaCare to go down in flames; but on the other hand, I don't want ObamaCare Lite (as it's called). Apparently, the House Freedom Caucus prevented Trump and Ryan from getting their bill passed. Look at the membership of the Freedom Caucus. Thirty members, 29 of them white males and one of them an Hispanic male. Why are so few women and minorities attracted to libertarianism?
This supports something I have been saying for many years, to wit: Progressives act; conservatives react. Conservatives are constitutionally unable to initiate changes, especially big changes. They're much more comfortable slowing things down and tweaking things.