Howard Oath

[Frank Cross]

To Rick and others,

I can't speak for anybody else but think I sense their reaction.  It just
"feels" like a nutty right wing conspiracy theory.  (The left wing has
their own nutty conspiracy theories, that may reflect a religious
prejudice.)  I say this because the original story was, I think, half false
regarding the number of Howard grads on the court and was very unclear
about the nature of the oath.  What's more, it seems pretty irrelevant,
since a majority of the court did not go to Howard and reached the same
result.  What's more, it seems odd to suggest that a judge would put a law
school graduation oath above the oath they took upon assuming the judicial
office.  And the focus on Howard is not necessarily objectionable but seems
to carry a "whiff" of racism.  Eugene is of course right that Howard is not
exempt from criticism, but people worry when one posts that some minority
group will be disloyal to their patriotic obligations in order to favor
their own interests.  It's like asserting that Jews are loyal to Israel
rather than the U.S.  Or like asserting that JFK would put the pope over
the constitution.  I'm not arguing that such claims are illegitimate
speech, just that it behooves a speaker to get the facts nailed down before
making a claim.  I think trying to nail down the facts was the point of
Rick's original post.  But my reaction to the story/rumor would be to think
that it lacked sufficient indicia of credibility or significance to pursue.





Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712