I don't have specific references, just information I've picked up from various sources.

There was a change in the law school curriculum sometime around the 1920's - 1930's. They have a specific name for the change, but I don't remember off hand.

Today, the way I would describe it (to my layman's understanding) is that they teach there is no such thing as right/wrong or even so much as justice. The words are sometimes used, but the ideas behind them are not considered.

They will discuss a court case in class. Prof will say, "If you were defending Roe, how would you argue it?" Once the student comes up with an answer, the prof will say, "OK, if you were defending Wade, how would you defend it?"

There is no consderation for which side might be right or wrong, morality, ethics, or even common sense. They also rarely discuss constitutional principles, which is really talking about fundamental rights.

The end result of this is that law school students come out with the idea that it there is no such thing as right or wrong, or that justice should be an end goal. Instead, they only seek to find the "angle" or the "tactical advantage" to win the case. Winning at all cost is the name of the game.

This difference results in a massive shift in what happens in the law. The judges and politicians come from the law schools, and they don't think about right, wrong, morality, natural rights, etc.

I don't have specific references, just information I've picked up from various sources.

There was a change in the law school curriculum sometime around the 1920's - 1930's. They have a specific name for the change, but I don't remember off hand.

Today, the way I would describe it (to my layman's understanding) is that they teach there is no such thing as right/wrong or even so much as justice. The words are sometimes used, but the ideas behind them are not considered.

They will discuss a court case in class. Prof will say, "If you were defending Roe, how would you argue it?" Once the student comes up with an answer, the prof will say, "OK, if you were defending Wade, how would you defend it?"

There is no consderation for which side might be right or wrong, morality, ethics, or even common sense. They also rarely discuss constitutional principles, which is really talking about fundamental rights.

The end result of this is that law school students come out with the idea that it there is no such thing as right or wrong, or that justice should be an end goal. Instead, they only seek to find the "angle" or the "tactical advantage" to win the case.

This difference results in a massive shift in what happens in the law. The judges and politicians come from the law schools, and they don't think about right, wrong, morality, natural rights, etc.