tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post2675074855860862311..comments2024-02-16T09:00:32.845-06:00Comments on FromDC2Iowa: A World Unto ItselfUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-51931062377434731802008-05-21T11:29:00.000-05:002008-05-21T11:29:00.000-05:00Professor Johnson,I have a similar (sort of) situa...Professor Johnson,<BR/><BR/>I have a similar (sort of) situation I'd like your opinion on. As you may know, Powerline is a nationally known blog - and recently, one of its authors, who happens to practice patent and intellectual property law in Minnesota, helped to instigate a state investigation of a Muslim charter school here in Minnesota. That investigation concluded that the charter school stepped over the line with a Friday afternoon meeting in which Muslim philosophy was discussed, and which wasn't really voluntary - and by a minor infraction regarding extension of the school day for voluntary prayer. <BR/><BR/>The author of the Powerline article - Scott Johnson, is as I said, a reputable attorney - and was somewhat repudiated by this investigation because no agregeous violations, which he asserted existed, were found. Johnson's response was that "the state's interpretation of the (MN) Constitution is in error." <BR/><BR/>My question for you - given that Johnson almost certainly could understand that the policy for the investigation and its findings were either set by an attorney beforehand, or the results reviewed by a state attorney afterward - how would you charactarize his comments?<BR/><BR/>My position is that he openly asserted error on the part of an attorney in an area of law in which Johnson isn't an expert. While not 'malpractice' per se', especially since he isn't actively representing anyone - but he didn't make a general statement about the Constitution, but rather asserted error on the part of the state - and not just asserted, but made a statement of fact that the state IS wrong, not just perhaps wrong. I found his comments, like many neo-cons, to be the height of hubris, and in my view professionally impolite certainly, and probably professionally irresponsible since his blog is in fact both highly visible and as well in the public space. His actions may NOT incite action by the state, but they have in the past. While certainly not criminal, it is somewhat abusive and preferential. <BR/><BR/>Please let me know what you think - regards - LeftoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com