The school [Liberty University], which says its mission is to train "ministers of justice," is part of a movement around the nation that means to bring a religious perspective to the law and a moral component to legal practice.
Are such law schools somehow troubling or even dangerous? After all, they have professors apt to make remarks such as: "Something that is contrary to the law of nature cannot be law." Likewise, many have trouble getting accreditation, which is liable to get you in trouble when trying to obtain a law license.
One discussion (linked by Eugene Volokh) basically says no. Though someone totally guided by "God's law" surely isn't fit to be a judge, the law schools in general just provide another point of view -- a "Christian Legal Movement" of sorts. And, for those worried about judges guided by the Bible alone, many can be found that go to your run of the mill law school. True enough. The accreditation is troubling, but also probably an equal protection / viewpoint discrimination suit just waiting to happen.
Furthermore, many liberal law professors do what Liberty University professors do: they teach the law, but also suggest what the law should be. If they only do the latter, yes, something is wrong. So, though a law school so dominated by one viewpoint is troubling to me on some level, I think it probably adds to the overall "school of ideas" in the long run.
The bloggist, however, throws in a shot at liberals (and Roe; very tiring) who support a "living Constitution." These individuals, so it is claimed, should realize that the open-ended nature of their philosophy raises the possibility of conservatives motivated more by personal preference than the "law" itself. So, Justice Scalia is right that textualism and originalism (he is no pure textualist, given his Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, and he doesn't claim to be) is the best way to go.
As discussed by Justice Breyer at the end of an interesting speech on the Constitution and "active democracy," this is just plain silly. Anyone who is honest about Justice Scalia's* jurisprudence would know that as well -- both textualism and originalism opens up the way for loads of personal ideology to "infect" one's interpretation of the Constitution (and law in general).
Furthermore, I'm always tired of those who use Roe as their whipping boy. Legal Fiction, a progressive blog, also is strongly opposed to the opinion on "textualist" grounds. As suggested by quite a few commentators as well as (if not explicitly) later Supreme Court opinions, it can quite easily be defended on textualist grounds. I find it at heart a religious freedom (disputed moral/religious doctrine) and equal protection matter with a few other (textual based) things tossed in as well. Finally, at least two of justices who voted to uphold the right to choose an abortion are personally opposed to the practice.
If those who overly rail against religious law schools are somewhat biased, their critics are not free from blame either!
---
* Justice Scalia included masturbation as one of the acts that a state might ban on moral grounds. Therefore, maybe he is the one specifically concerned about an appellate ruling now being examined by the Supreme Court. It involves a male police officer who lost his job when it was discovered that he sold porn videos of himself masturbating in a generic police officer uniform.
The appellate panel voted 2-1 (two women vs one man!) that the district court judge might very well have not properly respected his freedom of speech on his own time. SCOTUSBlog has the link.