Question & Answer with George Conyne
What has been the Quaker view of the law?
The occasions of Quaker civil disobedience are well-known, including their refusal to remove hats in deference to the nobility. But the civil disobedience is matched by deference to the law.
The Quakers’ relationship with the law is that they both accept and, in instances, reject the superiority of the law.
How have Quakers viewed the legal profession and the courts?
Quakers had long seen involvement with the law as inherently confrontational or encouraging conflict and so, contrary to Quaker beliefs.
For instance, repeated clashes between Friends’ principles and the pragmatic necessities of government, according to non-Friends, led Pennsylvania Quakers to withdraw from political activity during the French and Indian War.
You are a Quaker and a lawyer – when did Friends begin to choose law careers?
In the 1900s, legal scholars increasingly saw law not as a reflection of the rigid application of logic handed down from generation to generation, but as a reflection of the collective experience of society.
At the same time, courts of law and equity unified. Equity courts had tried to resolve disputes fairly in situations where the law did not traditionally apply. Law courts took on these new equity powers and lawyers saw new possibilities.
Therefore, society could shape law to suit its needs, much as the Declaration of Independence argues: “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected with another….”
Reformers—including Quakers—began to see that law (including equity) could be used to aid society’s progress. Quakers began going to law school, so that, by mid-century, many Friends were working in the legal field.
How would you describe our courts today?
The United States does do not have a single court system. We have the federal system and one for each state, territory, and the District of Columbia.
Federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Thirty-nine of the 50 states elect some or all their judges.
In recent years big money—tens of millions of dollars —is being spent on state judicial races. Quakers may want to get involved in judicial issues—including limiting expenditures and moving to non-partisan elections of judges.
What can we do to help change the minds of judges?
Recent polls suggest that judges are generally not affected not by presidential or other election results—much less opinions polls. What affects judges most are the attitudes of those in the circles in which they travel or frequent.
Helping to shape their intellectual world with letters to the editor, creative campaigning, working with groups to show that your opinions are commonly held, is a way to help.
George R. Conyne, is a recent FCNL Friend in Washington. A lawyer and a historian, he is also assistant clerk and elder of the Canterbury Friends Meeting. Dr. Conyne taught history at the University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. He is author of the books, “Woodrow Wilson: British Perspective 1912-21” and “A History of the United States Supreme Court.”
