Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Budlaw

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 52
General Off-Topic Board / Re: California Gay Marriage
« on: June 09, 2008, 10:09:49 AM »
TheCause has been spouting off with "I believe" and "I think" throughout the thread, so it's my turn to do the same. I believe the law should be the religion for every attorney, above and beyond anything else. Who cares what the bible says? I think it's irrelevant. You follow Ave Verum Corpus? Get the hell out of the courtroom until you can learn to follow the True Word of Stare Decisis.

Stare Decisis? Ha!

Its great to say you follow that, but Stare Decisis is pushed to the side all the time.

Speaking of all things gay, see Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. He calls the majority out for not following Bowers and Stare Decisis.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: California Gay Marriage
« on: June 06, 2008, 06:26:21 PM »
Please detail what "behavior" you find offensive or inappropriate amongst the non-monogamous, non-missionary position heterosexual community? And why.

And then we'll talk.

I don't understand your question. 
Are you asking me to list all the sexual behavior that I find inappropriate?

Yeah - I'm challenging you to put yourself out there.

Clever use of the word challenge.

Things that I find inappropriate:
1: Any and all sexual relations between anyone other than those who are legally and lawfully married.
2: Any sexual relations between same-gender couples. I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. 

Now, that being said, I believe that what goes on in the bedroom between two or more persons is their own personal business.  If people have a different belief system than I do, then they are free to act on it in private.  I do not, however, believe that the government should raise homosexual relationships to the same status as heterosexual relationships.
My beliefs are based on the belief that God intends sexual relationships to be a sacred and pleasurable means to procreation between a married man and woman.

You may consider me to be old fashioned or even a bigot, but I urge you to realize that I work hard to treat everyone with respect as long as I feel like they are sincerely trying to be good people.  I try to keep my nose out of their personal decisions as long as they do not have a directly negative effect on my life.  Arguing that my beliefs are motivated by hatred or ignorance is silly. 

I believe in something that is different from what you believe in, but I believe that both of us should do our best to respect everyone.

So, in your opinion, how are we as a society supposed to shape policy?

You may find it novel, or convenient, to espouse the brand of pseudo tolerance that you do.  However, it is never as simple as "live and let live" or that there is some neat divide between your private sphere and mine, or your private sphere and the public.

Your views inform and often dictate your decisions, your actions, and your expressions. Again, this is fine if you lived on some deserted island, far removed from other people. But should you find yourself interacting with others, or in a position of power over someone else, your biases and prejudices come to live, consciously or not.


How do you feel about other religious beliefs, or more specifically, the actions of others that are guided by and/or stemming from another religious belief? Still mutual respect and live and let live...?

You guys are crazy. Getting upset about a bunch of fags and lesbos being able to get married. Geeze.

So what if Julie's fat carpet licking a$$ gets married. No straight guy would touch that with a 10 foot pole in the first place.

Further, Julie and her fish-eating and fudge packing friends are going to hell anyway so what does it matter?  ;D

Incorrect. A binding acceptance is a contractual obligation; by attending another law school he is in breach of contract. A breach of contract would be reason enough to deny admission to the bar during the character and fitness portion.

I'd like to see some kind of precedent for your statement that it would be reason enough to deny admission to the bar. I doubt it would be enough to deny admission to a bar. I know people with DUI's and a lot of bad credit who passed the character and fitness portion of the bar.

Bad taste to go to another school? Sure.

Denial of admission to the bar? Highly unlikely.

Current Law Students / Re: Attire for EIW
« on: June 04, 2008, 09:05:57 AM »
because black suits are not considered daytime wear for men. You might sometimes see it in the fashion industry but it does not project a lawyer image at all.

I'll be sure to tell that to half the male attorneys at my firm.  ::)

God you're a tool.

Current Law Students / Re: California Same-sex marriage.
« on: June 01, 2008, 07:26:58 PM »
I think a constitutional amendment will be passed in November and that none of this will be relevant. 

You might want to read the Court's decision closely.  Note the bolded below:

"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this stateís Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individualís liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the
opportunity of an individual to establish ó with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life ó an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own ó and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family ó constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individualís capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individualís sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individualís sexual orientation ó like a personís race or gender ó does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental
constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

The court has stated that these rights cannot be "referendumed" away - in fact, it's clear that should voters attempt to do so, the California Supreme Court might determine that marriage, if it can be thus limited, is not an inherent Constitutional right and prohibit it for everyone.

Be careful what you wish for.

Look, if the amendment does pass in the fall, this will all be moot. The California Supreme Court can't knock off a validly passed amendment to the California constitution. If they did, then IT WOULD go up to the US Supreme Court. This is the LAST thing that California or gays want. The US Supreme Court would HAVE to take this case if the California Supreme Court was so arrogant to believe that they can say what is and what isn't a valid State Constitutional Amendment. Maybe the US Supreme Court would just say that the California Supreme Court over-stepped thier authority, but maybe the US Supreme Court would want to put the smack down on the California Supreme Court and then maybe they would decide once and for all if gays really can marry, and the way that the court is composed now, I doubt that gays would be very happy with their decision.

The bottom line here is that the California Supreme Court is playing with fire if for some reason they were to try to strike down a valid constitutional amendment to the California Constitution. They would be taking a giant step outside of their power. Their job is to interpret the law, NOT make the law, and that is what they would be doing if they did such a thing.

My advice to Ellen, and everyone else in California is to go ahead and get married before November because California is NOT as liberal as everyone thinks it is.

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: FSU: no waitlist yet? WTF??
« on: May 19, 2008, 01:04:46 PM »
I'm not belittling the school itself; I know it's a great school.  I'm belittling their admissions process.  They are slaves to the rankings and if they accepted enough students to fully utilize the facility, I would be there this fall.  They accept nearly a quarter of their entire incoming 1L class in 2L transfers.  That is the highest in the country by far.

You do have a valid point. They started doing it a couple of years ago. It is kinda ridiculous really.

Do you mind if I ask what other schools you are looking at?

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: FSU: no waitlist yet? WTF??
« on: May 19, 2008, 08:41:29 AM »
Yes I've also heard FSU is transfer-friendly.  So transfer-friendly in fact that UF ridicules them at their ASW by implying that the only way FSU has incoming class numbers even close to UF is by letting in very few (190) 1L's then taking everyone with a pulse in the transfer process.  I suppose it's smart for rankings but unfair to qualified in-state applicants.  I'd rather see them ranked in the low 60's/high 70's where they belong and duly accept residents of their state.  Yet another example of USNWR tarnishing the law school scene. 

Don't be bitter because you got deffered. UF did the same thing by having a "spring admit" class that didn't count for USNWR. They only changed this policy because USNWR was going to start counting that class. UF didn't take transfers the first year after it because of it, and now they're taking transfers.

Don't let UF fool you into thinking they're a better school than FSU. They're basically the same school quality wise. FSU actually has a better faculty, but you knew this right?

Now you're bitching because you haven't got into FSU. Sucks, but that is life. FIU is a state school in Florida. They duly accept residents of this state.

USNWR is a game and UF plays it just as much as FSU does. Don't fool yourself into thinking they don't. 

Good luck though. FSU is a fun school to be at.

I'm constantly amazed at the 0L's who post on here about jobs and job prospects. They haven't a clue because they haven't even tried to get a job, and they constantly comment on schools that they have no idea about.


This board is about as useful for job/career advice as unmentionables on a boar hog.

Current Law Students / Re: journal
« on: May 14, 2008, 03:12:26 PM »
I think you're mistaken in saying that each T2/T3/T4 has at least one prestigious secondary journals...  most of the main journals at these schools aren't even prestigious?

There are a few hallmark specialty journals at T2/T3/T4s, but I think generally joining the secondary journal at a T3/T4 is probably only a significant boost if you rise to a leadership position or are published.

Well its a boost if you are on the journal versus someone who's not. But becoming an EIC, Managing or Executive editor is a definate boost.

You still need journal experience if you're going to try to clerk regardless of your class rank. So yes, its a boost.

Current Law Students / .
« on: May 02, 2008, 08:17:38 PM »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 52