Law School Discussion

I think that much is obvious.

Praise Jesus.

Oh hai! I am incomplete without you.

Quote from: Seth- on October 31, 2008, 02:22:35 AM

oh hi. i am here for the "No on prop 8" party.

You're 5,716 pages late 

yeah I noticed the tortilla chips are stale.

Quote from: OFFMason on October 30, 2008, 09:01:28 PM

cliff007, which DVD version of the LSAT Proctor did you purchase -- the older version with the gentleman proctor, or with the female proctor? I have not purchased the female proctor version – so I cannot possibly opine on that one.

Also, I think that it is rather disingenuous to compare the DVD to a sundial. I would understand your argument if the DVD simply displayed a countdown clock of some sort – but it is far more than that.

The one with the transvestite street walker proctor.  It was cheap and easy on the boulevard but there was an unexpected surprise that was not what I would call a happy ending.  I thought it was a girl when I handed over the $5 in a gas station parking lot.   

In case U didn't read my above post, I am unwilling to spend the $$$ on this thing.  I already own a watch and know how to tell time while gripping wood.  I start with the big stick pointing directly north and stop pushing briefly 5 minutes after it is pointing directly south and then get it pointing north again to keep going for the next round of action.  How hard is that?

I agree. If you can do it, everybody sure as hell can. 

but on a serious note, I will agree that the wrist watch thing is down right retarded and should be labeled as social crime.

Quote from: Seth- on October 30, 2008, 04:48:55 PM

Brief synopsis:

California Supreme Court has ruled that the state government has no jurisdiction over the choice of partner in marriage. Some opponents of this decision initiated prop 8, which if passed would reverse the decision made by the court.

Well, functionally it would reverse the decision of the court, yes. What it actually does is amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Also, the court didn't exactly say that the state government has no jurisdiction over partner choice. They said that withholding the right to marry from same-sex couples violated their state constitutional rights.

Not to be picky or anything.

Yes, you are quite right in saying that it violated constitutional right, as in the state's constitutional right to marry a person of their choice.

What they're saying is the current California law, which prohibits marriage between same sex -
"does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

So I don't think my op is biased and I didn't intend to. It's basically telling the state government they do not have power to legislate on same sex marriage.

I figure I can avoid calling (I'm abroad...) if everyone else has the same problem.

anyone?

Email. I got a response within 24 hours.