Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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.

Topics - lsetudiante32

Pages: [1]
1
I have a couple questions for those of you who transferred to GULC and went through OCI in the previous years...

1. How does the GPA work for OCIs? I know most people will put their class rank/GPA. But in terms of employers that only look at top 25%, do they treat GULC transfers differently (since top 25% at GULC is different from top 25% at a lower ranked school)?

2. How does a big drop in GPA affect OCI chances for transfers? My GPA this semester dropped from about top 8% to about top 25% (I know, I've been really disappointed in my performance this semester. I did work hard and I was very suprised by my grades). I was already accepted into GULC EA, so I'm definitely going to GULC now.

3. How does Georgetown OCI work in terms of applying? Is it a blind system?

4. In general, how did everyone do in OCIs? (ie firms interviewed with, firms giving offers, etc). There's some data on yahoogroups, but I'd love to hear from the lawschooldiscussion crowd and in more detail.

5. Finally, I had a question about how to approach my situation. I am currently at an amazing firm this summer and I am very much enjoying my summer associate experience. I really hope to get an offer to come back/work here in the future. However, there are a lot of alumni from my current school who are partners here. Most attorneys at this firm actually come from my current school. I am transferring mainly because I want to keep the option open to teach in the future, GULC offers the speciality I want and that my current school lacks, and I would love to live in DC (at least for law school). However, I can't tell the firm this because they want people who are dedicated to the partnership track. How do I approach them to tell them I am transferring? Should I tell them now or wait until the end of the summer? I don't have many geographical ties to this area but I really do truly want to remain in this city, and hopefully at this firm.

Thanks everyone! I appreciate any information that you can provide!

2
Studying and Exam Taking / ConLaw Hypos - any help/input appreciated!
« on: April 14, 2009, 12:51:42 AM »
So finals are coming up, and there are two hypos I'm a little confused about....if you have any input on this, it would be greatly appreciated.

1) Could Congress enact a statute which provides that federal judges may be removed upon conviction of bribery in federal court?

I'm thinking this is a delegation of power question. Pretty much, impeachment, at least in our history (last 206 years), has been the only way that's been used to remove judges from the court. By enacting the statute, they are pretty much delegating their legislative power to the judicial branch. Delegation of power is okay if there is an intelligible principle, which I don't see here. However, I can see a distinction between "may" and "will." With "may," it might not be really a delegation of power...it might just mean that Congress will then go through the impeachment process after a conviction. If they definitely "will" be removed upon conviction of bribery, then I feel like it is an improper delegation. Not only are you delegating the legislative power w/o an intelligible principle, you're also giving it to 12 average joes on the court. Pretty much those 12 normal folks will have the power to remove a federal judge, and there might be issues of bias, politics, etc. Supposedly through impeachment members of Congress are better at discerning these kind of violations.

2) Can Congress and president give power to the Supreme Court to change the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

Would this violate bicameralism and presentment? I know right now the SC promulgates the FRCP and Congress approves them right now. But if it was changed to the hypo, would it be okay? Would it be like a line-item veto and pretty much be unconstitutional because it is giving the judicial branch blind discretion and letting them change legislation that has already gone through bicameralism and presentment? Also, is this an okay delegation of legislative power? For the intelligible principle I can see the point that the Supreme Court is best at making these kind of rules because of their experience, etc, but for them to change the FRCP?

I'd appreciate any input on this. We have an exam coming up and we have a bunch of hypos our prof posed to us in class I'm trying to study. My group met and we discussed them, but were unsure exactly. Thanks! (And I apologize ahead of time for bad grammar, etc....)


Pages: [1]