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 - 2Lacoste

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
51
Black Law Student Discussion Board / R&B v. Neo-Soul
« on: March 22, 2006, 11:31:41 PM »
Am I the only one who can't stand today's radio R&B?  I mean, isn't it apparent that Chris Brown and Ne-Yo can't hold a candle to Musiq and Van Hunt?  And speaking of Van Hunt, ya'll know he has a new album dropping the Tuesday after next (listen to his new single on his website or iTunes...fire)!  Gotta catch that!  I'll catch him and Heather Headley when they come to NYC on tour. 

So, y'all, who are y'all listening to these days?  Do you share my antipathy towards today's R&B?

52
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Robert's First Dissent
« on: March 22, 2006, 01:04:09 PM »
Chief Justice Roberts delivered his first dissent today, and, to really piss everyone off, had Justice Scalia dissent with him!

Roberts' Dissent

Here's what the AP had to say:

Supreme Court Limits Police Searches of Homes

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 22, 2006

Filed at 10:51 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away, and the court's new leader complained that the ruling could hamper investigations of domestic abuse.

Justices, in a 5-3 decision, said that police did not have the authority to enter and search the home of a small town Georgia lawyer even though the man's wife invited them in.

The officers, who did not have a search warrant, found evidence of illegal drugs.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches covers a scenario when one home occupant wants to allow a search and another occupant does not.

The ruling by Justice David H. Souter stopped short of fully answering that question -- saying only that in the Georgia case it was clear that Scott Fitz Randolph was at the door and objected to the officers entry.

In his first written dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said that ''the end result is a complete lack of practical guidance for the police in the field, let alone for the lower courts.''

The case fractured a court that has shown surprising unanimity in the five months since Roberts became chief justice. Justices swapped barbs in their writings, with Souter calling Roberts' view a ''red herring.''

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas filed separate dissents, and Justice John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer wrote their own opinions to explain their votes in favor of the man whose home was searched.

Stevens said that ''assuming that both spouses are competent, neither one is a master possessing the power to override the other's constitutional right to deny entry to their castle.''

Georgia had asked the court to allow it to use evidence obtained in the 2001 search in Americus, Ga., that followed a police domestic dispute call.

Randolph and his wife, Janet, were having marital troubles. She led officers to evidence later used to charge her husband with cocaine possession. That charge was on hold while the courts considered whether the search was constitutional.

Georgia's Supreme Court ruled for Scott Randolph, and the high court agreed.

''This case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims,'' Souter wrote. ''No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists.''

Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case, because he was not on the court when it was argued.

The case is Georgia v. Randolph, 04-1067.

53
Free food and wine at Cravath?!  Sweet.  Who's going (other than me)?

54
So what is the general orientation of Yale Law Blacks and other minorities towards the Kiwi Camara situation?  Should his remarks prevent his article from being published in YLJ?  Should his invitation be rescinded?  Where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and offensive and racist behavior within a law school community?

lacoste

55
I'm a hardcore ACC basketball fan (go Terps!) and I'm definitely going to be trying to sneak out of various HLS Admit weekend events in order to watch choice games (I'm hoping to see Maryland play Boston College in Round 2 on Saturday at 4pm -- during the Negotiation event).   The champiionship game will be on Sunday at 1pm during the Facutly Presentations.  Any other ACC fans out there going to the March HLS weekend?  Any willing to find a good sports bar to watch the games in?

lacoste

56
Not my favored strategy for dealing with Roe, but I guess it's one way to skin a cat...

South Dakota Governor Signs Abortion Ban
By JOHN HOLUSHA
NY Times
Published: March 6, 2006

The governor of South Dakota, Mike Rounds, signed today a bill intended to ban most abortions in the state and to set up a challenge to the United States Supreme Court decision, handed down in 1973, that legalized abortion in all states.

The law would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life, with no exception for cases of rape or incest. Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, has pledged to challenge the law in court.

Acknowledging that the law is a direct challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling known as Roe V. Wade, Mr. Rounds said the law's effective date in July was likely to be delayed by a court challenge.

"That challenge will likely take years to be settled and it may ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court," Governor Rounds said in a statement posted on the state's Web site. "Our existing laws regulating abortions will remain in effect."

Governor Rounds, a Republican, noted that the bill was approved by the Legislature "with bi-partisan sponsorship and strong support in both houses."

"Its purpose is to eliminate most abortions in South Dakota," Governor Rounds said. "It does allow doctors to perform abortions in order to save the life of the mother. It does not prohibit the taking of contraceptive drugs before a pregnancy is determined, such as in the case of rape or incest."

The South Dakota law is in the forefront of an effort by abortion opponents to test whether a more conservative Supreme Court will reconsider, and possibly reverse, the Roe decision.

In his message, Governor Rounds noted that the Supreme Court has reversed decisions before. He cited the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that said states could require racial segregation in public facilities if the facilities were "separate, but equal." That ruling was reversed in Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 school desegregation case.

"The 1954 court realized that the earlier interpretation of our Constitution was wrong," Governor Rounds said.

57
My kind of opinion!  Unanimous smack down!

STORY

Supreme Court Upholds Campus Military Recruiting
By DAVID STOUT
Published: March 6, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 6 The Supreme Court ruled today, 8 to 0, that colleges and universities that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, even if people in the academic community deplore the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay people.

Ending a decade-long battle in favor of the Defense Department, the court rejected the argument of law school faculty members that being forced to associate with military recruiters violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and association.

"Law schools 'associate' with military recruiters in the sense that they interact with them, but recruiters are not part of the school," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court. "Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military's message."

At issue in the case of Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, or FAIR, No. 04-1152, is the Solomon Amendment, which withholds federal grants from universities that do not open their doors to military recruiters "in a manner at least equal in quality and scope" to the access offered civilian recruiters.

The American Association of Law Schools has long required its members to insist that prospective employers agree to a policy of nondiscrimination on grounds that include sexual orientation. The association's stand set the stage for a conflict with the military and its "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Some law schools tried to comply with the Solomon Amendment by half-measures, relegating military recruiters to off-campus locations. But Congress specified in 2004 that mere access for military recruiters is not enough; it demanded equal access.

Although law schools became the centers of campus resistance, the entire colleges and universities stood to lose if they ran afoul of the Solomon Amendment. The federal money at stake comes from a wide range of agencies and for a wide variety of uses. Funds for student financial assistance are not covered.

When the case was argued before the Supreme Court on Dec. 6, Chief Justice Roberts zeroed in on the universities' apparent desire to have it both ways to show disapproval of the military's treatment of gay people but still leave the federal money spigots open.

"What you're saying is, this is a message we believe in strongly, but we don't believe in it to the detriment of $100 million," the chief justice told a university lawyer.

In his opinion today, Chief Justice Roberts soundly rejected FAIR's assertion that the Solomon Amendment infringed on First Amendment free-speech rights.

"The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," he wrote. "Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds."

The Solomon Amendment pertains to conduct more than to speech, the chief justice wrote: "It affects what law schools must do afford equal access to military recruiters not what they may or may not say."

Chief Justice Roberts rejected the law schools' contention that teachers and students might equate the granting of access to recruiters to an endorsement of the military's views. He noted that previous Supreme Court rulings have recognized that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech that a school sponsors and speech that a school merely permits because it is required to do so under equal-access policies. "Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school," he wrote.

Today's decision, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took no part because he joined the court after the case was heard, overturned a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which had found in favor of FAIR.

Representative Gerald B.H. Solomon, a conservative Republican from upstate New York who was a tireless supporter of the military in his 20 years in the House, would surely have been pleased at today's outcome.

A former marine, Mr. Solomon led crusades to punish flag burners and draft dodgers. He was also an ardent opponent of gun control, so much so that in 1996 he challenged Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island to "step outside" to settle a dispute over a proposal to outlaw assault weapons. Mr. Solomon, who retired in 1998, died at his Glens Falls home in 2001 at the age of 71.

58
Where should I go next fall? / Worst 3 Things about each T14
« on: February 24, 2006, 01:31:02 PM »
I think that I'm so caught up in the awe of getting into these amazing schools that I'm blinded to some aspects of them that don't completely vibe with what I'm looking for in a school.  Can anyone relate?  If so, post here the top three things that you hate about the T14 schools you're considering.  I'll start it off:

Michigan
1.  Out in the boondocks for an East-coaster like me.
2.  Cold as hell, I would presume.
3.  No faculty that catch my eye (as far as star-faculty goes)

Virginia
1.  Entirely too white (I love it, but sometimes I worry...)
2.  Beer-and-softball culture might be distracting.
3.  Lost interesting faculty to CLS recently -- sign of decline?

Chicago
1.  Ugly campus, from what I hear.
2.  Too "intense" perhaps?
3.  Quarter system.

Harvard
1.  Ridiculously large (550 students or so).
2.  Potentially bad-natured classmates (from the rumors/myths I hear -- Harvard students are arrogant, privileged, elitist, bla bla bla lol).
3.  Cambridge/Boston is not where I wanted to spend the next three years of my life (we couldn't relocate HLS to Miami, could we?).

59
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/02/court_to_hear_p.html

Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Court to hear "partial- birth" abortion case

Posted by Lyle Denniston at 09:49 AM

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to rule on the constitutionality of the federal ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortions -- the first-ever law passed by Congress to outlaw a method for terminating pregnancy. Three federal appeals courts have ruled that the 2003 law is unconstitutional, mainly because it lacks an exception to the ban when an abortion procedure outlawed is necessary to protect the woman's health. Congress said there was never a need for the banned procedure for health reasons.

This case and three others granted on Monday will be heard in the new Term starting in October.

In one of the other cases, the Court will return to the issue of judges' power to impose stiffer sentences based on facts not found by a jury or admitted by the accused. The issue is whether California's determinate sentencing law is invalid because the judge may impose an enhanced sentence based on fact findings by the bench. The case is Cunningham v. California (05-6551). (See below for the other grants.)

The Court postponed until a hearing in March whether to dismiss a constitutional challenge to the war crimes "military commissions" to be set up at the Navy prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., took no part in the order, thus indicating he will continue his recusal from the case.

In another war on terrorism case, the Court took no action on the appeal by Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen challenging his capture and long-term detention as an "enemy combatant" (05-533).

In one of two decisions Monday in argued cases, the Court ruled unanimously that the government may not ban a religious sect from using a herbal tea that contains a substance that the government considers to be harmful. The Chief Justice wrote the opinion in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (04-1084).. Only new Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., did not take part.

In the second decision, the Court ruled by a 7-1 vote that a challenge to the validity of a contract that contains an arbitration clause must go to the arbitrator, when the entire contract is at issue. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Court; Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. (Buckeye Check Casshing v. Cardegna, 04-1264).

In a ruling by the Court, without briefing or oral argument, the Justices revived a lawsuit by Colorado Republicans seeking to undo a state Supreme Court decision barring any additional congressional redistricting during the current decade. In an unsigned opinion, the Court by a vote of 8-1 ruled that a three-judge U.S. District Court was wrong in concluding that it had no jurisdiction to hear that challenge. The ruling -- the first decision by the Court in which Justice Alito took part -- came in the case of Lance v. Dennis (05-555).

In the other newly granted cases, the Court agreed to decide these issues:
-- must the holder of a patent license breach that agreement before suing to challenge the patent's validity (Medimmune v . Genentech, 05-608).
-- does the Communications Act permit a private lawsuit by a provider of payphone services challengeing a long-distance carrier over compensation for coinless calls (granted limited to Question 1 in Global Crossing Telecom. v. Metrophones Telecom., 05-705).

60
Financial Aid / Has Anyone Been Offered a FinAid Package Yet?
« on: February 20, 2006, 11:32:58 PM »
I just got in my FAFSA and institutional aid apps everywhere and was wondering -- when in the world should I expect to hear back from these people with an aid package? 

Aside for y'all with scholarships (i.e. Columbia's Hamilton), have any schools begun to send out their financial aid packages?


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9