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 - like_lasagna

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8
By the way, Niger is not a racial insult. It is a country in Africa.


Indiana is not a good idea if you want to practice in Los Angeles. UCLA is the best school of the four and a better value than USC anyway. Loyola isn't a bad school, but you'll be much better off going to UCLA (one of the best law schools in southern California) and not being put in a hole in terms of finding a job.

The recording does not support what you're claiming.

It'd be nice/open/honest for you to play the entire recording.

OR am I better off going to the best school I can provided that it is the best 1 or 2 schools in the market, like Loyola Chicago (which is second in Chicago to Northwestern) or University of Denver, etc?

This is generally correct but you are really, really, really off-base here. Loyola Chicago isn't even close to second in Chicago. It's obviously behind University of Chicago and Northwestern, but it's also behind Illinois, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc.

Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« on: February 10, 2011, 05:23:53 PM »
and suddenly you are a serious international and domestic tax and business attorney that can pretty much practice anywhere in the world.

No, you aren't.

Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: Questions about Golden Gate
« on: February 04, 2011, 10:18:30 PM »
Hastings is the better school, but worth paying full price opposed to a scholarship at GGU? That is debatable.

Nope. Not debatable. Hastings is much, much better. Your point has merit generally, but that's far too wide of a gap to jump w/ a scholarship.

North Dakota.

Incoming 1Ls / Re: Succeeding in a bottom tiered law school - suggestions
« on: February 03, 2011, 01:06:15 AM »
Read Getting to Maybe

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: Legal Theories on the Health Care bill?
« on: February 03, 2011, 12:42:57 AM »
Boils down to Lopez in my mind. The test is whether or not this is regulating an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.

Both Liberty U. and Florida (first one said constitutional, second said not) framed the issue that way. Is not buying health insurance an "activity"? If it is, it probably can be mandated. If it isn't, then it probably can't (under Lopez, anyway).

Liberty U. said basically said that the decision not to purchase health insurance is an activity and therefore it falls under the Commerce Clause.

Florida said that it is, almost by definition, inactivity (not buying insurance) and that Congress's power didn't reach that far.

It's not really Wickard/Gonzales because those cases, while regulating purely intrastate activity, were at least regulating activity (growing and consumption of wheat and marijuana, respectively). This isn't doing that. To play with Wickard a little, it would be more like the government mandating that you grow corn on your land (ignoring any seizure arguments or w/e; let's pretend we're solely in Commerce Clause land). I'm betting on 5-4 against.

By the way, the beautiful thing about the South Dakota law is that the legislature is trying to prove that they can't mandate the purchase of a firearm when, as a state government, they probably can.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: Legal Theories on the Health Care bill?
« on: February 03, 2011, 12:36:09 AM »
Right, it would be hard for anybody to argue that the Commerce Clause can require the people to buy something, but that's not exactly the issue in front of us.  The question presented here, rather, is whether the Federal government can create a tax for people who don't have health insurance.  This is where the Tax & Spend Clause will likely come into play.

I think this is really unlikely. Of the four district courts that have looked at this, all of them say that this isn't a tax. It's a regulatory penalty.

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