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.

Messages - like_lasagna

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9
71
Read Getting to Maybe

72
News Discussion / Re: Legal Theories on the Health Care bill?
« on: February 03, 2011, 02:42:57 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.

73
News Discussion / Re: Legal Theories on the Health Care bill?
« on: February 03, 2011, 02:36:09 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.

74
Law School Applications / Re: 4.0 GPA 152 LSAT Florida Schools
« on: January 22, 2011, 04:04:15 PM »
Retake the LSAT. Don't waste that awesome GPA on a T4.

75
I think it really depends on the competition in that market.

For example, look at the University of Idaho. It's a T3, sure, but it's the dominant school in that market. If you don't mind living in Boise, that really is a fine option.

76
Minority Topics / Re: URM - Let's all move backwards
« on: January 21, 2011, 09:23:47 PM »
Also, quit sounding like an angry white person.

77
Minority Topics / Re: URM - Let's all move backwards
« on: January 21, 2011, 09:23:24 PM »
If you look it up, there was actually a professor at UCLA who found that accepting URM students to better schools actually results in less URM lawyers because students are more likely to be overmatched at their school and drop out (this obviously isn't true of a student who would go to Chicago and instead is going to Yale, but it is true of students in the T3/T4 range).

That said, it isn't all about the students. Schools themselves have an interest in diverse campuses. There's a reason why private schools, who are under no law or obligation to give special status to URM students, continue to do so: it helps their reputation as a school. Race may be a somewhat generic way to promote diversity, but it is one way.

78
Studying for the LSAT / Re: so discouraged and need some advice
« on: January 21, 2011, 06:10:06 PM »
Well I am glad that we have your 4 postings to gain wisdom from.... anyway....

My lack of advice does not make his advice good.

The forums at top-law-schools.com have a far, far more realistic perspective on law schools and the legal profession.

79
Studying for the LSAT / Re: so discouraged and need some advice
« on: January 21, 2011, 01:23:46 PM »
It really disappoints me to open every thread here and see bigs5068 commenting on them. I really hope people don't take his advice seriously.

Why doesn't everyone get a raw score sufficient for a 163 on the current scale? (I think that completely removes percentiles from the equation.)

Because people are bums. Some people are smarter than others, yes, and they probably won't have to work as hard to get a very good LSAT score. But time and effort can get you to where you want to go. I don't think it can always get you to the 170s or whatever, but you can certainly improve.

OP: you can get to a 163. You already jumped 8 points; all you need to do is jump 8 more. Use allllllllll of the Kaplan resources; they put so much stuff online that I think it's impossible to run out. Every time you take a test, go over allllllllll the questions and read the explanations. Figure out the patterns in the test. Figure out where you're messing up. You can make it.

80
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Accepted at Cooley....HELP
« on: January 21, 2011, 04:23:08 AM »
I tend to  look at the positives not the negatives in terms of the legal marketplace.  Look at it from this standpoint:  Society will probably become more and more litigious as the years go by.  History has proven this to be true.   Next,  as the middle class people no longer enjoy jobs such as 25 dollar an hour janitors or non skilled laborers making 50k a year-  these middle class and also lower income people will certainly want to become claimants against someone to pay the bills (goverment, former employer, insurance company).  Lawyers will certainly have to be involved in either of these situations.

Wow. Really? You're staking your future on class warfare by way of litigation?

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