lol. a lot of people say i dont look white or i look mixed. i dont get it, maybe cuz my girl is colored as she says.
Messages - umd blue devil
i read a ny times article posted on this site about a dna testing kit that could tell you what % you were from each race group. some kids were like 7% black or 11% hispanic or something and using that to try to use AA to get into college and stuff. if you were say 11% black and applied as mix, could they keep you from passing the bar because of that? it seems like you would have some justification for what you applied as.
Say 90% white, 10% black, does not look black at all. Can they apply as mixed, both white and black?
What would be the consquences if the law school admitted someone due to AA cuz of what race they said, but the law school disagreed. ie a white student claming black when he does not know any black in his family tree and of what he knows consits only of white?
Has a law school ever done anything to an applicant that lied and got it?
« on: April 18, 2006, 06:53:19 PM »
Part of what I meant was what if they had no international experience, including knowledge of what foreign judges think about values and rights. If someone doesnt know any foreign opinions, they can still be an excellent judge. Knowing foreign opinions of foreign legal experts is not needed, nor should be play a part. The Supreme Court is our court which rules and affects our lives. Because some French judges think the death penelty is cruel and unusual does not mean we should. Because some Chinese legal experts think privacy does not include a right to an abortion, that does not mean we should adopt the same view. They should be taken with a grain a salt. Our past common laws, our constitution, etc should play a role, not anything foreign to the US. It doesnt matter who does it, consertative or liberal, I think it is wrong.
« on: April 18, 2006, 02:07:14 PM »
I never said I disagreed with Kennedy's decision in that case, just that I believe what foreigners believe about rights should have no bearing on what the supreme court considers our rights. I agree with the O Conner piece.
Sure consertatives might forgo their originalism ideology in order to advance their own personal goals, and I do not support that. Many consertatives did not like liberal government spending and promised to lower spending when they got into office -- yet that surely hasnt happened. Instead the spending is now on programs consertatives what. Consertatives are not always good.
However to say someone can not adminster the law without using any of their world perspective influence is wrong. If our judges never traveled overseas, read or learned about foreign judical decisions, I would still be sure they would be able to do their jobs well because what they need, the constitution, is right here. I dont care whats considered fair or right in China, Germany, or anywhere else. I care about what our constitution says and what Americans believe.
« on: April 18, 2006, 02:59:32 AM »
The Supreme Court is suppose to use our consitution to decide if something is legal or a right or not and who can make what law and who cant. They are suppose to interput our constitution, not use that someone else thinks to justify their own personal opinions. The personal opinions of people should not matter (in most cases, yes the judges must decide what is say cruel and unsual but that is explicitly written in the constitution), the opinion of the judge or any foreign judge should not matter. Everything they need is in the constitution, not what some non-American said or thinks.
Just because some Chinese judical expert believes there is no fundamental right to have an abortion, that does not mean that should be used to justify our supreme court ruling against allowing abortions.
« on: April 17, 2006, 02:59:49 PM »
in that case they ruled the consitution does not protect one when helping in a suicide. austriala legalized assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in 1995 and Canada decleared the right to suicide as fundamental. it looks like rehnquist did not use forgien courts decision to support or justify his opinoin, if he did, that would be wrong. if i am wrong correct me, i just looked over the case briefly.
btw any chance the supreme court takes up an AA case within the next year? hehe a couple extra slots wouldnt hurt for my chances
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Number of wrong in games section is greater than number wrong in other 3 section« on: April 06, 2006, 09:42:30 PM »
i heard overall the more recent lsats are harder. also back in the early 1990s u could get 14 wrong and still get a 170 or so, now you can only get about 10 wrong for 170. i hope the games are easier though. im same with you on the linear, but if they are grouping or mapping or just non linear, they kick my butt. my advance for the LR, scan the question part before u read the stimlus. ie look for "justify", "weakin", or "parallel reasoning". it will take prolly 5 sec per question but i went from getting 5-6 wrong per section to 1-2 wrong on the LR. of course this will take like 1-2min longer but it helped me since time wasnt my main problem for those sections. i also used the LR bible. its a good book, try it.