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 - Maintain FL 350

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 102
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 13, 2015, 05:16:50 PM »
Uh...without going into the analysis above, I'll mention this: electoral math. It, and demographics generally, favor the Democrats.

No doubt about it.

Many pundits believe she starts with as many as 247 electoral votes. That seems a little high, but even if you knock out a couple of states she's still starting with around 220-230. She can afford to lose a couple of swing states, but a Republican has to take the bigger ones.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 13, 2015, 08:14:05 AM »
If you believe that people that are currently supporting Sanders won't vote for Clinton in the general, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Of course most will vote for Clinton anyway, but others simply won't vote at all because to a lot of very liberal Democrats Clinton is no better than Bush. They think she's a globalist, corporatist war monger.

That, combined with lower minority turnout (because no matter what either party blathers about diversity, this is White Millionaire vs White Millionaire), will likely result in a few less Democratic votes.

Most swing states were not won by huge margins. A few less votes can make the race considerably tighter.   

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 12, 2015, 02:08:36 PM »

Here are the polls I referred to. The link is to Breitbart which is heavily partisan as is the commentary on the polls, but it contains links to the individual polls themselves. It was just easier than tracking down each poll.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 12, 2015, 01:53:56 PM »
Obviously, any prognostications this far out are bound to be fraught with unknown variables. The economy, foreign policy crises, scandals, you name it.

It's sort of irrelevant what your personal definition of "independent" is, however. What matters is how they are accounted for in polling data. I agree with you that most independents skew either left or right, and the better polling data accounts for this by distinguishing between Democratic and Republican leaning independents. I also agree (and stated in my previous post) that Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican.

Here's the difference I see between 2016 and 2008/2012. In most battleground states Obama did pretty well among independents. He even did well in Colorado, where independents skew right.

The most recent polling data from ABC and CNN suggests that Hillary Clinton does not enjoy the same popularity among those designated as "independents". In states like Colorado and Ohio where the margin of victory could be as low as 2-3%, this is potentially impactful.

So, if 90% of Republican leaning independents vote for a Republican (as opposed to the 86% in 2012), and there is lower than 2012 minority turnout, you could see a much tighter race. That's all I'm saying.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 12, 2015, 10:57:12 AM »
Distill this upcoming election own to it's essential facts, and here's what you're left with:

Regardless of primary season infighting, both Dems and Reps will coalesce around their candidate. A few diehards may not show up and vote because their unhappy with the candidate, but historically these numbers are low.

Democratic turnout will be a little lower, as Obama is not running.

The election will be decided in a handful of states: Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.

In each of these states Dem/Rep registration is very close. Independents will decide the election.

In each of these states, Clinton polls badly among independents.

Like I said before Clinton still has a good shot, but this could be much closer than 2008 or 2012 as long as the Reps don't nominate a nut.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Can a Judge actually do this?
« on: July 10, 2015, 01:45:56 PM »
BTW, as a father I would have gotten on my knees and begged the judge to NOT send my kids to juvenile detention. In fact, I would voluntarily relinquish my claim if it could only be supported by sending my kids to a system well known to be rife with abuse and corruption.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Can a Judge actually do this?
« on: July 10, 2015, 01:06:05 PM »
I have some experience with family court, and can tell you that there is rarely a good and a bad guy. The reason that these situation end up in need of adjudication in the first place is because the parties are incapable of coming to reasonable terms.

It could be that the mother is manipulating the children by poisoning their minds against the father, and it could also be true that the father doesn't care about the kids beyond their utility as a way to pester the mother. Who knows.

However, I have never, EVER even heard of a judge sending a nine year old to detention because they refuse to comply with court ordered visitation. Even if the kids are being unreasonable and are being manipulated, this is a crap way of handling it. 

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 10, 2015, 10:21:52 AM »
The Supreme Court declared practicing law is a fundamental right so it is not routine rational basis.

What level of scrutiny is used, then? Admittedly, I haven't read the cases you linked, but have courts actually articulated a modified form of rational basis review? That would be interesting.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 10, 2015, 09:27:40 AM »
I'm not arguing that this is an easily overcome issue, or that the hypothetical plaintiff has a great case, etc. Rational basis review is as low as you can go, and it's pretty easy to establish.

I'm pointing out an angle that simply challenges whether the state's actions are in fact rationally related to a legitimate interest. Personally, I don't think they are but I concede that the state would win anyway. 

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 09, 2015, 06:18:56 PM »
I have to generally agree with Groundhog and Loki insofar as the courts almost always uphold bar admission requirements as long as they are reasonable.

BUT, this:

How far does this right go and want state interest is served from preventing a San Joaquin College Law Grad from taking the South Dakota Bar, which is a state so desperate for lawyers that it is paying for lawyers to move there.

strikes me as a potentially successful angle of attack.

Think about the scenario. A lawyer shows up and says "I passed the toughest bar exam in the country on my first try, passed the C&F, passed the South Dakota bar on my first try (assuming you could sit for the exam first), and can demonstrate that my alma mater follows the standard ABA law school curriculum. We use the same books, take the same tests, and have similarly qualified professors."

What reasonable argument can South Dakota make for keeping that guy out? Library too small? Not enough financial aid staff? ABA accreditation is based on many non-academic factors, but if the grad could demonstrate that the academics were substantially the same...I dunno, maybe.

With an online or correspondence course South Dakota may be able to demonstrate that the education is somehow deficient. But San Joaquin has a higher pass rate than some CA ABA schools. Seems like the San Joaquin student would at least have shot at winning.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 102