51
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: T1? T2?
« on: March 28, 2008, 12:39:07 PM »
According to US News, the top 100 is Tier 1. It says it right there in their rankings system.
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.
52
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: What schools are underrated by US News?
« on: March 28, 2008, 12:03:35 PM »
Are you serious? What happened? Are you simply floating your own idea of what should be, or was there actually a threat of rescinding their ABA accreditation? Come on, be a little bit specific before suggesting something that extreme.
53
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: T1? T2?
« on: March 28, 2008, 12:00:46 PM »
So what's your point? Are the top 100 Tier 1 or what?
54
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: What schools are underrated by US News?
« on: March 27, 2008, 08:38:12 PM »
Is Touro underrated?
55
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: T1? T2?
« on: March 27, 2008, 08:35:53 PM »
Are you sure? It seems like a rather glaring mistake.
56
Choosing the Right Law School / T1? T2?
« on: March 27, 2008, 08:08:34 PM »
Are all schools in top 100 considered Tier 1? I thought the first 50 were Tier 1, and the second half were Tier 2 institutions?
According to the site of USNews, Hofstra is Tier 1?
Please clarify, thanks!
According to the site of USNews, Hofstra is Tier 1?
Please clarify, thanks!
57
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Duke v. St. John's v. Cardozo
« on: March 26, 2008, 11:41:42 AM »
Dozo = full ride, and marriage material significant other. These are two very influential things to consider. A woman that is marriage material should not be taken lightly at all. Quality individuals are very difficult to find. I find it rather upsetting that people are not putting more weight on the girlfriend factor. Think long and hard whether you envision meeting an individual like your current girlfriend in the future. Think long and hard whether or not it is worth to threaten your relationship.
I think that distance is the murderer of valuable relations. But that is just my two cents.
What do I know? I got a 152 on my LSAT.
I think that distance is the murderer of valuable relations. But that is just my two cents.
What do I know? I got a 152 on my LSAT.
58
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Second Amendment Debate- What does the "right to bear arms" really mean?
« on: March 20, 2008, 06:52:34 PM »
Very true, small arms can cause huge problems for even the most technically advanced Western powers; as we have seen in most recent times. Our military tactics have made us the British Red Coats of modern warfare against insurgency. We are a big force that is more organized, and predictable. This makes us much easier to target than our enemies who are de-centralized, and essentially scattered throughout major cities and deserts.
I was also pondering another dilemma.
Must/Can all Militias be under the directional authority of federal government or state governmental institutions (see, National Guard)?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What if that free state is under threat of falling under a governmental authority that becomes tyrannical? Is that not a security issue? Are we to just rely on a militia that falls under the authority of such a government? Should there not be a military institution that is independent of such potential tyrants; an institution like THE PEOPLE?
I was also pondering another dilemma.
Must/Can all Militias be under the directional authority of federal government or state governmental institutions (see, National Guard)?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What if that free state is under threat of falling under a governmental authority that becomes tyrannical? Is that not a security issue? Are we to just rely on a militia that falls under the authority of such a government? Should there not be a military institution that is independent of such potential tyrants; an institution like THE PEOPLE?
59
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Second Amendment Debate- What does the "right to bear arms" really mean?
« on: March 20, 2008, 08:12:31 AM »
Interesting overview of the philosophical arguments that surround this debate. However I am of the opinion that even if the Second Amendment makes us collectively less safe, it is still our individual right to have this nuclear option at our disposal, the right to fight back against threats to property, your person, and other innocent individuals.
I do not think this is a reasonable argument to justify the affirmation of such unconstitutional laws. From what I understand, the court cannot compel surrounding jurisdictions to adopt similar laws. Whether or not the surrounding jurisdictions will EVER adopt similar statutes is totally uncertain, yet the possibility remains that the ban of pistols may potentially make the citizens that are under its jurisdiction less safe.
Quote from:
MICHAEL STEVEN GREEN
MICHAEL STEVEN GREEN
But the District could plausibly argue that the reason the
ban currently makes citizens of the District less safe is because of the failure of neighboring
states to enact similar bans. Gun violence, it could argue, is a prisoner’s dilemma that must
be overcome through collective action. And collective action will not occur unless one
government takes the first step, even though this government will temporarily makes its
citizens worse off.
I do not think this is a reasonable argument to justify the affirmation of such unconstitutional laws. From what I understand, the court cannot compel surrounding jurisdictions to adopt similar laws. Whether or not the surrounding jurisdictions will EVER adopt similar statutes is totally uncertain, yet the possibility remains that the ban of pistols may potentially make the citizens that are under its jurisdiction less safe.
60
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Second Amendment Debate- What does the "right to bear arms" really mean?
« on: March 19, 2008, 02:49:39 PM »Not all of what you have said has been on point.
I thought it was just a comment about my observations of what he posted in the last few pages, I've only attacked the words and things he has presented as far as I can tell.