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 - attic4fp

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16
31
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: YLS 2010
« on: April 23, 2007, 10:36:59 PM »
I just think it's a concentric circle issue (which is sort of obvious). Park is slightly safer than Lynwood is slightly safer than Howe is slightly safer than Dwight etc etc.

agreed.

for me, though, the point is that it's all pretty safe.

32
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: YLS 2010
« on: April 23, 2007, 05:46:19 PM »
More people do get mugged out there.  But not that many more than other neighborhoods in my opinion, AND (here's the important thing) muggings have dropped dramatically throughout downtown over the last year as the police have gotten their *&^% together and increased their presence.

Lots and lots of law school students live on Dwight, and they're all fine.

I'm not sure Howe should really be included in this conversation, as it's more centrally located and as safe as almost anywhere else.

33
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: YLS 2010
« on: April 23, 2007, 04:00:49 PM »
I don't know that it's fair to say Howe and Dwight are bad areas.  They are slightly less safe than main campus and not as pretty as East Rock.

That said, you can get great apartments for really cheap out there, and a lot of that stuff actually tends to be nicer than more expensive stuff because it's not getting by on location alone.

A fifteen minute walk is not too far.  It's not super convienent, but tons of YLS students live out there.

34
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Living in New Jersey
« on: April 17, 2007, 08:49:05 AM »
I can't actually help, as I don't really know the city, but I have two things to say:

1. There definitely ARE nice areas of Jersey City.  Down by the water is beautiful.

2. You might want to retitle your post or make a new one with a new name.  There have been a couple arguments on here recently about Camden and Newark that have people pretty tired of attacking/defending New Jersey.  They may thinking this thread is a "Is Newark Safe?" one and skip it.

Good luck finding a place!  NJ is sweeeet

35
Oh Canada! / Re: Why should I go to an American school?
« on: April 16, 2007, 08:45:16 PM »
that's like saying the bar passage rate students from California schools is 50%, so the bar passage rate for Boalt students must be 50%.

it makes no sense.

36
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Trying Again Next Cycle?
« on: April 14, 2007, 12:36:27 PM »
I think you should absolutely wait another year.

People who act like your application has to change dramatically to produce a different decision are crazy.

Applying to law school is a crap shoot.  There are way too many qualified candidates for everyone to get in to a top school.  Giving yourself another shot is a wonderful idea.

If I had not gotten into one of my top couple choices, I would have reapplied, and I think it's a good idea to do so if you can afford to take the time off.

Good luck.

37
I would say the sweetest thing about the cost of living in new haven is the buffets.

There are all kinds of high quality Thai and Indians lunch buffets for like $7.

Buffets are so sweet.  I think I'll go to Zaroka tomorrow.

38
Affirmative Action / Re: Reparations?
« on: April 04, 2007, 01:30:46 AM »
Yeah, but who need Article II when you're talking about Ed Stanton.  He was much sweeter than Article II.

39
Affirmative Action / Re: Reparations?
« on: April 04, 2007, 01:18:17 AM »
That was not the reply I expected at all.  Does that mean it may very well be actionable?

That seems to contradict your whole point in this thread, which was that descendents of freed slaves could not sue for damages for economic injuries received from non-enforcement of Reconstruction legislation.


There is probably a statute that lets them sue, most agencies for example, the EPA or Disability Programs let people bring suit.  Plus its highly likely that the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Act gave African American's remedies to sue for any violations of their rights....WAIT...I thought you meant Lyndon Johnson, you mean Andrew Johnson, I was confused

haha, sorry, my bad.  I should have been more clear, since there is indeed a bit of difference between the two.  Especially when it comes to civil rights issues.


Quote
Okay for anything that happened under Andrew Johnson, remember you need living parties that have a dispute over the legal rights.  The legal issue is whether any rights given under statute during Reconstruction are assignable (can they be passed to heirs)--the answer depends on what the statute says.  If the statute says nothings, the courts will interpret it based on Congressional intent.  So ignoring things like statute of limitations or whether there is a statute giving them the power to sue the gov't, its possible living parties could have legal rights in dispute,

yeah, i guess that's the question.  I bet it's an interesting one, too.  On the one hand, I'm pretty sure the statutes were explicitly written to apply to the transition from slave to free, which would probably make them less likely to be interpreted as assignable, huh?  On the other hand, I think Congressional intent was pretty clearly to A) completely restructure southern society and economy  and B) redress past wrongs.  That would be an interesting endeavor in statute construing, I guess.

For what it's worth (maybe nothing), it's pretty clear the members of Congress who wrote and voted for the law thought injury was being done to the southern African-Americans.  After all, they did impeach Andrew Johnson, although that was nominally for removing the Sec. of War, I think.

40
Affirmative Action / Re: Reparations?
« on: April 04, 2007, 12:53:07 AM »
Quote
Don't know about that, you would have to ask somebody with knowledge of that period, probably a prof or you could look it up in scholarly writings to see if you can find anything about it yourself, but I have no idea off the top of my head.

That was not the reply I expected at all.  Does that mean it may very well be actionable?

That seems to contradict your whole point in this thread, which was that descendents of freed slaves could not sue for damages for economic injuries received from non-enforcement of Reconstruction legislation.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16