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 - Bouzie

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 25
41
My god, OCI research is fun!

From the Vault guide:

"The firmís on-campus recruiting roster is fairly standard, with emphasis on superstar law schools like Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Stanford, Michigan and Penn.  Sonnenscheinís Chicago office also looks at regional powers such as University of Chicago and Northwestern."

42
I just found the most ridiculously toolish 3 sentences of my life and had to share:

"A lot can be said about the person to whom so much of our success is attributable: the Firm XX Associate. The chances are good that she graduated from a West Coast law school, such as Stanford, Boalt or UCLA, but twice as good that she came from an East Coast law school, such as Harvard, Yale or Columbia. Of course, she might also have attended a Midwestern law school, such as Michigan or Chicago."


43
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Piercings on law students
« on: June 28, 2008, 02:25:31 PM »
I've actually heard that the whole "blind graded" thing is not something you can count on. Professors can change your grade before it is officially recorded.

Not sure if that is true everywhere, but two professors at two different law schools have confirmed.


They almost never do...and certainly not because of a piercing.  Honestly, most profs are way too into themselves to notice you anyway.

44
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Piercings on law students
« on: June 26, 2008, 06:22:00 PM »
Outside of work/court appearances....seriously no one gives a damn.  Be yourself, you'll be happier that way ;)

45
General Off-Topic Board / Re: California Gay Marriage
« on: June 07, 2008, 09:36:08 PM »
never hear equal protection clause?  how discrimination on basis sexual orientation any different than gender?

I don't know what to say.
You have a great constitutional argument for the protection of the gay "minority"
You also have a great scientific argument for the justification that sexual orientation is natural and not merely a preference.
I recognize those arguments but I believe that homosexuality is an inappropriate behavior. Extremely promiscuous people and those who are attracted to youth are compelled by society to control their behavior. 

I do recognize the parallels to interracial marriage, but there is one fundamental difference: Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, it is obvious that nature intended procreation to involve one man and one woman.   I believe that marriage and procreation are fundamentally tied together.

hmmmm....I'm not so sure about interracial marriage.  Didn't god place us all on different continents for a reason?  Seems like interracial marriage messes up the natural order of things.

46
General Off-Topic Board / Re: California Gay Marriage
« on: June 07, 2008, 02:42:29 PM »
penumbra?

47
General Off-Topic Board / Re: California Gay Marriage
« on: June 07, 2008, 12:14:41 PM »

I'm sure someone has already addressed this but....CA's decision to apply strict scrutiny seems right...

discrete and insular class (carolene products footnote 4).... overinclusive/underinclusive etc. etc.  (romer v.evans)

Even under rational basis, marriage discrimination is hard to justify (goodridge v. dep't of public health).  The problem is that marriage discrimination is 'so woefully' overinclusive and underinclusive that it casts doubt upon the asserted state interest.
ex- there's nothing preventing 80 year old women nor infertile men from marrying so a state's claim that a discriminatory marriage policy furthers the interest of procreation is dubious. 

Thanks for your comments.  I called mercy on this argument because I couldn't really keep up.  I've learned a lot from this thread though, and even if people think I suck for some of the things that I've said, I still try my best to see both sides of the issue. 
I didn't do a very good job of making my point, but I think that the tax policy is already too general.  If we include same-gender marriages in the existing tax policy then I think it will be even more general.   My claim is that the real solution is to provide no tax benefits to anyone solely because of the relationships they keep.  I do think parents should get tax benefits, and I think the benefits to adoptive parents should be even higher.

There are probably some good arguments for the fact that marriages help to stabilize society, and that straight and gay marriages should be subsidized as a result, but no one has raised those arguments on this thread.





I don't disagree. Just sayin' that as long as state and fed govts are going to offer marriage benefits, those benefits should be available to everyone.  Whether the state has an interest in social engineering-- i have no clue ;)

48
General Off-Topic Board / Re: California Gay Marriage
« on: June 07, 2008, 11:10:53 AM »
I can't believe this discussion is necessary. 

I suppose it's interesting as far as the legality debate goes, but...seriously.  It's 2008.  It seems we just don't learn much from our past struggles with human/civil rights. 

I completely understand the sentiment that a discussion about this topic can be "behind the times" 
Like I said, I'm not really interested in a debate about homosexuality, but I do have to say that the reason I have a problem with legalized gay marriage is that I believe all tax benefits associated with marriage should be tied to children.  Due to the fact that married people produce the huge majority of children, they are entitled to tax benefits whether they have kids or not.  IMO IF the government is going to continue this blanket tax policy, it should not apply to those who are obviously unable to produce offspring. 

Adoptions should also carry specific tax benefits.
I don't think there is anything old fashioned about my opinions.

It seems to me like the Supreme Court did in fact have the authority to make this decision, but it bothers me because I believe most judges would not be able to separate their personal feelings about homosexuality from the law. 



I'm sure someone has already addressed this but....CA's decision to apply strict scrutiny seems right...

discrete and insular class (carolene products footnote 4).... overinclusive/underinclusive etc. etc.  (romer v.evans)

Even under rational basis, marriage discrimination is hard to justify (goodridge v. dep't of public health).  The problem is that marriage discrimination is 'so woefully' overinclusive and underinclusive that it casts doubt upon the asserted state interest.
ex- there's nothing preventing 80 year old women nor infertile men from marrying so a state's claim that a discriminatory marriage policy furthers the interest of procreation is dubious. 

49
I think one of my books is the wrong edition  :-\

The Contracts book?  If you are talking about the 2008/2005 difference, we are working on figuring out if it is an issue, but I think it's fine.  Does anyone have the one from Ulrich's so we could do a comparison? 

I had an outline from the old version and there were 10-15 different cases. I think you'll need the new version.

50
General Board / Re: What is the most difficult 1L subject ??
« on: May 22, 2008, 03:39:58 PM »
Our Civ Pro is only one semester with no jurisdiction or choice of law normally (separate class, like piggy said), but half of this past year's 1L class had a teacher who taught it anyway.  So it was all squeezed into one semester but, based on the study aids, seemed to be what is normally taught elsewhere in a yearlong course.

Even for a few good men, completing Civ Pro in this manner was nearly an impossible mission.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 25