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 - dissident

Pages: [1] 2
Incoming 1Ls / Re: In Defense of Briefing
« on: May 30, 2009, 08:16:41 PM »
Haha!  This is great stuff...

Class and casebook does not equal good grade.

Class and casebook are great for exploring theory, policy, and tricky borderline issues.  Test (and class grade) are about black letter law and main policy points.

If you can't brief by making a few notes in your casebook, you're missing the point...

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson

Surely context matters?

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Did not the Bill of Rights come about specifically to "limit the tools" of the federal government? 

socialists and fascists are nearly the same in practice... where's the anarchist candidate?

Law School Admissions / Re: Impact of majors assumed as "fluffy"
« on: June 20, 2008, 07:05:40 AM »
The only thing that matters is GPA and LSAT.  School, extras, major, grad degrees, war wounds, and sunday dinner do not affect admission at all.  And take the LSAT as much as you can because, despite what admissions departments claim, they will take the highest score.

At least, that was my experience.

Having strong and numerous soft factors proved no help at all; I imagine the lack of them will not hurt you.

What's the difference in the first four choices?

Finally someone else besides me has experienced that grad degrees and work experience mean nothing in law school admissions. 

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Judge Goes Back To Law School?
« on: May 20, 2008, 12:40:08 PM »
“That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence,” Judge Gossett said, staring down from the bench at Ms. Jeffs, who was dressed in a pale-blue prairie dress. “Your right to your religious belief ends when it violates the law.

First Amendment, U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Tee-Hee ;D

First Amendment is not as clear as you make it out to be.  If a religion required murder certainly, that would not be allowed under the law.  How about if they want to serve wine as part of the sacrament in a town where alcohol is prohibited or home school their own children which puts them at odds with compulsory schooling statutes in some jurisdictions?  Its a tough line drawing, but the judge was essentially correct.  The Smith case which you will learn about in Con Law is the leading case and it essentially saids if a statute is not targeted at a religion but only indirectly affects it, the statute can be enforced even though it prohibits religious acts...  In other words the judge was essentially correct.  The speech clauses also have a ton of limitations and cannot be taken at face value.

You are presnting an argument that religious freedom must conform to the law.

Therefore, do you then conclude that the First Amendment is being violated, or that it is no longer in effect?

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Judge Goes Back To Law School?
« on: May 20, 2008, 07:36:42 AM »
Also, another perspective... just for kicks :)

So far, Texas is batting 0.000 on finding pregnant underage girls. I still say it's HUGELY important (a battle cry no one is picking up on) that it is now shown to have been IMPOSSIBLE that CPS or Sheriffs Department personnel even SAW a "pregnant underage girl" when they entered the ranch. They were down to three, I've mentioned this before. One was clearly not showing enough to be "evidence, " so much so that her pregnancy is disputed and cannot be documented until she takes a pregnancy test, which she has refused. The other two which have to have been the "obviously pregnant" ones, have been shown to be of age.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Judge Goes Back To Law School?
« on: May 20, 2008, 07:32:36 AM »
I deleted it because of misspellings and I did not think it added to the discussion... sorry.

The rest of that post also pointed out that I was talking about this specific case, if that's not clear from the op...

Generally, the Texas authorities made a huge gaffe from which they have been backpedaling.  Even the underage impregnantion rate they claimed at the time of this particular raid, which has since been discovered to be false, was significanlty lower than the underage pregnancy rate of Texas public schools.  Maybe those schools would be better places to remove children from.  If child rape is happening, than it should be investigated and prosecuted within the bounds of the law.  If it happens in a neighborhood, I object to all the kids in that neighborhood being removed. 

Back to the point, the judge's comments in this particular case are as funny as they are chilling... hence the poll.

Pages: [1] 2