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 - Leaf2001br

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 68
Current Law Students / Re: Crazy, crazy students
« on: April 20, 2006, 10:03:41 PM »
Oh, and I can't believe I forgot one of the most common exam time psych-outs of all:

11. Tell everyone you're so drained from studying 12 hours non-stop every day since last month (bull of course)

or maybe one of the two alcohol-related variations:

12. Keep telling people you're probably going to hit the bars tonight.

13. Keep attempting to lure groups of people to grab some beers after class.

Current Law Students / Re: Crazy, crazy students
« on: April 20, 2006, 09:59:41 PM »
What is your exam time game face?

1. Get people talking about what and how they are studying, both to guage the competition and see if you can pick up any tips.

2. Act cool, calm and slightly bored as if everything is perfectly under control and you're just looking forward to the summer, in an attempt to make your classmates nervous.

3. Tell everyone you're definitely going down in flames, thus fishing for ego-boosting sympathy and setting the bar low so you can be pleasantly surprised.

4. Become invisible, open your mouth only to breathe, and slip in and out of the shadows unnoticed.

5. Generously offer to help others and share whatever study aides you found helpful.

6. Act cheerfully optimistic and reassuring, telling each classmate to stop worrying because you know what a sharp law student they are and that they're going to do great.

7. Beg for help

8. Repeatedly exclaim "I don't see what the big deal is, I just don't think that class is so hard!"

8. Tell everyone you're going to fail out of school when you know you really do have the thing in the bag.

9. Tell everyone you've got it in the bag when you know you're really going to fail out of law school.

10. CHEAT!

I know there are some hustlers out there because I have seen my fair share of people literally crying during exams who finished at the top of the class!

Well nate, I'm starting to think we should have named this thread "Who likes titties?".  It would have been a lot less lonely here anyway!

Current Law Students / Re: how long take your guys to prepare LSAT
« on: April 20, 2006, 09:26:28 PM »
I think the scholarship possibility is a good point.

Other than that however, if you already KNOW where you are planning to attend (family obligations, desire to stay at home, etc.) I disagree that time spent prepping cannot be time wasted.  Italian2L's theory assumes the necessary premise that one's life exclusively consists of drinking and masturbating.  This may be the last freedom to travel, see, do, or relax for quite some time.  Maybe even work to save up some money.  While I certainly think this only applies to a very few limited cases, there are situations where prepping might conceivably not be the only acceptable option.  I guess I just like to pick on absolute arguments.  But like you said, the possibility of scholarship money is definitely worth thinking about.

Out of curiosity though, do you apply the same logic to law school itself?  Personally, I wouldn't trade the precious few drinks or jerk offs I've had for almost anything.

i honestly don't think it's so cut and dried.  i think there is a political aspect to this that can't be swept under a rug.  an atty who brings charges against a judge runs some career risk. 

The attorney would not have to deal with this judge again.  I couldn't possibly imagine a stronger reason for recusal.  As far as other judges who he may be friends with, I doubt they would share the same bitterness as the guy who threw the punch.  Even if they were bitter about it, it would probably be what the attorney DID ion the first place that made the the judge want to hit him (This could indeed have been a career risk) not the fact that he pressed charges after being violently attacked.

For the sake of argument, assuming the attorney did nothing to warrant the attack, I doubt the other judges would form a mafiosa style gang with retaliation on their minds.  This would be dangerous for their own careers, and I don't think you can just assume corruption to that degree.

Why are you giving him advice about starting 1L year in the United States?  I just assumed he already went to school in another country.

And the judge would get hauled into jail, just like any other person that hits someone.  No "review board".  Procedurally, since the judge is gone and facing battery charges against a party in the proceeding, there would obviously have to be a new trial.   

Current Law Students / Re: Law School Confidential Property Hypo
« on: April 19, 2006, 08:56:10 PM »
It's also relevant how much time has passed and whether you are talking about a right of possession or a right of ownership.  They are not the same thing.
Note: I am dealing in Lousiana Civil Law which I assume is similar by analogy...

The trouble is that possession carries a presumption of ownership.  This means that whoever possesses the thing is always presumed to be the owner in the eyes of the law, and the burden of proving otherwise falls on whomever is challenging ownership.

With a movable (chattel) this can be next to impossible to prove.  Not only is it hard to prove, but you are not likely to bring a possessory or petitory (ownership) action in court for a movable.  Most just don't have enough value.  However even if you did, you would have to rely on witnesses, etc. and YOU would have the burden of proving that the possessor is not the rightful possessor or owner.  On top of this you would have a limited time to do it.  If you wait too long, the possessor will acquire all rights to the thing.  These proceedings are most often to resolve possession or ownership of immovables (real property?), where you can bring certified title into the fight.  With the exception of vehicles, movables are not accompanied by a title.  So, generally if you have a ring or something that truly is of value you would just get it insured, and hopefully criminal law serves to deter any thieves.

So you see, if someone takes something you are kind of screwed if they don't want to give it back.   They now possess it.  You could always try your luck with criminal theft charges or a conversion suit in tort, but these also present evidentiary issues of proof. 

The possessor's presumption of ownership also has a policy argument supporting it:  If you aren't using it anyway they might as well have it!  Ok, so this is really more relevant to immovables but the lesson is the same.  Keep up with your *&^%! (or get it insured if it would absolutely kill you to lose it)

By the way just for clarification, I am generally thinking of at least college-educated when I say "educated", I understand this is relative.

Actually, I was trying to say that there are more uneducated people in general, whether religious or not, and that it is a mere accident that Christianity is the majority religion in this country.  As a result, the most often-voiced opinions I tend to come across are those of uneducated Christians.  I was essentially trying to defuse any link between the two because I am not saying there is one, and I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea.  If there is a link, I am certainly not trying to claim one, at least not a causal one.

As far as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the like, maybe so, but I was referring more to people I encounter everyday, not so much the media stars.  It's difficult to establish an accurate sampling either way and I don't want to make generalizations, but I will say that it appears that those who are most vocal, protesting, etc. often seem to me to be lesser educated.  Before I start upsetting some of the educated Christians, this isn't exactly where I wanted to go with this so let me change direction.  (This all arose from my attempted disclaimer!)

The real opinions I am interested in are not just the ever-touchy Christian issues of school prayer, evolution, abortion, same-sex marriages, etc.  But also things like the original Catholic poster I responded to who was ultimately willing to defer to a judicial decision on same-sex marriages even though his religion forbids it.  Can a religion really be piecemeal in that way?  Is it not an all-or-nothing belief that requires the existence of only one God?  Most would compromise and say of course not.  But if that is the case, does it not indicate that religion is ultimately a personal experience and not an almighty one?  Shouldn't a true believer feel charged to dispel or convert non-believers?  By no means do I mean to limit this to Christianity, though it probably makes the most readily-available example.

I also wonder why certain more popular religious moral beliefs tend to carry more weight than others.  Such as why the Christian lobby believes that stem-cell research is murder while simulataneously supporting a war-mongering administration.  And whether Muslims, Jews, and Christians really believe that their beliefs will bring peace on earth when it seems that sticking to these beliefs seems to in fact be the biggest barrier to peace on earth.

Also, the religious right, who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, are always the most opposed to taxation and social services for the needy.  One might argue that they make contributions in other ways, such as to the church.  Is the church more efficient at allocating resources than a representative government?  Perhaps some believe that it is.

I also have never understood how one "selects" the religion of their choice as the answer to the universe's mysteries.  Is this not mere chance related to where you live geographically?    From my observations it seems that organized religion is merely handed down from one's parents.  Surely this correlation is unavoidable even for the staunchest believer.

And how strong is the correlation between morality and religion?  Is Pat Robertson morally good?  Is George Bush?  Is Ghandi?  Are Catholic priests?  Osama Bin Laden?  What do followers believe would happen if they renounced their faith? What would the prophets of the great religions say about the United States if they were here today?

I have many questions like this, but I suppose that's quite enough for now.  As you see, this topic can shift broadly to the spiritual, poltical, moral, psychological, legal, historical, etc.  So I'll back off a bit until someone nudges it towards a more narrow scope. 

Once again, it is not my intention at all to offend or judge.  My point of view, though I believe it to be firmly objective, is merely my own.

Current Law Students / Re: how long take your guys to prepare LSAT
« on: April 19, 2006, 05:38:54 PM »
Good for you man.  I understand people have different goals and many want to be sure they get the best education possible, but all the droning on about rankings and prestige is shallow at best.  It's like talking about how much your salary is compared to so-and-so's salary.  There is a reason people don't generally spout that kind of B.S.  Namely, having a little class and respect for others who may not share your values.  Not to mention that it sometimes reaks of a little latent insecurity and a need to be appreciated by others.  A 166 is a 166 and chances are you'll be fine whatever path you take. 

Current Law Students / How does your faith co-exist with government?
« on: April 19, 2006, 05:21:12 PM »
This is actually an offshoot of the same-sex marriage thread that I thought was worthy of its own thread.  On that thread, deltaHUSL posted: "i disagree with it on a moral basis as a catholic, but if the court finds the right to privacy covers it, so be it."
I found being confronted with this kind of decision interesting, especially in today's political climate, so I responded (below) before just deciding to paste it here on a new thread.

How do you personally deal with your religious beliefs being abridged when it comes to the rights of others?  As a law student you surely must also have some appreciation for the importance of individual rights.  I'm just curious how you manage to balance this conflict.  Or anyone of any religion for that matter.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I am personally about as non-religious as they come.  I think that the singlemost tangible effect of organized religion is divisiveness and the ironic spread of hate through conflicting messages of love.  I believe that morality exists independently of religion and is not necessarily a product of it.  Please understand that I would never push this view on anyone and I afford all due respect to those who choose to practice an organized religion. My own grandparents have both gone to church and Sunday school their whole lives and I don't think I will ever meet their equal in terms of selflessness and compassion for others. Yet the nuts and bolts of organized religion is not something that I can fully understand.

Anyway, what I really want to know is how someone of faith in America reconciles this belief with a belief in American government.  There are many very outspoken Christians these days   but unfortunately many of them are also relatively uneducated so it's often hard to get a truly objective viewpoint.  This is just my experience so please don't take it the wrong way.  I know this is not ALL Christians.  It is just a simple fact that most of any population is not going to be college-educated and Christianity just happens to be the majority religion in this country. I know that there ARE also educated people who are religious which is what I assume you to be.  It just follows that since there are fewer educated people there are also fewer religious educated people.

So anyway, I am just curious.  To admit to holding Catholic beliefs while at the same time giving deference to the judicial system (though I don't think same-sex marriage is necessarily a right to privacy issue) is an interesting point of view. And what about sharing space with others of differing religious beliefs?

I understand that this can be a delicate subject and as you can probably tell, I'm trying to be as respectful as possible.  I think intelligent law school students are mature enough to have this discussion so have at it.  I am really interested in hearing opinions from students of the law who also have faith in a religion, so I hope it doesn't turn into bashing.  If that happens, it will only drive away those whose opinion I want to hear in the first place. 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 68