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 - Happy_Weasel

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 545
Current Law Students / Re: Godd**mn grades
« on: June 27, 2006, 10:21:34 PM »
According to Getting to Maybe, there is an explanation why bombers pass and acers fail. The reason is because when your test was too easy, chances are that you didn't find everything and therefore can't put together an answer that the prof is looking for. However, when you find everything, you are likely overwhelmed and begin to toss up on a lot of things. Here, it is likely that you are hitting everything and the professor will be overjoyed that someone understands his complex and possibly misunderstood(though this could just be a hard science thing) mind. The point here is that unless you have exhausted yourself trying to find problems, you still have work to do. Exams should be stressful and that's why A-type personalities (from what I understand, those that are propelled by constant crises) excel at the study and practice of law. I think this is an explaination why some people who bombed and fall toward the bottom start to succed and top students begin to be in trouble is because students who are C+/120th in a 200 student class feel compelled to work harder while those who are B+/40th think they have mastered law school and can do anything they want.

Current Law Students / Re: I'm getting hard.
« on: June 27, 2006, 10:13:51 PM »
My idealism makes me lean towards anarcho-syndicalism (bit of a class warrior).  My pragmatism makes me lean towards the Democrats (out of moral necessity).  I don't smell of patchouli, I look like a Young Republican, and I shag like a cornered badger.

Where's the G-d**mn column for me?

...stupid narrow sex studies.

Heck, you're not alone. Just remember that.

Transferring / Re: Law school weight
« on: June 24, 2006, 05:25:05 PM »
Just do anything you want. You have a great chance of getting into a rich school.

Transferring / Re: Tier 4 to Tier 2?
« on: June 24, 2006, 05:22:09 PM »
Denver has one, too. I think I w\ill apply there if I got the grades and the need. (can't find an internship, wife still can't find a job).

Transferring / Re: Transfer t4 to t3?????
« on: June 21, 2006, 01:44:39 PM »
You can go from a borderline t4/t3 to a borderline t3/t4 with a top 40%. Some guy did Drake to Marquette that way.

Transferring / Re: Tier 4 to Tier 2?
« on: June 21, 2006, 01:43:22 PM »
American does.

Current Law Students / Re: StrictlyLiable LSAT Score
« on: June 14, 2006, 12:15:00 PM »
They are all pretty least a 151/2 will give you a chance at a good T4/lower T3.

Current Law Students / Re: Godd**mn grades
« on: June 14, 2006, 12:14:10 PM »
You are still top thirds probably at a 3.4. But being LR material to about top 40% in the second, overall, you are about 25-30% tile, right?

Then again, maybe you missed important issues or important laws or interpretations in the exams. Perhaps you did better, but didn't answer the question exactly as it was asked the first time.

Current Law Students / Re: 3.2/174
« on: June 12, 2006, 06:04:48 PM »
Well, with a high LSAT and a mediocre GPA, you would be find at ANY non T-14er, but it could be a real toss up at the bottom half of the T14, from what I understand.

Current Law Students / Re: Abortion
« on: April 26, 2006, 09:58:12 AM »
Please refer to Exodus 22, please. Torts can be filed, but not criminal charges.

50 years ago an interracial married couple had no legal rights.
There's always a "way around it" if "it" is bad law...In any tradition.

Anyway, I'm not sure I follow you.  If a child's property rights don't have any legal effects until emancipation or majority anyway, why would a legislature ever have to make some kind of distinction about the property rights of an unborn fetus?  How is this a stalemate?  And what is the connection to abortion?

Child's property rights do have legal effects, and in most legislations they come from the moment of conception, though they may not manage their own money before they reach emancipation or majority and their patrimony is appointed to a tutor, the property is still theirs.

The issue here is about a child that has legal rights over his share of a deceased parent's sucesoral mass (or donations of a third party). So by no means this would be considered a "bad law", it serves as a protection for the unborn's possible patrimony not being transfered away to others, just because said child is not born yet.

So the thing is that most legislations (not really sure if it applies in most States of the Union) recognize a right reserved for physical persons to a merely concieved child, wich brings up the question that if the legislators consider conception a reception of legal rights over patrimony reserved only for actual physical persons, then why not civil rights? not to mention the implications that such thing will have in a premature termination of pregnancy...

To answer more directly your question, when a transfer of property is done, being the child creditor of that money, it IS his money, even though he may not have rights of use and/or exploitation of such patrimony and such responsability falls in the hands of his tutor, the property is his. That's how you can explain that "magical" transfer of the rights of use and exploitation when he reaches majority or emancipation, the "property" rights were with the child from the get go, but the "use" rights only became effective at the moment of majority.

Its true that some (maybe all) states grant legal rights to unborn children in tort and probate, etc, but that really doesn't come up under any legal analysis concerning whether or not abortion can be prohibited or regulated in some given way. Just because you have property rights doesn't mean that you have a right to life, or any other constitutional guarantees for that matter. For example, the state can still fry criminals despite the fact that they might have some vested interest in the remainder of some property somewhere. Whether or not any property rights ever vested in the unborn child only becomes an issue after the child has been aborted, and in that case the issue is only concerned with the proper allocation of those property rights, not with regards to the ultimate fate of the child.

The real question is whether or not unborn children have any relevant constitutional rights that the government is obliged to protect, i.e. "a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The question becomes complicated when you consider the fact that abortion is usually private, not state, conduct and so it is difficult to prove how, if at all, the constitution should even apply with regards to the rights of the unborn child in the abortion scenario. But even if you could make that connection, the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the constitution does not protect unborn children at all because every reference to 'people' in the document refers only to persons born alive. This has been held to be true with regards to every part of the constitution, not just due process. Therefore, the 'legal aspect' with regards to the rights of the unborn child is that he has absolutely no constitutional guarantees as a very well settled principle.

The only reason that the court has even allowed any regulation of abortion is based on the rights of the state, not the unborn child. The court has held that the state can regulate in the face of a woman's right to abort so long as those regulations are narrowly tailored to accomplishing some compelling interest with regards to abortion and it doesn't subject the woman to any 'undue hardship.'

The only interesting legal questions are whether or not the state's interest in protecting a life form that has no constitutional protection outweighs a mother's constitutionally recognized right to personal autonomy, whether or not the right to abort can be extracted from the right to personal autonomy without harming all of the related case law, or whether or not we should even still recognize substantive rights under the due process clause at all.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 545