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 8 ... 545
Current Law Students / Re: 3.2/174
« on: June 12, 2006, 07:04:48 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, 10:58:12 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.

Current Law Students / Re: "Getting to Maybe"
« on: April 24, 2006, 02:05:16 PM »
So maybe it would work well in the context of IRAC by helping you spot the issues and navigate rules to the point that you can make brief of what the argument in the case could look like. Here, you would be able to find out what is likely to happen or what the conclusion is in terms of the main issues.

Current Law Students / Re: how long take your guys to prepare LSAT
« on: April 19, 2006, 11:42:35 PM »
What's interesting about me is that the only school I really saw myself at was Wyoming. Sure I had dreams of SU,UM,Case and Northeastern, but Wyoming was the only practical choice. Knowing this, I only prepared for Wyoming and got a 156, which was better than the 153 I was aiming for. I think if I was serious about CUB or UD, I could have pulled off a 162 or 163. I only knew about The LSAT since about the May before I took it and didn't figure out how it worked until August or September and then I stopped studying in January.  :-\ However, I guess if I can get into the 70s%tile @ Wyoming, it won't matter because I am only really interested in Denver and I can always get an LLM.

Job Search / Re: Biglaw jobs
« on: April 16, 2006, 11:34:11 PM »
I am thinking I could get Big Law in Denver if I land top 25%(top 20 students) (Holland and Hart) or top 40% with an LLM.

What is considered big,middle,small and micro law and the subsequent salaries?
I am thinking: 2-12 under 45k (anyone can be)
               13-50 45-70K   (at least middle in class for small school, T3/4)
               50-150 70-100K (Top quarter for T3/4, top half for T2 and T1)
               150< 100K-14kK (You have to be from a local law school and Order of the Coif or at least in middle of class of T14 or from HYS)

Current Law Students / Re: Abortion
« on: April 12, 2006, 08:11:32 PM »
You know, after seeing all of those pictures, it only makes my pro-choice beliefs stronger.  whoever posts *&^% like that is a f**cked up whacko.

I could very well post some pictures of a woman performing an abortion on herself with a coat hanger, or a drunken delisenced doctor performing a third trimester abortion.  THOSE WOULD BE THE RESULTS OF BANNING ABORTION. 

Yep...back alley abortions will become a practice in this country if abortion is outlawed. 14-year old girls, who are still babies themselves, will be forced to either keep the child, or become an incubator for the state and suffer lifelong psychological damage once she gives the kid up for adoption. Or how about the 18 year old girl who becomes pregnant and doesnt know about it, yet goes on spring break...spends a whole week drinking and doing recreational drugs, only to find out that she's pregnant, and will be forced to take care of a child that will likely have fetal alcohol syndrome, brain damage, or a multitude of other problems. Or even more compelling, how about the woman in South Dakota who gets raped and becomes pregnant, yet has to bring the child to term...that child will eventually ask who his/her mom and dad are, and why he/she wasn't wanted...and once he's old enough to do the research on his own, he/she will find out that he wasn't just your "run of the mill" child given up for an adoption...but that his or her conception was the result of one of life's most brutal and heinous crimes.
Rather than trying to instill their own sense of morality on everyone else, do any of these bible thumpers ever think about what's best for the child to be? We can't even take care of the children WE ALREADY HAVE in this country. First off, I don't know much about adoption law, but I know it's a long and drawn out process. Children are constantly bounced from orphanage to orphanage, and foster home to foster home. For some children it works out fine, yet for others, they have to live with the psychological effects of (a) not having a family (b) wondering why their parents didn't want them (c) not living normal lives. Now take the number of children who already don't have homes, and add tens of thousands of unwanted kids to that list. The whole "Bill Gates was an unwanted child" argument has no freakin merit whatsoever. For every one unwanted child who turns out to be ok, there are thousands that aren't so lucky.
It's ironic...the same people in support of banning abortion are the same people who want to uphold the "traditional family", who don't want to pay for welfare or healthcare for the poor, and who want tax cuts. The practical results of abortion would include a significanly higher proportion of single parent households and a greater strain on our economy. But hey...all of this is worth it, as long as the religious right can sleep well knowing they imposed their f**ked up sense of morality on everyone else.

Hey, I guess it makes people good to know that someone with a gun and handcuffs has to do what they say.

Current Law Students / Re: Abortion
« on: April 12, 2006, 07:11:37 PM »
You know, after seeing all of those pictures, it only makes my pro-choice beliefs stronger.  whoever posts *&^% like that is a f**cked up whacko.

I could very well post some pictures of a woman performing an abortion on herself with a coat hanger, or a drunken delisenced doctor performing a third trimester abortion.  THOSE WOULD BE THE RESULTS OF BANNING ABORTION. 

A lot of these people are mentally ill. By yelling at them, you encourage them.

Current Law Students / Re: poor lawyers
« on: April 12, 2006, 01:22:37 PM »
Yeah. Even popular culture reflects this. In the movie, the Firm, the best law graduate in the country was making only 96,000, AFTER selling his soul.(A  good student from an average school like myself should be able to make that much if they work really hard in law school for the Holland and Hart interviews the top quarter at my school). Also, other information supports this. Average lawyers from my school were making like 30,000 in the private sector, now the average is 58,000 when about 30 of the 36 lawyers reported their salaries. I would say that new associate salaries have doubled in the last 5 years.

Current Law Students / Re: poor lawyers
« on: April 11, 2006, 11:37:20 PM »
yeah, so. Must students report their salaries.

Current Law Students / Re: poor lawyers
« on: April 11, 2006, 06:38:14 PM »
How come my school has a 25th to 75th of 33 to 88, then? and its TTT though Denver and Colorado are about the same.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 545