Law School Discussion

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Where to go for undergrad year?
« Last post by Maintain FL 350 on February 23, 2017, 04:27:25 PM »
It doesn't matter, neither school will give you an advantage on the LSAT or in terms of law school admissions. The only time your choice of undergrad matters is if you have the opportunity to attend a truly elite school (think, Harvard). I seriously doubt if any law school would draw a distinction between these two schools.

Go for the cheapest option, no one should be racking up debt for a bachelor's degree.   
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 23, 2017, 07:28:45 AM »
The fragmentation is within the Democratic Party and "dueling progressive agendas"  and in the Republican Party between civil libertarianism and establishment conservatism.

I essentially agree about the basis of the Democratic split, but I think the Republican split I far more damaging to their overall chances.

The Republican split is at least a three way between establishments (Bush), libertarians (Paul), and religious conservatives (Huckabee, Santorum, etc).

 I would argue that at this point the Republicans are in a real bind, a Catch-22. Candidates can't win the nomination or the general election without the evangelicals stepping up and voting, but they're doomed with independents if they appear too evangelical themselves.

The Republicans have allowed this far right element of the party to wield too much influence for too long, and now it's biting them on the a$$.

Even though I'm a Democrat, I hope they figure it out and find a way to be nationally competitive. I don't want there to be one party rule for the next few decades. Competition is good for political parties, it helps minimize corruption. California is a one party state, and look where it got us.

I think that the fragmentation of the Democratic Party is going to lead to a serious lack of enthusiasm at the polls.  Obama dems, and the national Democratic Party;  establishment dems and Reagan/Bill Clinton dems, and the levels of progressives who support people like e. Warren, b Deblasio and b. Sanders. If someone with a true progressive populist agenda wins the nomination then enthusiasm will be up but I think that if clinton makes it to the primaries and wins the nomination she will face the tsunami horde of the entire right wing of the Republican Party.   Then we will have as we independents like to call the "4 year shot"'s what the democrats had in 2008 and 2009.   The dems have a strange dynamic this time around with clinton/ reminds me of when the pubs ran bob Dole).  and the pubs have the same dynamic they always have but there are not 2 candidates to watch---there are many candidates to watch.
Choosing the Right Law School / Where to go for undergrad year?
« Last post by T.R on February 22, 2017, 10:12:34 PM »
My main two choices for my undergraduate studies are Chico and La Verne. I want to know which school would benefit me the most in my future law career. I only plan to stay the 4 years and transfer to another graduate school to get my law degree in criminal justice. At Chico I choose the major of Criminal Justice and at La Verne I choose Criminology. I just want to know which school would most benefit me in getting a higher LSAT score and overall education. Thank you for your time!
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 21, 2017, 07:43:05 AM »
...cristy Kenny--fired!
...tom countryman--fired!
...patrick Kennedy---fired!

Great news....they really are gone...

Lets get the business as usual worms out of the state department.
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 21, 2017, 06:51:36 AM »

Pleas Print.
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 21, 2017, 06:48:16 AM »

Loki!!!!! I have an article from a periodical for you, my friend.....

So? Any lawyer on this board now think the democratic party isn't morbidly fractured that it is going to take a long long time to repair?

Those like lol and maintenance.....

Understand, I'm sure they do that the Republican party is restructuring.....but seriously IN POWER?

Libertarians are taking over Pennsylvania.

.....then there is this from a periodical.

...Next, let’s debunk my least favorite rumor about Hillary Clinton, that she is some kind of Democratic Party leader who would put the Democratic Party above everything and save us in these trying Trumpian times. Hillary Clinton has run two national primary elections for the presidency. In both, she complained about the negative “attacks” she received, claiming she wanted a primary based on the issues while her spin team (more commonly known as the main stream media) went after the religious beliefs of her enemies (Obama pictured in a turban, obviously trying to play off the nation’s islamophobic tendencies and WikiLeaks proved that the DNC, in coordination with the Clinton camp, questioned whether Bernie Sanders is Jewish or atheist). She called on her supporters (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand) to come out and question whether Bernie Sanders truly cared about the Sandy Hook shooting victims, over a gun law (Sanders believes that you should not be able to sue a gun manufacturer after a mass shooting, like you can’t sue a car company after a car accident). After the Election, Hillary gave a speech to her donors in NYC and gave a speech for Senators during Sen. Harry Reid’s farewell, she took the time to blame “fake news” for costing her the election. She never made it to Standing Rock (Malia Obama made it to the protests), she didn’t go to the Women’s March (those who say she wasn’t invited, get off your high horse; millions of people took to the streets and none of them had an invite) she didn’t go to the spontaneous airport protests, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. John Lewis, and others. She hasn’t aided in the town hall protests, nor has she done anything to aid the regular people after she lost. All she does is send tweets poking at Trump every once in awhile that don’t land as well as she would like because it’s a lot harder to get under someone’s skin after they just beat you. She sulked for a while, then signed a book deal and went back to giving speeches for the rich and powerful. Hillary may stand for the Democrats in Washington and the party elites but she certainly does not stand with us, the people of the Democratic party. This is classic Hillary Clinton: put in the least amount of work for the real people and then take credit and let the Clinton machine’s enormous “spin” team take over and try to shape public opinion. Again, I cannot let this go without reiterating, some of Clinton’s biggest supporters were in the media itself, giving an obvious bias for Clinton.
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Choosing a School
« Last post by rosesandra on February 20, 2017, 12:47:18 AM »
You require a writer master’s thesis or PhD; we can confer our best thesis writing services to all the students to help them advance in their respective careers and fields. Buy our online thesis writing services to submit the quality paper before deadline.

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point.

I'm not missing your point, at all.  I understand what you are saying (that there is only one way of reading section two, requiring a jurisdictionally approved institution).  I'm simply disagreeing with you.  I believe there is more than one way in which section two can be construed.  In my mind, this is not simply my opinion, but a technical fact.  "As written, section two CAN have more than one possible meaning."  This is based on the rules of the English language, not my opinion or inability to grasp a point.  Even the one attorney whom I showed in person and disagreed that it was intended to read as I hope, also agreed that it COULD be interpreted more than one way, and if the intent was to require an accredited institution, the rule should be re-written so that it can only be interpreted in one way... remove all ambiguity. 

For example, written like this below, there is only one possible way of interpreting the meaning (your interpretation) based on the proper use of commas:

"(2) holds the equivalent of a J.D. degree, that was obtained from a law school accredited in the state where it is located, and that requires a course of study that is substantially equivalent in duration and substance to the legal education provided by an approved law school."

Using commas, my re-write clarifies three distinct conditions:
1. Must be equivalent of a JD
2. Must be from jurisdictionally accredited school
3. Must be substantially equivalent to approved school

Without commas, there are only two sections:
1. Must be equivalent of: a JD from a law school accredited by the state
       (so could be an LLB, or JD, from any school [acred or not], so long as it is equivalent to one from an accredited school in that state)
2. Must be substantially equivalent to approved school

To be completely unambiguous, the commas MUST be added.  Otherwise it is poor technical writing and can interpreted as both/either meaning.  Its like the classic example, "the million dollar estate was left in equal shares to Sally, Jon, Bob, and Mark" is not the same as "the million dollar estate was left in equal shares to Sally, Jon, Bob and Mark."  The latter comma-less sentence can mean two things (much to Bob's and Mark's dismay).

You're saying something is crystal clear, as written, when as a matter of rhetoric fact, it isn't. 

I do get your point - just don't agree with it.   

But, of course, the purpose of this thread was to gather opinions/discussions/feedback.  So I am genuinely thankful for yours.  It's caused me to re-think this and re-say it many times/ways!

Further, I will call the board and ask for additional clarification, and second, even if that clarification is not favorable, and I decide to go with a CA non-Acred, I would of course, still attempt this argument, as there is (as a matter of technical rhetoric) two ways to read the sentence, as written, with no comma.

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point.

Both sections 1 and 2 explicitly state that the law school must be accredited in it's home jurisdiction. The "equivalent to a JD" argument is irrelevant if the school is unaccredited.

If you genuinely don't intend to practice law in TX, then this may be a fine way to learn about the law. But don't mistake the mistake of thinking that you will be able to successfully petition the bar vis a vis interpretation of the rule. These cases are almost always unsuccessful, as you don't have a right to join the bar. It is at their discretion, and they have not shown (as far as I can tell) any interest in unaccredited law schools.     
Thanks so much for the time taken to provide feedback on this.

As I have mentioned, a career as a lawyer is not / would not be the primary goal for me as mental health is what puts food on the table.  So if sitting for the Texas bar isn't possible, I would expect that negative outcome going in.  But it sure would be nice if I was able to argue my interpretation (fyi, I've since shown to two lawyers in person, one read it as I did, the other who read it as Loki/Maintain last interpreted (A degree, but not a JD, as in LLB).  For the record, no American law school that I know of offers an LLB anymore, and it would seem odd to me to put in verbiage to cover for that (especially where none exited before the change in verbiage). 

As time goes on if any others visit this thread, please feel welcome to revive/bump it with updated interpretations. 

Further, I will call the board and ask for additional clarification, and second, even if that clarification is not favorable, and I decide to go with a CA non-Acred, I would of course, still attempt this argument, as there is (as a matter of technical rhetoric) two ways to read the sentence, as written, with no comma. 

I will come back here and report the progress of either/both of those outcomes for others' benefit.

Thanks again!
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10