Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
 31 
 on: October 07, 2014, 06:00:49 AM 
Started by devilsadvocate - Last post by devilsadvocate
Hi everyone!
I am a high school graduate (class of 2013) from India. I took a drop last year due to some personal issues. I've worked part-time during this period and I'm still working. Now I'm thinking of starting my Undergrad education (probably English major). But the problem is that my family has some financial issues and I was thinking of working full-time. It's going to be in a government  office in clerical grade. I have to pass an exam first but I think I'll be a able to do that. My problem is, if I start college now, I'll not be able to work full-time and support my family. So I was thinking of getting my Bachelor's Degree through a distance education program that a government university in my country offers. It's going to be the same degree that one gets from a regular college, i.e., Bachelor of Arts in English (Honors), but without attending regular classes (as I said it's a distance education program). 

I would like to try and get into a good law school and I was thinking of taking the LSAT in the last year of college. So my question is, is it going to make a difference if I get my Bachelor's Degree through a distance education program? Is there any rule that only regular college students can get into a law school like NYU, Columbia, etc? I googled but I could not find any information regarding this, so please help me if you can. Thanks for reading!

 32 
 on: October 06, 2014, 04:47:44 PM 
Started by I.M.D.Law - Last post by I.M.D.Law
Its ok, I get what you mean. Only 1L gunners and Profs care about exact citation on non legal documents.  ;)

 33 
 on: October 06, 2014, 03:46:26 PM 
Started by I.M.D.Law - Last post by Groundhog
I think that if we're using Scalia's "originalism," we'd look at the Founders and realize they were deists, who didn't believe God intervenes at all after setting the world into motion. So, I don't think it would be a huge stretch according to his actual theory that they would be just as happy with agnosticism or atheism or pastafarianism. Pastafarianism would certainly seem to be a good way to "practice" atheism with 1st amendment protection, but I wonder about the MOVE series of cases where they added the sincerely held element to the test.

Realistically, it seems pretty clear that the current Court and some in the past would read the Free Exercise clause as benefitting religion over non-believers/non-practicers.

This is somewhat reflective of a larger tension between the Free Exercise and the Establishment clauses.

Nice comparison of his cushy and powerful job on the Supreme Court to the journey to Mt. Doom.
Had to research the pasta thing, I also looked up MOVE but found something that I doubt is what you were talking about (crazy *&^% though-and started as religious based all the same)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

Not sure if that's it or I am misremembering case name. It was a somewhat controversial philosophy, like MOVE, that many adherents claimed was a religion. Then there was a decision where the Supreme Court said it had to be sincerely held, equivalent to a religion, but not necessarily exactly a religion...eh, I don't have time to research the case names today but those were the general issues.

 34 
 on: October 06, 2014, 02:25:54 PM 
Started by I.M.D.Law - Last post by I.M.D.Law
It's an interesting question. What is the scope of the Establishment Clause?

I suppose in the most basic sense Scalia is correct. The EC does not prevent the government from ever favoring religion, it only prohibits an establishment of religion. Presumably, there are situations in which religion could be favored over non-religion, but the favoritism would result in something less than an establishment of religion.

The issue I have is that Scalia is willing to pretty far before he considers it an improper establishment. For example, I don't have a problem with Christmas trees in public schools, but Scalia doesn't have a problem with prayer in schools. Again, I think the issue is scope.

As far as whether the Constitution actually favors religion, that's a tougher question. The First Amendment clearly protects religion, but the EC seems to act as a counterweight.

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure if the intent of the First Amendment was to necessarily favor religion (as Scalia has argued), but I'm also not convinced that the EC prohibits any favoritism (as some secular organizations argue).

Although I'm a secularist, I find the Pastafarian/Spaghetti Monster stuff childish and annoying. I don't think the Constitution entitles the Pastafarians to place a display next to a Nativity scene on public property. Why? Because one is a satirical construct and an expression of political sentiments, not a sincerely held religious belief. As a political statement Pastafarianism enjoys First Amendment protection, but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to disrupt protected religious expression.
There are court cases saying we can't look into if a religion is reasonable only if they have sincere belief in it. So, for most I would agree that they are doing it to mock and thus not sincere. A could see some nutjob for real into something like it though. Think about the crazy homeless people talking into shoes.

As for more established faiths I think the main arguments now days are "ceremonial deism" and for historical reasons.

 35 
 on: October 06, 2014, 02:22:59 PM 
Started by I.M.D.Law - Last post by I.M.D.Law
I think that if we're using Scalia's "originalism," we'd look at the Founders and realize they were deists, who didn't believe God intervenes at all after setting the world into motion. So, I don't think it would be a huge stretch according to his actual theory that they would be just as happy with agnosticism or atheism or pastafarianism. Pastafarianism would certainly seem to be a good way to "practice" atheism with 1st amendment protection, but I wonder about the MOVE series of cases where they added the sincerely held element to the test.

Realistically, it seems pretty clear that the current Court and some in the past would read the Free Exercise clause as benefitting religion over non-believers/non-practicers.

This is somewhat reflective of a larger tension between the Free Exercise and the Establishment clauses.

Nice comparison of his cushy and powerful job on the Supreme Court to the journey to Mt. Doom.
Had to research the pasta thing, I also looked up MOVE but found something that I doubt is what you were talking about (crazy *&^% though-and started as religious based all the same)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

 36 
 on: October 06, 2014, 01:19:40 PM 
Started by I.M.D.Law - Last post by Maintain FL 350
It's an interesting question. What is the scope of the Establishment Clause?

I suppose in the most basic sense Scalia is correct. The EC does not prevent the government from ever favoring religion, it only prohibits an establishment of religion. Presumably, there are situations in which religion could be favored over non-religion, but the favoritism would result in something less than an establishment of religion.

The issue I have is that Scalia is willing to pretty far before he considers it an improper establishment. For example, I don't have a problem with Christmas trees in public schools, but Scalia doesn't have a problem with prayer in schools. Again, I think the issue is scope.

As far as whether the Constitution actually favors religion, that's a tougher question. The First Amendment clearly protects religion, but the EC seems to act as a counterweight.

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure if the intent of the First Amendment was to necessarily favor religion (as Scalia has argued), but I'm also not convinced that the EC prohibits any favoritism (as some secular organizations argue).

Although I'm a secularist, I find the Pastafarian/Spaghetti Monster stuff childish and annoying. I don't think the Constitution entitles the Pastafarians to place a display next to a Nativity scene on public property. Why? Because one is a satirical construct and an expression of political sentiments, not a sincerely held religious belief. As a political statement Pastafarianism enjoys First Amendment protection, but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to disrupt protected religious expression.

 37 
 on: October 06, 2014, 03:12:50 AM 
Started by I.M.D.Law - Last post by Groundhog
I think that if we're using Scalia's "originalism," we'd look at the Founders and realize they were deists, who didn't believe God intervenes at all after setting the world into motion. So, I don't think it would be a huge stretch according to his actual theory that they would be just as happy with agnosticism or atheism or pastafarianism. Pastafarianism would certainly seem to be a good way to "practice" atheism with 1st amendment protection, but I wonder about the MOVE series of cases where they added the sincerely held element to the test.

Realistically, it seems pretty clear that the current Court and some in the past would read the Free Exercise clause as benefitting religion over non-believers/non-practicers.

This is somewhat reflective of a larger tension between the Free Exercise and the Establishment clauses.

Nice comparison of his cushy and powerful job on the Supreme Court to the journey to Mt. Doom.

 38 
 on: October 05, 2014, 11:14:05 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by I.M.D.Law
An accredited alternative to Novus might be an EJD. At least that is regionally accredited
http://www.concordlawschool.edu/Executive_Juris_Doctor.aspx

and no doubt they'd still let the grads into their LLM
http://www.smallbusinessllm.com/

 39 
 on: October 05, 2014, 10:21:48 PM 
Started by I.M.D.Law - Last post by I.M.D.Law
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/antonin-scalia-says-constitution-permits-court-to-favor-religion-over-non-religion/ar-BB75vV4

thoughts?

 40 
 on: October 05, 2014, 09:42:19 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by I.M.D.Law
FreshlyMinted, I can't decide whether you truly don't understand what we wrote or you are a very good, subtle troll. I'm hoping for the latter for you personally, even though it wouldn't be great for the board.

Yes, that would be a real online LLM from England.  It does not require a previous law degree. However, unlike their LLB, I don't see how it qualifies one to be a solicitor or attorney.

The courses deal with specialized areas of the law, not basic law.

However, it does look like a great alternative to say a regionally accredited  Masters in Legal Studies from Kaplan University.

But unless bar admission committees are bone stupid, it won't get  anyone a bar ticket.
I like the way you worded this. Most people with Novus going for an LLM would be in the same boat anyways. They are either already licensed on their own or not going to get licensed. The MSL is offered at many schools that lets you take classes alongside JD's and LLM's but for a different degree. I think people like the LLM ring though.
http://www.law.yale.edu/graduate/MSL_program.htm
and in theory could go onto other degrees even beyond that without a JD
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/5653.htm
Heck those can even legally call themselves "Doctor" and just "esq" like we do

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10