Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

What political party do you belong to?

Democrat
Republican
Communist
Socalist
Independant/Other

Author Topic: What political party do most law students belong to?  (Read 15576 times)

t...

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
    • View Profile
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2008, 08:15:54 AM »
::)

Quote
Cady on October 16, 2007, 10:41:52 PM

i rhink tyi'm inejying my fudgcicle too much

Quote
Huey on February 07, 2007, 11:15:32 PM

I went to a party in an apartment in a silo once.

wrhssaxensemble

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2008, 08:25:43 AM »
You can look him up if you want/dont believe me... Milton Cantor, UMASS History department....

Remedialone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2008, 08:43:23 AM »
From what I heard, Ryan was polling pretty well before the sex scandal hit.... but come on, no one thinks/thought Keyes is a really serious candidate... heck he's running for president right now and no one knows/cares

And Lincoln was a conservative; he didn't want to end slavery at once but rather to adhere to the past decisions that it would not be expanded to the western territories and work from that.... he only moved for a complete abolition of slavery once the south rebelled.... read Harry Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided sometime... just one of the books showing Lincoln's conservatism.


And at least Dewey was in office for 6 years; 50% more than Obama's 4 (at least 2 of which he spent running for president). You have a point in Wilkie, but if you read what I said, Obama is being nominated during war and a bad economy. The mobilization to war ended the depression and the market was beginning an upswing. Further, as you yourself, noted we as a nation were not yet at war. But even if we ignore that fact, only one of the factors would there (war), not both (war and bad downswining economy). Plus, its not much but at least Wilkie was a veteran which Obama clearly isn't. Granted that gives him no policy insight but it at least let him better understand the military than Obama or the Clintons ever will.

Besides, if Wilkie and Dewey are your comparaisons to Obama, then he is indeed in bad shape for this election.

I wouldn't recommend claiming a superior knowledge of history and implying conservatives don't know the past, especially considering most conservative arguments are based on the intent of the founder's unlike leftist arguments that essentially the constitution should mran whatever the hell the judges feel like it should mean etc. I for one have a PhD in History and know I am not the only one who has extenstively studied history, in particular American History.

Ryan had been trailing Obama the entire campaign by approximately 20 points.  Jack Ryan barely beat Jim Oberweise in the primary.  Oberweise was such an adept politician that he lost a Republican seat that the Republicans had held for 35 years. 

My point wasn't that Willkie or Dewey are the same as Obama it is that Republicans nominated novices in a time of war. 

Original intent means the judges will dictate what THEY think the framers THEY like intended.  Think of it this way, whose idea of America should we hold up?  Madison or Jefferson?  One way or the other we rely on the judges to make judgments that they thin are best.  I am sure with your extensive background in history you would know that there were differing interpretations of the founding documents even back then.

wrhssaxensemble

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2008, 08:50:18 AM »
From what I heard, Ryan was polling pretty well before the sex scandal hit.... but come on, no one thinks/thought Keyes is a really serious candidate... heck he's running for president right now and no one knows/cares

And Lincoln was a conservative; he didn't want to end slavery at once but rather to adhere to the past decisions that it would not be expanded to the western territories and work from that.... he only moved for a complete abolition of slavery once the south rebelled.... read Harry Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided sometime... just one of the books showing Lincoln's conservatism.


And at least Dewey was in office for 6 years; 50% more than Obama's 4 (at least 2 of which he spent running for president). You have a point in Wilkie, but if you read what I said, Obama is being nominated during war and a bad economy. The mobilization to war ended the depression and the market was beginning an upswing. Further, as you yourself, noted we as a nation were not yet at war. But even if we ignore that fact, only one of the factors would there (war), not both (war and bad downswining economy). Plus, its not much but at least Wilkie was a veteran which Obama clearly isn't. Granted that gives him no policy insight but it at least let him better understand the military than Obama or the Clintons ever will.

Besides, if Wilkie and Dewey are your comparaisons to Obama, then he is indeed in bad shape for this election.

I wouldn't recommend claiming a superior knowledge of history and implying conservatives don't know the past, especially considering most conservative arguments are based on the intent of the founder's unlike leftist arguments that essentially the constitution should mran whatever the hell the judges feel like it should mean etc. I for one have a PhD in History and know I am not the only one who has extenstively studied history, in particular American History.

Ryan had been trailing Obama the entire campaign by approximately 20 points.  Jack Ryan barely beat Jim Oberweise in the primary.  Oberweise was such an adept politician that he lost a Republican seat that the Republicans had held for 35 years. 

My point wasn't that Willkie or Dewey are the same as Obama it is that Republicans nominated novices in a time of war. 

Original intent means the judges will dictate what THEY think the framers THEY like intended.  Think of it this way, whose idea of America should we hold up?  Adams or Jefferson?  One way or the other we rely on the judges to make judgments that they thin are best.  I am sure with your extensive background in history you would know that there were differing interpretations of the founding documents even back then.

Of course there were difference of opinion but at least the conservatives look back at them and from that then determine how to decide, unlike the liberal members who seemingly make it up as they go along... there is no way you can tell me, for instance, that any of the founders believed there was a right to sodomy or to obtain an abortion (despite Jefferson's letters on how to medically procure one which seem purely scientific rather than of legal interest).

As far as Wilkie and Dewey, i fail to see your distinction between comparing them to Obama and just merely noting similar circumstances/traits... to me they seem the same... to notice differences between them, you must compare them

Remedialone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2008, 09:19:57 AM »
From what I heard, Ryan was polling pretty well before the sex scandal hit.... but come on, no one thinks/thought Keyes is a really serious candidate... heck he's running for president right now and no one knows/cares

And Lincoln was a conservative; he didn't want to end slavery at once but rather to adhere to the past decisions that it would not be expanded to the western territories and work from that.... he only moved for a complete abolition of slavery once the south rebelled.... read Harry Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided sometime... just one of the books showing Lincoln's conservatism.


And at least Dewey was in office for 6 years; 50% more than Obama's 4 (at least 2 of which he spent running for president). You have a point in Wilkie, but if you read what I said, Obama is being nominated during war and a bad economy. The mobilization to war ended the depression and the market was beginning an upswing. Further, as you yourself, noted we as a nation were not yet at war. But even if we ignore that fact, only one of the factors would there (war), not both (war and bad downswining economy). Plus, its not much but at least Wilkie was a veteran which Obama clearly isn't. Granted that gives him no policy insight but it at least let him better understand the military than Obama or the Clintons ever will.

Besides, if Wilkie and Dewey are your comparaisons to Obama, then he is indeed in bad shape for this election.

I wouldn't recommend claiming a superior knowledge of history and implying conservatives don't know the past, especially considering most conservative arguments are based on the intent of the founder's unlike leftist arguments that essentially the constitution should mran whatever the hell the judges feel like it should mean etc. I for one have a PhD in History and know I am not the only one who has extenstively studied history, in particular American History.

Ryan had been trailing Obama the entire campaign by approximately 20 points.  Jack Ryan barely beat Jim Oberweise in the primary.  Oberweise was such an adept politician that he lost a Republican seat that the Republicans had held for 35 years. 

My point wasn't that Willkie or Dewey are the same as Obama it is that Republicans nominated novices in a time of war. 

Original intent means the judges will dictate what THEY think the framers THEY like intended.  Think of it this way, whose idea of America should we hold up?  Adams or Jefferson?  One way or the other we rely on the judges to make judgments that they thin are best.  I am sure with your extensive background in history you would know that there were differing interpretations of the founding documents even back then.

Of course there were difference of opinion but at least the conservatives look back at them and from that then determine how to decide, unlike the liberal members who seemingly make it up as they go along... there is no way you can tell me, for instance, that any of the founders believed there was a right to sodomy or to obtain an abortion (despite Jefferson's letters on how to medically procure one which seem purely scientific rather than of legal interest).

As far as Wilkie and Dewey, i fail to see your distinction between comparing them to Obama and just merely noting similar circumstances/traits... to me they seem the same... to notice differences between them, you must compare them

Did you say Lincoln was  conservative?  One of 14 dissenting vote in the Mexican American war? He opposed the war partly on the grounds that it would expand slavery?  If you believe liberal judges make it up as they go along you are sorely mistaken.  Have there been bad rulings by judges of both political affiliations?  Absolutely.  Do you think the original framers cared if you got a BJ from your wife?   Franklin was known to be a ladies man in Paris.  What do you think the chances of him receiving oral sex were?  Should we lock up everyone who has engaged in it? 

Both Dewey and Willkie were opposed to government regulation of business.  Obama is not.  Obama is a constitutional lawyer, neither Dewey nor Willkie were.  Obama has been an elected official for at least 12 years before running for president.  Neither Dewey nor Willkie were.

Remedialone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2008, 09:38:35 AM »
Another point of contention.  When did I say conservatives had no grasp of history?

TimMitchell

  • Guest
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2008, 10:10:04 AM »
Just so I understand you right, it's okay to cost the taxpayers of Illinois more money to make a point that war is bad and costs too much money?
[snip filler]

This is called "academic freedom," and it is the organizing principle of higher education. Anyone -- of any political persuasion -- who cannot accept that is not prepared to engage in scholarship.



True academic freedom would allow both sides to be heard... not the crap I and other students have had to put up with. I had one tenured professor announce on the first day that:

1. if you are a Republican, conservative, or think Marxism is an evil force get out of my class now
2. if you do not get out of my class now, I will find out that you are one of those things and will fail you.

then all his papers were ones like "who was a better president? Reagan or Carter?" and you said even one good thing about Reagan he'd give you at highest a D (learned that the hard way on the first paper)

I complained to the department and another more conservative member of the faculty and they were unable to do anything since he was tenured.

sadly, this is just one of the many things youd like to term as "academic freedom" that I have had to deal with in my academic career. I think academic freedom is an admirable goal but we are not experiencing it today by any stretch of the imagination.

Stories like that make me sick to my stomach. How can someone who dedicates themselves to higher education do so much to stifle free thought and intellectual debate.

Remedialone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2008, 10:23:57 AM »
Just so I understand you right, it's okay to cost the taxpayers of Illinois more money to make a point that war is bad and costs too much money?
[snip filler]

This is called "academic freedom," and it is the organizing principle of higher education. Anyone -- of any political persuasion -- who cannot accept that is not prepared to engage in scholarship.



True academic freedom would allow both sides to be heard... not the crap I and other students have had to put up with. I had one tenured professor announce on the first day that:

1. if you are a Republican, conservative, or think Marxism is an evil force get out of my class now
2. if you do not get out of my class now, I will find out that you are one of those things and will fail you.

then all his papers were ones like "who was a better president? Reagan or Carter?" and you said even one good thing about Reagan he'd give you at highest a D (learned that the hard way on the first paper)

I complained to the department and another more conservative member of the faculty and they were unable to do anything since he was tenured.

sadly, this is just one of the many things youd like to term as "academic freedom" that I have had to deal with in my academic career. I think academic freedom is an admirable goal but we are not experiencing it today by any stretch of the imagination.

Stories like that make me sick to my stomach. How can someone who dedicates themselves to higher education do so much to stifle free thought and intellectual debate.

I agree completely.  It goes against everything education stands for and should not be tolerated.

Alecto

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Class of 2011
    • AOL Instant Messenger - oceangirlUGA
    • View Profile
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2008, 11:43:49 AM »
Just so I understand you right, it's okay to cost the taxpayers of Illinois more money to make a point that war is bad and costs too much money?
[snip filler]

This is called "academic freedom," and it is the organizing principle of higher education. Anyone -- of any political persuasion -- who cannot accept that is not prepared to engage in scholarship.



True academic freedom would allow both sides to be heard... not the crap I and other students have had to put up with. I had one tenured professor announce on the first day that:

1. if you are a Republican, conservative, or think Marxism is an evil force get out of my class now
2. if you do not get out of my class now, I will find out that you are one of those things and will fail you.

then all his papers were ones like "who was a better president? Reagan or Carter?" and you said even one good thing about Reagan he'd give you at highest a D (learned that the hard way on the first paper)

I complained to the department and another more conservative member of the faculty and they were unable to do anything since he was tenured.

sadly, this is just one of the many things youd like to term as "academic freedom" that I have had to deal with in my academic career. I think academic freedom is an admirable goal but we are not experiencing it today by any stretch of the imagination.

don't take one bad apple and hold him/her up as the poster child of academia.  experiences like that are few and far between, and should be dealt with quickly and severely.

jeffislouie

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2008, 12:17:55 PM »
One of the leaders of the violent Weather Underground group that is responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people who has NEVER disassociated herself from their criminal activities is now a teacher at Northwestern University School of Law.  Her name is Bernardine Dohrn.  The fact that she is allowed to teach ANYWHERE is a travesty of our justice system.

There were no innocent victims of the Weatherman organization. All of their bombings were announced in advance. The only deaths that resulted from their bombings were 3 of their own during the bomb-making process.

This just exposes part of the difficulty of arguing with right-wingers (especially the 27 percent that are still in the tank for Bush). If reality or historical fact does not mesh with their daily talking points they ignore it. A recent great example of this ahistorical "thinking" was the recent scuffle over Obama's "appeasement" and how he's supposedly another Chamberlain. Enjoy this takedown of another winger by Chris Matthews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHleE7dfp28
Ah yes, another apologist who thinks there are no victims...[snip]

Unresponsive.

You write, and I quote: "[they] were responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people," with the clear implication of your language that they killed people. I don't endorse their methods (which is obvious from my response, your insinuations to the contrary not withstanding), but the historical record is quite clear: the only thing they damaged was property. Trying to hide your obfuscation behind several paragraphs worth of a wikipedia article won't change that.

Assumptive (something you really should deal with if you intend to argue in court).  I said "terrible attacks on innocent people", with no clear implication that they killed people.  TERRORISM isn't about body count, it's about creating fear. 
I didn't obfuscate anything.
Property damage doesn't quite sum up what they did.
One act was to plant a bomb in the ladies room in the air force wing of the freaking pentagon.
Something that says 'no matter hw secure you are, we can still get to you.'
Clever attempt at discrediting my statement though.
Justice is tangy....