AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's

[ssas]

Sorry frybread, you are wrong. If you're in lawschool, count the minority students of each race. An Asian friend of mine did where he attended and convinced me of the quota in 2007. Sad that I won't detail more because I'm scared of repercussions, but it's true. If you promise not to quote me, I'll tell you everything and delete it 5 minutes later.

Freak, for the past three years I have been keeping track of the number of NDN students in the top 50 law schools - even have a spreadsheet.  Guess what?  There's no pattern.  Some schools have lots (relatively speaking, that is, which means 5-8) one year, and then none the next.  There are around 400 NDNs who apply to law school every year, and yet only 40 in the T20.  You'd think that if quotas were in place, the numbers would be significantly higher, neh?

You'd think that even with a quota system (not commenting on this part) that they'd have a threshold for applicants and given the rarity of qualified NDN  applicants, it wouldn't be surprising to me to see an odd distribution for those figures.

[EdinTally]

Just Some Guy,

My apologies

"Harmony or agreement in feeling"?  Really?  Be prepared to have your idealism take a hit.

Take a hit from what? I don't think it is too idealistic at all. I think that good government is sympathetic to its people in all branches. You haven't said anything constructive at all. Just "Really." That just makes me think you are nontrad and think you have had more life "experience." No need to be condescending. I would like to hear your version.

Although a bit harsh, my intent was not to be condescending.  My "version", as it were, is that government is neither good nor sympathetic.  Of course, we would have to define what "good" means since, in essence, it describes nothing.  Your idea of good and my idea of good may be completely different.  I have seen no evidence that government acts benevolently towards it's people.  If there is such evidence, I would think it a byproduct of larger intent and not the intent itself. 

The Branch to which we all hope to give oath to one day, certainly can't be seen as being sympathetic.  Given the chance; a lawyer, a judge, the "court" will take from anyone, at anytime, anything it is given license to take.  It will do so without a second thought as to how someone or some entity will continue forward. 

So...

[dsetterl]

First, Courts do not just take things away as soon as the get the chance. It seems like you may be in for a shock when school starts. Things are only taken away if your peers feel you have committed a wrong and must pay retribution by money or jail time. Also, you will be studying tons of appellate cases where there is a panel of judges. Majority makes the law and rules in favor of one party or another. There must be some agreement of feeling, some sympathy granted towards one side or another. They see it one way or another. Thats just how it works. It is not random. The fact that we even are given a trial and have a right to appeal is proof that our government is sympathetic, and even grants that errors are made.

Second, maybe you should reread the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. It's definitely worth a reread before you start law school. There is some really great proof that the government is sympathetic towards its people.

[Matthies]

Second, maybe you should reread the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights.

We have a Bill of Rights? Damn you would think after four years of law school I'd have heard of it. Maybe I should spend less time posting here in class and more time paying attention. Nah, never mind this is more intresting.

[dsetterl]

Second, maybe you should reread the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights.

We have a Bill of Rights? Damn you would think after four years of law school I'd have heard of it. Maybe I should spend less time posting here in class and more time paying attention. Nah, never mind this is more intresting.

Its a secret.....shhhhh

[EdinTally]

I'm going to assume "good" government is off the table since you chose not to address it.  It seems we also are using "sympathy" to mean two different things.  I take it you mean: an inclination to support an opinion?

First, Courts do not just take things away as soon as the(y) get the chance.

You are misrepresenting my argument.

Things are only taken away if your peers feel you have committed a wrong and must pay retribution by money or jail time.

I do not consider judges to be my peers in the context of a courtroom and yet; do they not have the power to take?

In a civil case, could there be no finding of wrong doing (e.g. no fault divorce)?  Does retribution have to be an element of the settlement?  Can payment ruin (make less than whole) one party and benefit (make more than whole) the other party?   

Also, you will be studying tons of appellate cases where there is a panel of judges. Majority makes the law and rules in favor of one party or another. There must be some agreement of feeling, some sympathy granted towards one side or another. They see it one way or another. Thats just how it works. It is not random. The fact that we even are given a trial and have a right to appeal is proof that our government is sympathetic, and even grants that errors are made.

hyperbole, equivocation, oversimplification.....too much here 

Second, maybe you should reread the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. It's definitely worth a reread before you start law school. There is some really great proof that the government is sympathetic towards its people.

The Bill of Rights was written by men who feared the power of government.  It provides protection FOR THE PEOPLE against the over reaching power of the STATE.  If government is sympathetic or benevolent, why would these protections have to be put in place?  Under your interpretation, we need not have any fear of the government since it is sympathetic.  Your example destroys your argument.

While it may not help you with law school, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers. 

[dsetterl]

Good government is one that addresses the problems of the people and agrees with the majority. N. Korea is bad government. That is what I mean by sympathetic. I guess I did use two definitions, my bad. I have a ton of homework and my brain is pretty jumble.

Not a hyperbole, all you will study is "tons" of appellate cases.

I see your point about no relief. Didn't take the time to think of it that way.

Judges are your peers. We have a representative government. While they do exercise  higher authority they were A) Elected or B) appointed by someone who was elected by the majority.

They created the bill of rights and "enacted" the amendments so that our government would be in agreement with our rights as humans.

Coming to type this I see some errors in my theory, while I wish to fix it, I have to write this memo!!!! Check back later.

I still think that our government is a sympathetic one. Good government has to be in agreement in feeling with its people.

[EdinTally]

It seems we have moved far afield, from the original topic 

You obviously have an abundance of passion, even if your arguments are a bit too general.  I'm sure LS will help focus that passion into a useful tool.

[dsetterl]

Lets hope so.