Law School Discussion

"academic steroids" in law school?

H4CS

  • ****
  • 2445
    • View Profile
Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2007, 04:42:38 PM »
Jaywalker!  Burn him!

CavemanLawyer

  • ***
  • 90
  • Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just a caveman.
    • View Profile
    • LawSchoolDigits
Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2007, 05:49:34 PM »
What part of that say that you haven't broken laws or used drugs in the past? It doesn't; it only says that you will respect the law from that point on. Face it, you're grabbing at straws here, and you definitely don't know what you're talking about. Your effort is cute, but you should whole "thinking" stuff to smart people. And you're still a tool.

UGAfootballfanatic made his philosophy quite clear, and it doesn't seem to be one that will change.  Also your argument fails because according to you, Bar Examiners only require that you follow the law from that point on, even though they look extensively at what you have done in the past in deciding whether you have the fitness to practice law.  According to you, the statement requires that you only need to follow the law from that point on, so that means you think that a murderer could be admitted to the bar as long as he claim that he supports, defends and respects the law.  This is absolutely not the case and if you think it is, you obviously don't know anything about being accepted to the Bar.  It's surely a sad state of affairs when a potential lawyer criticizes someone as a "tool" for pointing out that someone does not meet the qualifications to become a lawyer in the US when they have explicitly stated that law is not binding for them and they do not consider it to be binding for anybody.   

Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2007, 06:12:34 PM »
Caveman, I think the point that you missed in UGA's statement of moral fiber is that the consitution and its associated laws are open to interpretation and challenge.

Also, you seem to overlook the sentiments of one of our country's most influential thinkers, Henry David Thoreau. You might want to read or (hopefully) re-read "Civil Disobedience."

Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2007, 06:27:17 PM »
Caveman, I think the point that you missed in UGA's statement of moral fiber is that the consitution and its associated laws are open to interpretation and challenge.

Also, you seem to overlook the sentiments of one of our country's most influential thinkers, Henry David Thoreau. You might want to read or (hopefully) re-read "Civil Disobedience."

Awww! I love it when someone actually understands what I'm saying (and might even agree with it!). It makes me feel slightly more sane.  :)  Yeah, so I guess you can't win all of them, but to me, when I promise to uphold the constitution that also includes interpreting the constitution. You could say that I should follow all the laws, but what if I believe those laws are unconstitutional? You could argue almost any law is not constitutional b/c it violates substantive due process, federalism, or equal opportunity- and if I believe right to privacy is a fundamental right, then that's one that I'll defend over other competing values (such as following the laws and codes of my state). Just my .02. And I might be a little liberal...  ;D

CavemanLawyer

  • ***
  • 90
  • Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just a caveman.
    • View Profile
    • LawSchoolDigits
Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2007, 06:44:51 PM »
There's a difference between advocating the change of a law, and the breaking of a law.  Of course laws are open to interpretation and challenge, but that does not give someone the excuse to break whatever law he deems to be unconstitutional.  What is unconstitutional is decided by the courts, not by individuals, and as a lawyer one should attempt to change laws, not break them.  Anyways, I was not talking about the philosophy of law, but the very real oath that he will have to take during the Bar admission process.  He will have to claim that he supports the laws of the United States, while he clearly doesn't at least concerning some, and to me this is a lie. 

H4CS

  • ****
  • 2445
    • View Profile
Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2007, 06:49:25 PM »
Burn the jaywalking caveman!

CavemanLawyer

  • ***
  • 90
  • Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just a caveman.
    • View Profile
    • LawSchoolDigits
Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2007, 06:58:36 PM »
You sir, are a racist.

H4CS

  • ****
  • 2445
    • View Profile
Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2007, 07:04:53 PM »
You sir, are a racist.

And you are a muddled thinker at best.  Your whole spiel here is ridiculously offbase.  Have you jaywalked in the past?  I'm sure you have.  Are you going to jaywalk in the future?  I'm sure you will.  Why do you violate the law both in its spirit and its substance?  Because you don't consider to be important, because you think you're above it, because it wasn't convenient.  How dare you become a lawyer.  And you probably are afraid of fire

You clearly do not support all of the laws of the united states.  commie caveman bastard.

==caI==

  • ****
  • 149
  • dog in a party hat
    • View Profile
Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2007, 07:12:10 PM »
You clearly do not support all of the laws of the united states.  commie caveman bastard.

to be fair, i'm pretty sure jaywalking is in municipal law.

CavemanLawyer

  • ***
  • 90
  • Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just a caveman.
    • View Profile
    • LawSchoolDigits
Re: "academic steroids" in law school?
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2007, 07:13:38 PM »
Your example sucks.  Obviously jaywalking is a trivial issue.  I was commenting on someone who said that "it's up to each person to determine which laws they choose to break."  It's a completely different issue than your ridiculous example of jaywalking.  If you think that small issues such as jaywalking were at the root of this discussion, you have a muddled sense of perception.