Law School Discussion

Gunners....

Re: Gunners....
« Reply #50 on: May 14, 2007, 02:51:56 PM »
The person who always raises hands and said: "I just don't see how the Supreme Court can get it sooooo wrong.  It's obvious Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and we should all stone women to death who wants an abortion because that's what (insert your source) says."  The professor will reply "well the courts have found women have a right to privacy as interpreted thru the Constitution, as evolved from Douglass's opinon in Grieswald and his penumbra of fundamental rights derived from the Bill of Rights."  The annoying/stupid: "Douglass was soooo worng in his penumbra crap,  I don't see how he can just make that stuff uo.  Blackmun was wrong in his 75 pages of analysis in Row v Wade,......  I just don't understand.....  I still don't see how or why people should have this right.....  I don't get why is is even a privacy issue....."

"Grieswald?"     ;)

I'm anything but a gunner, but I actually have to agree with the (probably not) hypothetical gunner in this example.  Let me preface all of this by saying I don't want to get into an abortion battle here - and for that reason, I will leave my personal opinion on that subject out of this.  That said... 

First of all, he did indeed "just make stuff up" with the whole penumbra thing.  Research it further, that's precisely what he did.

The question is whether it was 'proper' to make stuff up in the fashion he did.  There is little debate in the academic community, however, that this was basically pulled out of thin air.  The questions are - 1) Was this legal?  and 2) Are the theoretical underpinnings solid?

The answer to #1, as anyone first year con law student knows, is almost always yes, regardless of the circumstance (see  bush v. gore).  The SCOTUS is the final word, period.

This leaves question #2 - are the theoretical underpinnings of the griswold-esque "penumbras" 'solid?'  After an A in con law 1 and a probable A in con law 2, I still am not sure about this.  But what I am sure about is that it is certainly a debatable point - as is almost every point in con law. 

Unfortunately, con law does tend to bring out the inner-gunner in everyone.  But I think this is the one class where this is okay, as all of this stuff is very debatable, and in the case of the exact point of law you referenced - I think that the gunner is definitely more on point in his perspective than you are.

Okay, I'm done now  :)

And yes, I swear I'm not a gunner.  I'm actually an anti-gunner, however you wouldn't guess that from reading this post. 

I didn't read anything past your first paragraph because you are undoubtedly an annoying/stupid and I pray to God you aren't in any of my classes.  Thank you for your brief 0L rhetorical assessment of abortion rights in the United States. You are obviously well qualified to give an opinion and to challenge the reasoning of numerous Supreme Court Justices.  Would you like to explain to me why people taken into custody should not be read their Miranda Rights next?

Judging by your reading comp skills, I doubt you'll be anywhere near any class I'll be taking for the next couple of years.

And as someone else pointed out, if you'd actually read my post you'd realize 1) I'm a 2L, and 2) I specifically stayed away from an "assessment of abortion rights in the United States."  Actually, if you'd have actually read even the first paragraph of my post you would know #2. 

You better make an adjustment in your bitter attitude before 1L, or else it's going to be one miserable year for you.  If you're wound up this tight going in, you're not going to come out looking pretty. 

Also, what are you talking about with Miranda?  Your incoherence has me confused.  Crim pro is fun though, so if you want me to expose your ignorance on that subject then feel free to ask some more pointed questions. 

One more thing - if you don't think that anyone who isn't a SCOTUS justice can question judicial reasoning, then you are going to have a rough go of things.

Overall advice - learn to think independently instead of joining the ignorant crowd on the sidelines who poo-poo's everyone else's ideas (before they've even heard them!)  You learn nothing going about things in the way you did in attacking my post. 

Amy Winehouse

  • ****
  • 429
  • Rehab is for quitters.
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #51 on: May 14, 2007, 03:25:14 PM »
I thought:

Gunner -- "I'm going home( or to my personal cubicle in the library) right now to memorize the Restatement of Torts, Property and Contracts.  Even if they will never be discussed or tested anywhere, want to join me?"  And if you say no, then the response you hear will be: "then you won't make Law Review, get a firm job and make partner in 3 years, marry rich and live in a big fancy house and have a Porsche in the garage."  In class, the gunner tells the professor (who might have wrote the book) that the book was wrong because "according to Gibert/Emmanual/his private tutor(s) from WestLaw, the Supreme Court really meant for the case to stand for something different then what the professor thought.

The annoying/stupid-- The person who always raises hands and said: "I just don't see how the Supreme Court can get it sooooo wrong.  It's obvious Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and we should all stone women to death who wants an abortion because that's what (insert your source) says."  The professor will reply "well the courts have found women have a right to privacy as interpreted thru the Constitution, as evolved from Douglass's opinon in Grieswald and his penumbra of fundamental rights derived from the Bill of Rights."  The annoying/stupid: "Douglass was soooo worng in his penumbra crap,  I don't see how he can just make that stuff uo.  Blackmun was wrong in his 75 pages of analysis in Row v Wade,......  I just don't understand.....  I still don't see how or why people should have this right.....  I don't get why is is even a privacy issue....."

The ideal student -- Answers only what is being asked.  Ask only when if appears everyone else has the same question but was afraid to ask.  offers notes to anyone, even the guy/girl that missed class because of bar review.
[/b]

That is stupid.  It's saying that unless you are a total pushover who also happens to be a mindreader and willing to be spokesperson for the spineless saps in the other seats, you cannot be the "ideal" student. 

How about saying the ideal law student is someone who recognizes that they are spending a ton of money to learn from brilliant people information that has the potential to affect millions of lives?  That person might share their notes sometimes, other times they might not.  That person might ask a tangential question or they might not.  As long is someone is merely annoying and not negatively impacting your education, what's the big deal?

flyaway

  • ****
  • 2343
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #52 on: May 14, 2007, 05:38:50 PM »
Do you really think just anyone would ask for notes though? I wouldn't feel comfortable asking someone I didn't know for notes.

Gimme ur notes, b1tch.

LBJFan

  • ****
  • 121
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #53 on: May 14, 2007, 05:59:29 PM »
To me, the gunner is the person who always has to add something personal/flattering into their comments.

"Well when I worked on a supreme court case this summer, I noticed that..." Or,

"my uncle, who's an AUSA explained this particular point of law to me and I think that..."

I dont think participating a lot makes you a gunner necessarily. Its all in how you say what you're saying. I know I had my hand in the air at least three times per class in the classes where participation was extra credit...and I got the grade bump every time.  8) Screw what others think in that situation, its an easy grade bump.

But, unless you're super annoying or pretentious with you're commentary, you're not a gunner IMO.

Nimmy

  • ****
  • 201
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #54 on: May 14, 2007, 06:57:43 PM »
The person who always raises hands and said: "I just don't see how the Supreme Court can get it sooooo wrong.  It's obvious Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and we should all stone women to death who wants an abortion because that's what (insert your source) says."  The professor will reply "well the courts have found women have a right to privacy as interpreted thru the Constitution, as evolved from Douglass's opinon in Grieswald and his penumbra of fundamental rights derived from the Bill of Rights."  The annoying/stupid: "Douglass was soooo worng in his penumbra crap,  I don't see how he can just make that stuff uo.  Blackmun was wrong in his 75 pages of analysis in Row v Wade,......  I just don't understand.....  I still don't see how or why people should have this right.....  I don't get why is is even a privacy issue....."

"Grieswald?"     ;)

I'm anything but a gunner, but I actually have to agree with the (probably not) hypothetical gunner in this example.  Let me preface all of this by saying I don't want to get into an abortion battle here - and for that reason, I will leave my personal opinion on that subject out of this.  That said... 

First of all, he did indeed "just make stuff up" with the whole penumbra thing.  Research it further, that's precisely what he did.

The question is whether it was 'proper' to make stuff up in the fashion he did.  There is little debate in the academic community, however, that this was basically pulled out of thin air.  The questions are - 1) Was this legal?  and 2) Are the theoretical underpinnings solid?

The answer to #1, as anyone first year con law student knows, is almost always yes, regardless of the circumstance (see  bush v. gore).  The SCOTUS is the final word, period.

This leaves question #2 - are the theoretical underpinnings of the griswold-esque "penumbras" 'solid?'  After an A in con law 1 and a probable A in con law 2, I still am not sure about this.  But what I am sure about is that it is certainly a debatable point - as is almost every point in con law. 

Unfortunately, con law does tend to bring out the inner-gunner in everyone.  But I think this is the one class where this is okay, as all of this stuff is very debatable, and in the case of the exact point of law you referenced - I think that the gunner is definitely more on point in his perspective than you are.

Okay, I'm done now  :)

And yes, I swear I'm not a gunner.  I'm actually an anti-gunner, however you wouldn't guess that from reading this post. 

I didn't read anything past your first paragraph because you are undoubtedly an annoying/stupid and I pray to God you aren't in any of my classes.  Thank you for your brief 0L rhetorical assessment of abortion rights in the United States. You are obviously well qualified to give an opinion and to challenge the reasoning of numerous Supreme Court Justices.  Would you like to explain to me why people taken into custody should not be read their Miranda Rights next?

Judging by your reading comp skills, I doubt you'll be anywhere near any class I'll be taking for the next couple of years.

And as someone else pointed out, if you'd actually read my post you'd realize 1) I'm a 2L, and 2) I specifically stayed away from an "assessment of abortion rights in the United States."  Actually, if you'd have actually read even the first paragraph of my post you would know #2. 

You better make an adjustment in your bitter attitude before 1L, or else it's going to be one miserable year for you.  If you're wound up this tight going in, you're not going to come out looking pretty. 

Also, what are you talking about with Miranda?  Your incoherence has me confused.  Crim pro is fun though, so if you want me to expose your ignorance on that subject then feel free to ask some more pointed questions. 

One more thing - if you don't think that anyone who isn't a SCOTUS justice can question judicial reasoning, then you are going to have a rough go of things.

Overall advice - learn to think independently instead of joining the ignorant crowd on the sidelines who poo-poo's everyone else's ideas (before they've even heard them!)  You learn nothing going about things in the way you did in attacking my post. 

I'm confident I'll do just fine.  I dislike people trying to tell me how smart they are by explaining how they understand the judicial line of reasoning better than everyone else.  You don't like abortion, I get it.

Miranda has nothing to do with abortion, it is a case that has some controversy around it and established "rights" with a Supreme Court decision.  Since you are so much smarter than everybody else, I was hoping you could enlighten all of us to what the correct ruling of this case would have been as well.

Amy Winehouse

  • ****
  • 429
  • Rehab is for quitters.
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #55 on: May 14, 2007, 08:28:06 PM »
To me, the gunner is the person who always has to add something personal/flattering into their comments.

"Well when I worked on a supreme court case this summer, I noticed that..." Or,

"my uncle, who's an AUSA explained this particular point of law to me and I think that..."

I dont think participating a lot makes you a gunner necessarily. Its all in how you say what you're saying. I know I had my hand in the air at least three times per class in the classes where participation was extra credit...and I got the grade bump every time.  8) Screw what others think in that situation, its an easy grade bump.

But, unless you're super annoying or pretentious with you're commentary, you're not a gunner IMO.

 :D
When I was visiting Duke, one student kept raising his hand and beginning each response with, "When I was in college..."  It was hard to keep a straight face.

S.A.

  • ****
  • 736
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #56 on: May 14, 2007, 10:22:50 PM »
Do you really think just anyone would ask for notes though? I wouldn't feel comfortable asking someone I didn't know for notes.

Gimme ur notes, b1tch.

Hmmmm, I will trade notes for the hubby's romance tips :)

Re: Gunners....
« Reply #57 on: May 15, 2007, 12:37:51 AM »
I'm confident I'll do just fine.  I dislike people trying to tell me how smart they are by explaining how they understand the judicial line of reasoning better than everyone else.  You don't like abortion, I get it.

Miranda has nothing to do with abortion, it is a case that has some controversy around it and established "rights" with a Supreme Court decision.  Since you are so much smarter than everybody else, I was hoping you could enlighten all of us to what the correct ruling of this case would have been as well.

No, you don't get it.  You know nothing about my stand on abortion.  All you know is my generalized take on Griswold.  My *very* brief take on Griswold =/= my take on abortion.  I haven't even told you what I thought about roe v. wade, how could you possibly think I've come close to 'giving you my take' on abortion?   

As to Miranda - I know miranda like the back of my hand - I was more trying to imply that you know nothing about it.  I didn't do a good job of this and I'm sorry about that.  I could ask you some questions to prove this fact, but that's not what I was trying to get at.   

It's really impossible to have a discussion with you on these things because you don't know anything about these topics.  This is okay, I didn't either going into 1L.  The difference between you and me is that I didn't act like I had any clue what I was talking about as a 0L or during most of 1L, save the end of the semesters. 

You're probably overcompensating for the fear of the unknown by tricking yourself into believing that you know something more than the rest of the 0L's running around this site.  News flash - you don't.  This is fine - it's natural to be a bit scared going into 1L - I sure as heck know I was.  What will hurt you, however, is not being honest with yourself.  You have no idea about any of the topics you spoke so confidently about in your posts - I know it, you know it, and anyone who has been to law school and read each of our posts knows it.  This is how it should be - I just got through 1L, you haven't started law school yet.  This is the proper order of things.  Where problems come in is when you develop a sense of overconfidence as a security blanket to hide the fact that you are scared (academically) for the first time in your life.   Don't let this happen.

While we have been going back and forth, I feel like I've gotten a chance to understand your personality just a little bit.  I want to see you succeed - I was similarly insecure as you, however I compensated in different ways.  My advice to you - consciously try to keep an open mind during your first year.  I feel like this will be one of your biggest problems.  You seem very quick to group people into camps - i.e. "You people who think you know more than the professors" or "you people who think you know it all."  You are using improper logic here, and this will hamper you if nothing else related to this philosophy does.  I don't know how to fully articulate what I'm trying to say here, but basically just keep an open mind, as I feel like this will be (and is now) difficult for you.  I'm not being smug here either - I don't want you to look back next year and say "ohhhhhh THAT was what he was talking about!"  I want you to get this now.  Please feel free to PM me if you choose, as I think this has gotten too individualized for this thread.

 

Re: Gunners....
« Reply #58 on: May 15, 2007, 01:07:07 AM »
Griswold, what a stupid case!  That penumbra crap is just that, crap!  No wonder no one else followed him on that.  He shoulda just embraced Lochner ;)  TBH, I thought the 9th Amendment argument was best, but I really don't know a lot about the 9th.  Still, Griswold opened up sub due process again, and that's always fun because just about anything can be a fundamental right if you frame it a certain way. 

Roe was wrong, because it should have been left to the political process (preferably at the state level).  Casey was wrong bc it didn't overturn Roe.  And I'm pro-choice.  There, I laid out my stance on abortion :)  Don't even get me started on that horrible decision that was just passed a few weeks ago on partial birth abortions. 

Ninny - stop making yourself look silly :)

Anyway, as for gunners, everyone hates them, profs and students alike.  There's a difference between a smart person and a gunner, and it's all in the attitude.  Sometimes people forget that one of the most valuable resources taken from law school is the connections you make.  Don't be so eager to prove your classmates wrong all the time. 

Hank Rearden

  • *****
  • 8241
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #59 on: May 15, 2007, 01:08:28 AM »
Hah, thread has been hijacked by gunners.   :D

jk guys