Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Gunners....  (Read 7623 times)

zephyr

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2007, 11:09:23 PM »
I hope I'm not a gunner.  I'm the type who gets sick of the professor asking a question, followed by three minutes of silence.  I raise my hand a lot, but only if no one else is...  :-\

I'm the same way. You just have to know when to bite your tongue. And also how not sound like a total a-hole when you open your mouth.
Jim McAllister: Larry, we're not electing the f-ing Pope here. Just tell me who won. -Election

adlai

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2007, 11:12:41 PM »
gunners are like Dwight: "I didn't go to law school to make friends!"

those type.

Slow Children At Play

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2007, 11:13:12 PM »
I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of people going into these top law schools (indeed, the group neurotic enough to join discussion boards dedicated to law school) would all qualify for some peoples' definitions of gunners.  I think what it really comes down to is: 1. Whether one can back it up; and 2. The modesty of said gunner.  It's much easier to respect someone who makes intelligent comments, and it's much easier to like someone who doesn't shove their relative intelligence into your face at all times.
Attending: HLS 2010... boo ya!
In: HLS, CLS(W), NYU(W), UMich(W), UVA(W), Berkeley(W), NWestern(W), Duke(W), ND(W), G-Town(W)
Waitlisted: YLS, UPenn (W), SLS (W)

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=SlowChildrenAtPlay

Hank Rearden

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2007, 11:26:41 PM »
I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of people going into these top law schools (indeed, the group neurotic enough to join discussion boards dedicated to law school) would all qualify for some peoples' definitions of gunners.  I think what it really comes down to is: 1. Whether one can back it up; and 2. The modesty of said gunner.  It's much easier to respect someone who makes intelligent comments, and it's much easier to like someone who doesn't shove their relative intelligence into your face at all times.

Gunner. 
CLS '10

The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing.  When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.

Slow Children At Play

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2007, 11:37:49 PM »
I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of people going into these top law schools (indeed, the group neurotic enough to join discussion boards dedicated to law school) would all qualify for some peoples' definitions of gunners.  I think what it really comes down to is: 1. Whether one can back it up; and 2. The modesty of said gunner.  It's much easier to respect someone who makes intelligent comments, and it's much easier to like someone who doesn't shove their relative intelligence into your face at all times.

Gunner. 

Tu quoque, my friend. 8)
Attending: HLS 2010... boo ya!
In: HLS, CLS(W), NYU(W), UMich(W), UVA(W), Berkeley(W), NWestern(W), Duke(W), ND(W), G-Town(W)
Waitlisted: YLS, UPenn (W), SLS (W)

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=SlowChildrenAtPlay

Navygirl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2007, 01:28:31 AM »
When I hear gunner, I think Arsenal FC....  ;D


LOL!  When I think gunner...I think of it from a navy point too.  Though as a previous Fire Controlman myself, I would never call an FC a gunner or vice versa...

But glad to see someone else riding my wavelength!  :D :D
LSAT: 158

Attending:  Georgia State

Momo09

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2007, 01:59:50 AM »
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.
Bruin once again.

Helpful Chap

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2007, 02:15:29 AM »
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. 

Momo09

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2007, 02:28:22 AM »
I didn't mean for a post to be an abortion issue.  Just a silly illustration of what a typcial conversation in a classroom would sound like.  The substance of what I wrote isn't that important, or the spelling of a case.....

But I think there is a fundmental difference between an intellectual discussion about the validity of reasoning used by the courts and whether they stepped out of bounds or just follows a "evolutionary" approach versus imposing one's ignorance on the whole class.  I think ever since Marshall's days the SCOTUS has made up a bunch of bull just to get to the results they needed.  But early on I realized what I think isn't important at all, but my job is to figure out why you think the way you do and how I can convince 12 other people why I should have the better argument at the end of the day and have enough knowledge in the judicial reasoning process to forecast how I'm going to win....
Bruin once again.

Helpful Chap

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2007, 02:31:13 AM »
I didn't mean for a post to be an abortion issue.  Just a silly illustration of what a typcial conversation in a classroom would sound like.  The substance of what I wrote isn't that important, or the spelling of a case.....

But I think there is a fundmental difference between an intellectual discussion about the validity of reasoning used by the courts and whether they stepped out of bounds or just follows a "evolutionary" approach versus imposing one's ignorance on the whole class.  I think ever since Marshall's days the SCOTUS has made up a bunch of bull just to get to the results they needed.  But early on I realized what I think isn't important at all, but my job is to figure out why you think the way you do and how I can convince 12 other people why I should have the better argument at the end of the day and have enough knowledge in the judicial reasoning process to forecast how I'm going to win....

You plan to be a trial lawyer, eh?