|
J Miracle posted:I don't know what's worse, the fact that the professor still solicits public-policy debate or the fact that there are still 3Ls with a gunner mentality that actually engage in it. Public policy debates were the only thing that made classes bearable.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2010 22:06 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:57 |
|
Yeah what classes are you taking where the public policy debate is not more interesting than the subject material being discussed?
|
# ? Sep 1, 2010 22:11 |
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Yeah what classes are you taking where the public policy debate is not more interesting than the subject material being discussed? Tax
|
# ? Sep 1, 2010 22:23 |
|
public policy debates are still part of lecture though, automatically making them less interesting than gchat/espn/fantasy football
|
# ? Sep 1, 2010 22:35 |
|
J Miracle posted:Jesus I wish they had separate classes for 3Ls that cut the bullshit...my professors in both Evidence and Decedents & Estates persist with this "let's take a slow pass through the ENTIRE case" poo poo and its just painful. Now imagine going to law school for 4 years. Welcome to hell. My level of "giving a poo poo" is negative. (if your wondering if once you go negative you start caring more for some reason, you don't)
|
# ? Sep 1, 2010 22:51 |
|
sigmachiev posted:FINALLY got a callback, V20 firm. Lets keep this ball rolling, we were doing relly good in this thread with jobs a few weeks ago. Grats! Ours has been a mixed bag; I know people with between 0 and 9 more or less inclusive, but a TON of 0s and 1s. I managed to swing 2 of my top 3 choices, but only have 4 total so I'm a little worried. Our last interviews were Friday, do more come out after this?
|
# ? Sep 1, 2010 23:39 |
|
Napoleon I posted:Grats! Ours has been a mixed bag; I know people with between 0 and 9 more or less inclusive, but a TON of 0s and 1s.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2010 23:42 |
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Yeah what classes are you taking where the public policy debate is not more interesting than the subject material being discussed? I guess I should clarify that it's not in any way a reasoned or well-informed debate, its more like "well in this case the decedents mother got nothing and the wife's father got everything, is that FAIR?" "uhhh...I think it's not fair because like the husband probably wanted his mom to get stuff" This could be because I go to a TTT attached to a Big 10 party school. Sure it's great getting drunk before 7 am on Saturday, but there are a lot of dim bulbs. Plus, I don't know man I mean nobody's bullshit opinion is going to be on the exam.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 00:08 |
|
Napoleon I posted:Grats! Ours has been a mixed bag; I know people with between 0 and 9 more or less inclusive, but a TON of 0s and 1s. We're not even done till next Wednesday but I'm out here down Californee way. There still is no word one way or another for anyone for about half the places I've viewed with so far.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 00:12 |
|
Looks like you guys cleaned amazon out of "Some hints on the trial of a lawsuit" by Rolla R. Longenecker. If anyone is still interested, it looks like there are copies on other sites such as alibris for .
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 01:10 |
|
this is pretty much my oci experience so far
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 01:53 |
|
Red Bean Juice posted:this is pretty much my oci experience so far please make a post with all of these, I still smile when I think of the sad legislative history valentine in the trash can
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 02:16 |
|
Click here for the full 600x881 image. Click here for the full 700x998 image. Click here for the full 500x743 image. Click here for the full 688x537 image.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 02:33 |
|
We need more books like that. Anyone have more recommendations for my bookshelf?
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 02:50 |
|
Red Bean Juice posted:love it; do they have one where legislative intent commits suicide? I had to deal with a statute recently where the pollies wanted defendants to incur a longer sentence for using a handgun as opposed to other weapons, but made the addition a new sub-section and ruined the entire thing. Not only did they make the offense more complicated to charge and gain a conviction, but the additional penalty was deemed unconstitutional. This isn't for an obscure crime, either.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 03:14 |
|
Roger_Mudd posted:The only thing worse than the "thinking like a lawyer" meme is the idea that it will just "click" sometime during your first year. JudicialRestraints posted:Where are you going again? Red Bean Juice posted:
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 11:38 |
|
You'll flip to the Posner one once you start thinking like a lawyer.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 12:46 |
|
diospadre posted:You'll flip to the Posner one once you start thinking like a lawyer. Bahahahaha I've never seen that Posner one before. I love the pose he has in the last panel, when tossing money at his kid. Hahahahaha. Edit: Where are those from, those are great!
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 14:16 |
|
i drew them
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 14:34 |
|
Red Bean Juice posted:i drew them Do this instead of lawschool Submit them to the ABA journal and see if they get run
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 14:45 |
|
Incredulous Red posted:Do this instead of lawschool I agree with both of these. Incredulous Red, if you put together enough of these to publish a comic book on cafepress or something, I'd buy a copy.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 15:00 |
|
diospadre posted:You'll flip to the Posner one once you start thinking like a lawyer. Seriously. I lost it when I saw that one and then felt guilty for laughing at lawyer humor.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 15:06 |
|
CaptainScraps posted:Seriously. I lost it when I saw that one and then felt guilty for laughing at lawyer humor. Basically this is the litmus test to see if you've lost your soul yet :thinkinglikealawyer:
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 15:11 |
|
Incredulous Red posted:Basically this is the litmus test to see if you've lost your soul yet To be fair, I never had a soul, I'm Jewish.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 16:38 |
|
So I thought I was starting at my firm after Labor Day and got a very nice call from the office manager explaining that it was actually the first of the month. How to avoid an awkward first day at work: don't show up!
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 18:29 |
|
Elotana posted:So I thought I was starting at my firm after Labor Day and got a very nice call from the office manager explaining that it was actually the first of the month. How to avoid an awkward first day at work: don't show up! Oh wow. I knew a guy in law school who lost his summer associate position because of exactly that sort of thing - he thought he started on May X but it was really May Y, which was only like a few days later or something.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 18:45 |
|
entris posted:Oh wow. Haha, I know what you meant, but it would be the cruelest of employers who would actually fire someone for showing up to start a few days early.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 19:18 |
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan posted:Haha, I know what you meant, but it would be the cruelest of employers who would actually fire someone for showing up to start a few days early. Hahaha oh god. Wow. If what I literally said were true, I would have quit law school immediately.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 19:24 |
|
Loved this: http://baselinescenario.com/2010/09/02/the-problem-with-footnotes/ quote:I’m reading a law review article: Scott L. Cummings, “Community Economic Development as Progressive Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice,” 54 Stan. L. Rev. 399. It’s a perfectly fine article; I have no complaint with the substance. Thought anyone involved in law review would love this. Reminds me of someone - I think it was Johnson or Krugman - commenting on a law and economics judge (want to say Easterbrook) who had this whole rational actor edifice cited to something that cited to something that cited to something that asserted it without offering evidence. Citations are like the most wonderful shell game in the entire world if you are a duplicitous and/or lazy legal academic.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 19:30 |
|
I didn't realize anyone actually read law review articles, let alone the citations contained within them. My eyes start to bleed if I so much as glance at my academic writing samples as I stuff them in an envelope.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 19:53 |
|
Petey posted:Loved this: Massive use of citations is also a popular camoflague technique when making losing arguments. There are few things worse than working your way through 10+ citations that supposedly support a jurisdictional argument, but ultimately just reiterate something straight from the beginning of a civil procedure textbook.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 19:58 |
|
Petey posted:Loved this: It's deliciously ironic that your citation points to a blog post that's no longer there (so thanks for quoting it.)
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 20:00 |
|
Dallan Invictus posted:It's deliciously ironic that your citation points to a blog post that's no longer there (so thanks for quoting it.) Haha, what the hell? Did Kwak just unpublish that?
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 20:04 |
|
Petey posted:Thought anyone involved in law review would love this.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 20:49 |
|
what is all this nerd poo poo (my LR only checks citation format and maybe a QUICK glance at the source to see that it actually says what the author says it says, my LR is also full of douchebag phony faggots)
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 21:01 |
|
Linguica posted:A law review article could have nothing but citations to timecube.com Want to read that law review article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn2UCqL5qyo Petey fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Sep 2, 2010 |
# ? Sep 2, 2010 21:15 |
|
Linguica posted:Yeah when I was on law review I quickly grew disillusioned when I realized that the citechecking bitch work entirely consisted of "is this in the proper Bluebook format / does the cited article say what the citation says it says?" and nothing about "is the cited article actually correct or verifiable?" A law review article could have nothing but citations to timecube.com and as long as it followed BB 11.1(f)(ii) or whatever it would be completely above board as far as any law review is concerned. I was on ACLR at Georgetown, working on an article about immigrant cultural mores as a mitigating defense using the example of some custom among the southeast-Asian Hmong and using a particular criminal trial in America, except the author never cited anything saying that the defendant in that trial was himself Hmong only that he was Laotian, and I, of course, raised this as a concern to the editorial board and they fixed it so deal with it you baby.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 21:36 |
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:I was on ACLR at Georgetown, working on an article about immigrant cultural mores as a mitigating defense using the example of some custom among the southeast-Asian Hmong and using a particular criminal trial in America, except the author never cited anything saying that the defendant in that trial was himself Hmong only that he was Laotian, and I, of course, raised this as a concern to the editorial board and they fixed it so deal with it you baby. Linguica fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Sep 2, 2010 |
# ? Sep 2, 2010 21:58 |
|
You guys might like this, part of a pro se filing from a looney fringe type. I have the rest but it's just a bunch of poo poo about how JOHN PETERS is not the true person, while John Peters is the real party in interest, and the corporate entity known as "the United States of America" has no personal subject matter jurisdiction over the real party in interest since he is a sovereign "American Citizen" as opposed to a "U.S. Citizen"
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 22:19 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:57 |
|
If you're the judge, what do you even do with that
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 22:25 |