Open Thread:
We haven't had an open thread in a while. So what's on your mind? As always, please keep it civil.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
I vote "yes."
Or, more specifically, is there any real purpose (other than economic protectionism and hazing) for New York to require applicants to study ~23 different subjects in preparation for its bar exam? Similarly, is there any real purpose (other than economic protectionism and hazing) for New Jersey to require first year admitted lawyers to spend ~100 hours over five weeks listening to lectures and writing homework on a few select topics in the law?
I'm asking because after having completed these requirements, I'm aghast at how absolutely irrelevant they are to my practice. I practice almost none of the subjects tested on the bar in my daily work (with the possible exception of evidence law), and New Jersey's CLE requirement is so onerous that it's actually affecting my ability to complete assignments for my real clients.
I agree that there should be some type of minimum standard for those admitted to practice.
I'm curious to hear what people think more intelligent bar admission requirements should be.
And what about Weinstein getting all the gun cases in NYC ? Don't they have a 'wheel' selection system or something ? Why is it always this one anti-gun judge ? And why can't he be recused ( by appellate force if needed ) for his history of bias ?
If the only criteria was how well qualified you are to practice law, I could have gotten away with probably 12 credits of courses out of my entire 3 years of law school. And I think I am being generous. I (and by extension my future employers) would have benefited a thousand times more from me spending 2 years drafting claims and filing motions with the USPTO than listening to professors drone on about Chevron deference or the duties imposed by constructive notice of sexual harassment.
Of all I have taken here, the two legal writing courses, civil procedure and probably patents and trademarks taught me useful things- everything else has been a giant exercise in memorizing useless caselaw I will never need again. Instead of sitting on my ass for 3 years writing stupid papers and memorizing multi-part tests to apply to silly fact patterns, I could have two and a half years of useful practice under my belt already.
The only thing I can say in defense of the legal profession is that at least it is less protectionist than the medical profession.
Cubs
Cards
Astros
Brewers
Pirates
Reds
This is through August. All bets are off once the Cubs get to September. Here's hopin'.
Ok, rant over.
Is everyone who has ever bounced a check a deadbeat who should not be allowed to practice law? Especially if they are just moving from student status where they had negative income? I think your assessment is a little harsh.
I think that the bar should focus on practical knowledge that every lawyer should know. That is, it shouldn't focus on the substantive law in tons of subjects, most of which will not be used by any particular lawyer.
It would be really nice, good for both lawyers and clients, if studying for the bar actually made you more ready to practice law. To that end, I would suggest knowledge about how to actually get things done for clients. (i.e. how to draft a contract, how to get evidence admitted, conduct a trial, trial strategies, etc.) All the substantive law stuff is mostly a waste of time, except for a few key subjects, like evidence.
I’m not planning to do anything about it for at least another week (just finished my final final exam this afternoon and have three days to finish my seminar paper) but I’d appreciate any guidance.
No, because the problem isn't the law firms. It's the lack of 12 hour school days for children whose parents are illiterate and won't put any effort into getting their kids to work and study.
TechieLaw, the anticompetitive motivation for bar admission requirements is well-known, but I think the requirements do have SOME value, even if they should be tweaked. Bar exams can't hope to test each person's individual and often esoteric practice area; they generally stick to traditional meat-and-potatoes stuff. At least this format does test memory, reasoning ability, and communication, all of which are qualities you will need even if you never have to worry about community property again. The most widely agreed-on unnecessary expense, I'd think, is that infamous third year of law school, which is useless for most students.
I am not familiar with New Jersey's CLE requirements; but CLE is in general, brutal.
Relatedly: How much damage has Bush done to the Party? I have followed two elections with passion. The 1994 election, and the last congressional elections. In 1994, I was dying for Republicans to win. In 2006, I wanted the Republicans to lose.
Am I the only totally demoralized conservative out there? I don't want McCain to win. Yet I obviously don't want Obama to win, either.
I’m not planning to do anything about it for at least another week (just finished my final final exam this afternoon and have three days to finish my seminar paper) but I’d appreciate any guidance.
Thorley Winston, I have no idea about the Minnesota bar (you should talk to people who have taken it recently) but for bar exams in general you probably need to spend as much time as you possibly can on it. I have taken two state's bars, both while working full-time, and it is not fun. If you can afford to stop working between now and the July exam, you should, and try to study 8-12 hours a day.
Cyvill Shepard!!!
It'll be Frank Rich, and believe me, those dowdy old robes are gonna take a beating.
Given ACORN's, to me, radical policies, isn't this news, and useful background information for voters?
Well, considering the Chinese aren't too keen on a regime change being brought about at their backdoor, they would veto any meaningful UN resolution to do anything worthwhile at the UN level. So, it would come down to the US either unilaterally taking action, or building a coalition of neighboring countries to do the job. Given that Bush has burnt his unilateral regime change card, and his skills at building useful coalitions are rather low, the odds of the Junta getting tossed are about non-existent.
Go Pens! See you in the Finals :)
Following much of Orin's work has been greatly valuable in being prepared for suppression motions and the like, and I think prepares one very well for knowing what arguments can work in a suppression hearing. Just recently, because of something I remembered reading on here I was able to turn something of a probable suppression loss into a probable suppression win, and it had the opposing attorney just up in knots, wouldn't have even thought of it without being informed on here. Thanks!
I second what TerrencePhilip said. I would emphasize two things.
1. I figured I was paying BarBri good money because they were the experts, so I resolved to follow the program they laid out. I did so in nearly every detail. I passed. (NYS 1993)
2. I thought I detected among many of my law school colleagues a reluctance to commit themselves completely to passing -- a slight holding back from full effort so as have an excuse if they failed. I suggest guarding against this protective device. Commit totally.
There, two cents exactly. Best of luck to you.
"Quarter Movie On My Mind"
Root Boy Slim &The Sex Change Band. (1990?)
May Root Boy rest in peace.
Cubs
Cards
Astros
Brewers
Pirates
Reds
This is through August. All bets are off once the Cubs get to September. Here's hopin'.<<<
That's about right, although I can see the Brewers placing ahead of the "Stros, and the Pirates below the Reds.
My Cubs, however, will win the division. There is, in fact, NO OTHER WAY that allows them to crush my hopes and dreams in October. ("What about the wild card?"--Nope. Not from the weakest division in baseball.)
All of this is immaterial, since the D-backs will win the penant and the WS again.
Q: Your campaign slogan, "Why settle for the lesser evil?" seems to indicate you're a worse candidate than the others, can you explain how this is supposed to attract voters?
A (translation): The other candidates claim to want the United States to prosper and grow, and yet when they are actually in office they continuously vote for bills that eat away at the county's foundation and burden the people. I'm running a different kind of campaign: one of honesty, integrity, and an end to suffering.
Q: A mother from Virginia asks "I've heard you want to devour my children's souls, it that true?"
A (translation): Well, yes, that's technically true, but I've pledged to eat the souls of my worshipers last, which could be many years from now. My opponents will continue to raise taxes, lower the quality of health care, and reduce jobs to such an extent that you should really be asking yourself which you need to fear more: the monster here in front of you that would kill you quickly or the ones hiding behind masks of compassion that will sip at your soul until you have nothing worth living for.
Q: What do you say to those who clam that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away?
A (translation): Long odds have never deterred me, even while I slept for so many thousands of years I knew that some day my time would come again. What the voters have to realize is that a vote for a third party isn't worth less than a vote for the main candidates simply because those votes aren't worth anything either! This election is a choice between evils, a Hobson's choice if you will, and your vote for evil is best spent on me.
Hoosier's advice to his fellow VCers for a better life? Read some *Montaigne* over the summer.
That is all.
More like "infernal," iddnit? Besides, have you SEEN how many places Miskatonic U. fell in the latest USNWR?
I suggested, on another forum, voting for McCain by writing in his name (where write-ins are possible) instead of just 'pulling the lever'. In this way we can show the Republicans how thin his support really is - if it is thin - without putting a Democrat in office.
If we just 'hold our noses and vote for McCain' we can be sure that the Republicans will instantly claim all votes for him show approval of him, not disapproval of his opponent.
That made my day -- glad to help.
Orin
McCain's platform is moderate--even prudent one might say. If you want your position heard vote for your Senator or Congressman. The President is for the nation as a whole.
As for Miskatonic University, its waning prestige is due entirely to their new misled focus on secular studies, and will only return when they once again embrace the calling from their dreams.
Unfortunately we seem to have evolved into a Fascist business model.
On a brighter note I just bought an ipod nano with some stimulus money. Expensive little suckers. My wife broke her iphone but they want $ 297.00 to repair it, or we can wait 2 months and buy a new 3G iphone for 200.00. Hmm choices choices.
I do not agree that "testing memory" of useless information is a legitimate function of the bar exam. If you made it through college and law school, your memory is not totally defective.
That said, I am not saying that remembering things is unimportant to the practice of law. But, filling up your mind with useless facts that you will never use again is not the best exercise of that facility. Why not have lawyers learn things really well that they have a high probability of doing?
Why not test an applicant's ability to draft a settlement agreement or a contract? That would involve memory, but it would not be useless.
Overall, I think that bar exams as currently constituted are useless. I am proud of my ability to pass the California bar on my first attempt, without the help of BarBri or any other formal course of study. My pride in that accomplishment aside, I still view the whole process as rather useless. I think it is pathetic.
Make the bar exam useful, or get rid of it. I think it is a crime to waste so much social energy that could go to productive ends on poorly designed bar exams.
Someone above recommended that Winston not work to take the bar. If we really expect that sort of commitment from people, shouldn't we be ensuring that they learn something that is actually useful?
I suspect the color of legislation would owe more to Nancy Peolosi than Barack Obama which is not good news whichever party you support.
Ask yourself one question: Do you have ANY desire to have to repeat your bar study and exam taking?
If the answer is no, then put everything you have into studying for that exam.
The first day of Bar/Bri, the site coordinator told us that so long as we diligently studied during the month of June, we could also spend some time enjoying life in June. For the month of July, however, we were instructed to buckle down as much as possible.
Of all the Bar/Bri advice, this was probably the best. I didn't follow their study schedule at all, preferring to study my own way, (and I also needed the first week or two of June to slack off and decompress from final exams), but sometime in late June, I began devoting just about every waking moment to the bar.
I passed.
After seeing my MBE score, I know that I overstudied (at least for the MBE ... no idea about the local score), but wasting a month of my life in return for never having to see those subjects again was probably worth it in retrospect.
Yes, answer practice questions from Bar/Bri and PMBR. I didn't actually find the Bar/Bri practice essays so useful, because whenever I compared my essay to the "model" answer, I usually felt like I missed just about every issue.
PMBR was a good way to test and benchmark my MBE knowledge a week or two before the actual exam. Once I saw my PMBR MBE score, I realized that there was no further point in studying for the MBE and I devoted all my remaining time to the local NY essays. (No idea if your locale requires you to memorize state-specific law, but if it does, use PMBR as a way to figure out whether you're done studying for the MBE.)
Do you think that someone whose check to a character and fitness committee bounces should be disqualified from the practice of law?
This right here is a good example of what is wrong with bar exams. I would bet that if most what one learns for the bar exam actually helped in the practice of law, people would not have such a negative attitude towards the study process. Instead, they would be happy to be studying something that they saw as an investment in themselves and their performance in the profession.
I think it is really sad that we are forcing applicants to waste so much time and effort on a useless exam. I certainly do not want any more competition in the profession. But I still think there should be something more to the bar exam than hazing and creating artificial barriers to entry.
Some summer break.
My bank once bounced my rent check despite the fact that there was double the amount of money needed to pay the check in my account. Somebody at the bank decided that the signature on my check wasn't close enough to the signature I had on file. It didn't matter that the signature on that check was exactly the same as the signature on the past 50 or so checks that I had written, or that the amount on the check and payee was the same as every rent check I had written for the past year. And nobody from the bank even thought to call me to ask me whether the check was genuine before bouncing it.
My first thought was that this was a little racist. But then I thought, maybe I'm the racist for associating the phrase "Where you at?" with the sizable black minority where I was shopping (New Britain, CT). But this kind of phrase is equally uttered by less educated whites as well. Then I started to feel like an elitist for associating poor grammar with people of lesser economic status. So I fled back to my 97% white, fairly wealthy, highly-educated neighborhood.
I hope if Obama gets elected I won't have these thoughts any more because then we'll all just be people. Right?
Mike,
By throwing away trillions of dollars in Iraq, Republicans have lost any authority to argue about lower taxes and decreased government spending. Because it is now obvious that what Republicans really mean is "reduced spending for the things we don't like, and massive increases in spending for things we like."
Which is to say, Republicans have revealed their stated principles to be completely and utterly fraudulent.
I had just assumed they got hammered on the "peer ranking" section. You know, due to that incident during the Sweet Sixteen, when the opposing team melted. Right before the med school cadavers took over the natatorium. (Nasty business that! They are still finding spleens in the men's locker area, says my eliable source.)
Still, MU ranks two places ahead of my alma mater, Notre Dame. So what can one say?
GOOOOOOOOOOOO Cephalopods!
I've never bounced a check. But as a grad student, I once stuck my stipend check in a book as a bookmark--and then returned the book to the library that evening.
Does this qualify me as /incompetent /enough to make full professor?
Glad to learn how you passed on your first attempt, not that you mean to brag of course. But consider climbing off the high horse a bit. Among the subjects tested in California are ethics, civil procedure, constitutional law, criminal law, and torts. Some knowledge of these topics is hardly "useless" for a lawyer.
At any rate...
I'M A J.D.!!!!! :) :) :) (Yes, it feels good.)
Bar studying... in my world, such will be done amongst two research assistant-ships. I turned down a third one, in an acknowledgement of the fact that there is this "bar" thing to study for.
I took the bar exam last summer. I remember taking a moment in the middle of the exam and looking around the room and marveling at the massive amounts of brain power that were being excercised in the auditorium. You could almost hear an underlying hum of mental gears turning. I'd forgotten about that until I read the comment above. I also recall thinking that if that amount of brain power could be harnessed for something other than the bar exam - admittedly a useless waste of time - how much better off things might be.
That said, I'm not even sure the bar exam is doing its job of weeding out the weaker links. I work for a court and have the opportunity to see lots of pleadings and I have seen more than a few by attorneys who should not be practicing, yet must have somehow passed the bar exam.
My other problem with the whole ridiculous bar exam setup is that passing the exam in one state is deemed completely irrelvant when trying to get admitted to another state, even though BOTH states use the MBE as a portion of the exam. MBE scores should be transferable between all states - there is no rational reason why they should not be.
For some reason, whenever he played in a small club, the same crowd that was there the day before drank *much* *much* more when he played.
I can still remember him dragging drunk girls out of the audience to dance with him during his anthem, "Proud to be Fat"
Haven't head anything about him in dacades. Never thought he would last as long to to die in the 90s.
Sen. Barbara
BouncerBoxer bounced lots of checks, for illegal taxpayer loot. She kited over 100 checks -- for cash -- at the Senate Post Office. She only agreed to pay it back after she finally got caught with her hand in the cookie jar.Because of what happened to her, we can tell for sure that she's a Democrat. What happened to her? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Happy Mother's Day!
Not only do I disagree with you, I think your point of view is retarded.
Someone should not be able to practice law for a few years why they think about the importance of checking their account balance more often?
What are they supposed to do in the meantime? Work at some minimum wage job?
Talk about a huge waste of human capital sacrificed to your silly idealism.
I have lost track of my balance on occasions. But that is my money and I deal with the consequences. I pay whatever fee my bank charges for covering my check. I do not think that I am not am either incompetant or irresponsible. Life is complicated and keeping track of financial information is not always my highest priority. Oh, and by the way, I was locked out of online access to my bank for a while, and it took me about a million steps to finally get it back. I also think that keeping track of this information is much easier in situations where you have a very regular source of income, something I have not always had. Also, I haven't been in a position to save money. Obviously, if you have a little cushion in your bank account, you do not have as much risk of some calculation error, either your own or the banks, resulting in you going over balance. But, it takes time and planning to get such a cushion.
That in my own personal life, I spend less time on this than in you would, because of my own personal cost-benefit analysis which differs from yours. That does not mean that I would be careless with my client's money. For me, dealing with someone elses money is an entirely different thing than dealing with my own. I don't apply my own personal cost-benefit analysis to that situation.
Anyway, I think your idea that I should not be able to practice law is retarded. I think you live in a hyper-idealistic world, and your are excessively judgmental.
That just my 2 cents.
I understand that you chose that name because you are a crack smoking whore, but I still think you should be able to distinguish between Vietnam and Iraq.
=)
The feds will do nothing on gun control if Obama is elected for a number of reasons. First, Congressional Republicans would filibuster it, second Dems don't gain any political points by doing so, third (which is related to the second) supporters of gun control are much less passionate than opponents, hence there's very little Obama has to gain by talking or doing anything about gun control. That's why he doesn't talk about it.
Re increasing government spending, Republicans have forfeited any right to complain about government spending. In fact they're worse than Democrats, since they spend just as much, but borrow the money to pay for it, so we end up paying for it plus interest.
Re raising taxes - see the paragraph above - we're not getting that prescription drug plan for free. We can pay now or pay later, but we're going to pay and that measure alone, for which Republicans get all the credit/blame is going to hit the federal budget like an asteroid.
Maybe we can just freeze it after the first fifty years. :)
The more interesting question is, could a non-human run for president (or any other federal office)? The Constitution is, not surprisingly, silent on the subject. Obviously the founders didn't contemplate a non-human running for office because there weren't any around (or even in existence as far as the Founders were aware). It's not at all clear (to me at least) that, had they turned their minds to the issue, they would have explicitly precluded such a being from running for office. If people want to vote for such a being, why not let them? So nothing in the text, no obvious assistance from what people would have understood the text to mean at the time of enactment, so what's the answer.
[In the interest of full disclosure, the name I originally wanted was taken, so I took the name of my wife's big gray tomcat, notched ears and all.]
Take the bar exam seriously. Show up for Bar Bri every day and do all the practice questions you can stand. This is the last and most important exam of your life and you don't want to stumble at the finish line.
The bar exam is NOT like a law school exam. If you write it like a law school exam (issue spotting, discussion of nuances in the law etc) you will fail, or maybe barely pass. On bar exams they want actual answers. Pay attention in Bar Bri class, they hammer this point into you practically every day during the essay classes.
I didn't do every single practice question in Bar Bri (that would be impossible) but I did a pretty good chunk of them, took the course and the bar exam seriously, i.e. not as an extended vacation between graduation and working like some of my classmates. I passed the toughest bar exam in the country (California) on the first try. As they tell you every day in Bar Bri, you can do it too, just take it seriously, do the work, and keep in mind it's not a law school exam.
Jerrod,
No need to impute racism. This is a common greeting in New Orleans, at least. So much so that natives are sometimes called "yats." Nothing racial about it.
If someone's comments here on the VC just drive you mad, you can make them disappear, completely if you wish. Use Firefox, grab the grasemonkey add-on, and then use this script:
Volokh Ignore List user script
Please pay special attention to items 1 and 3. I wrote this so people can be more civil to each other, not say "ha ha I'm ignoring you!"
Leave feedback at the userscripts site.
You think you got problems? I'm a Royals fan.
That spoils the fun. Besides, even J.F. Thomas and CrazyTrain are occassionally right.
Have you ever posted anything about that?
I'm sorry to say this incredibly erudite little composition did not change my opinion. In other news, thanks very much Dan Weber. Perhaps I'll give that a try.
Re: bounced checks. I don't think it should be an automatic disqualifier and the bouncer should certainly be given an opportunity to explain. But, on the whole, I'd say that a bounced check to the state bar is a much better indicator of fitness to practice than, say, a half dozen check-the-box form letters from references that the candidate has hand-picked.
Re: studying. I'm on my third bar admission and my third bar exam (note to self: this time, be sure to practice at least three years in a jurisdiction with reciprocity). I've never done BARBRI and have worked full time while studying for the past two successful exams (including the dreaded Cal Bar). For the practicing attorney, I think slow and steady preparation is the way to go. I've been spending 1-2 hours a day since early April, and I think at this pace I will be in decent shape come the end of July.
Also keep in mind that it is not possible to overprepare for the MBE. It is possible, and indeed likely, that you will overprepare for the essays. Graders use a very narrow range when scoring exams, so a kick-ass answer is not going to score much more than a minimally competent answer. If you want a kick-ass score, focus on the MBE.
Finally, I cannot recommend the Micromash MBE software highly enough. It targets the areas where you are weak and saves you time.
Interesting. Did you ask that question in connection with any other "junta" screwing around while people die? I can think of at least one, much closer to home. But that one, of course, was democratically elected, so there is no problem, right?
The medical profession is much less protectionist than the legal profession. If doctors were as protectionist as lawyers, there would be no chiropractors, herbalists, homeopaths, naturopaths, acupuncturists, and other quacks. There would be greater restrictions on physician assistants, nurse practitioners, midwives, pharmacists, occupational and rehabilitational therapists, optometrists, clinical psychologists, etc. Lawyers have no competition except, in some states, paralegals (with highly restricted practices).
Headline of 07/05/2008:
byline: "
Court is looking into racism comments made by far-right party leader which play down the Holocaust."
From Expatica, which also has the story. Thought it would fit into the whole discussion here about the restrictions on freedom of speech internationally, and in France in particular.
Headline of 07/05/2008:
byline: "
Court is looking into racism comments made by far-right party leader which play down the Holocaust."
From Expatica, which also has the story. Thought it would fit into the whole discussion here about the restrictions on freedom of speech internationally, and in France in particular.
K1avg: I assume you are a math major. Why are you going into law?
It's gonna be Dr. Stephen Strange in '08. Just cope with it.
The way I would distinguish is to ask who comes closer to the mark, and vote for them. Is this a bad attitude?
Bold call. I've been saying that for 20 years and it stings worse every year when they find some imaginative way to prove me wrong. Maybe Lou is the magic we need.
K1avg: I assume you are a math major. Why are you going into law? "
Maybe that's just how things added up.
It's a sad state of affairs. And I think the likelihood that our answer will amount to thumb-twiddling shows how dysfunctional we've let partisanship make our political system. I can't remember the last time both sides came together to address something fraught with too much political risk for either side to stake out its own position.
Should we intervene if the Burmese government conducts passive genocide? What about Darfur? What really is the smartest application of our limited military resources? How will the American people know when to believe Iran has become an incipient danger, should that ever occur, if it hasn't already occurred?
There's only one thing I blame George Bush for, and that's fueling the mutual hostility and mistrust that made bi-partisan policy on those sorts of questions a remote fantasy. I never bought that he was motivated to invade Iraq by anything but his sincere beliefs about the country's best interest. And I can forgive all the ill-informed, incompetent blundering, and there's a lot to forgive. But he had 90+% approval ratings before Iraq, and the country wanted him to succeed. So I can't forgive his willingness to demonize the Iraq war dissenters, and in so doing turn the war, and ultimately our whole national security and foreign policy discourse into components of wedge politics.
Interesting. You're speaking of a metaphorical junta but Crunchy Frog is talking about a literal one, one that thinks it's better to let up 100,000 people die (so far, in a week) than accept any help that may threaten their military supremacy. You really think that's a good comparison?
The last time it was supposed to be the Cubs' year was right after both the White Sox and the Red Sox won it.
But no. Not only did the Cubs fail to complete the curse breaking trifecta (I've never been able to figure out what the curse actually is. . . maybe it's the curse of the insufferable fans), but the Cardinals, yes those Cardinals, had the series handed to them by the Tigers' error-fest.
It is true that the Cubs can technically win, and they've got a solid lineup playing solid ball, but as Hoosier pointed out, the later they miraculously fail, the more successfully they are at the ultimate goal of crushing my hopes.
From your comments on this site, you're obviously more than bright enough to pass any bar exam with ordinary effort. If you don't have to work a real job between now and the bar, just treat bar review like your job. Put in a reasonable 8-10 hours a day doing everything Barbri tells you to do. Take it seriously, but it's not so daunting you should abandon the things that give your life balance. You do yourself no favors by driving yourself so relentlessly that you walk into the bar exam vibrating like Crispin Glover.
Either of you care living in San Diego these days. Padre fans should get ESA protection.
WRT the "leadership" of Burma/Myanmar, I figure they're working to a new slogan...
As for how to prepare, once you've got the basic black letter stuff down -- I liked flashcards, but whatever works for you -- do a lot of multiple choice questions, and read the BarBri/PMBR explanations of the answers so that you get a good feel for the sort of analysis the examiners are looking for. And ditto for the essays.
Oh, and this may be obvious, but pay attention to how the state's bar exam is designed, including how the scoring breaks down. New York's exam covers a ton of topics, which intimidates some people, but if you look at the structure of the exam, only a handful of those topics are likely to be worth many points. Don't obsess over minor topics when you could be getting major topics down cold.
"Ms. Chancellor, you can go to ...," he said, pausing for effect and eliciting giggles from the audience, a group of military officers, cabinet ministers and government officials. "Because she's a woman I won't say anything else."
The leftist leader, who famously called U.S. President George W. Bush "the devil" at a United Nations assembly, slammed Merkel for calling on Latin American leaders to distance themselves from Chavez.
"She is from the German right, the same that supported Hitler, that supported fascism, that's the Chancellor of Germany today," he said.
Orin,
Are you seriously considering the comments here as possible topics for future posts, or are you just wasting commenters' time?
Here is my suggestion for a topic:
Should court opinions, scholarly journal articles (of course including law journal articles), etc. authoritatively cite blogs where comments and commenters are arbitrarily censored, considering that such blogs present only one side of controversial issues and are more likely to have uncorrected errors of objective facts? What about Wikipedia? This is a real issue -- blogs and Wikipedia are frequently authoritatively cited by such authorities.
Not true -- the state court trial of the four L.A.P.D. officers accused of using excessive force against Rodney King was by jury.
"She is from the German right, the same that supported Hitler, that supported fascism, that's the Chancellor of Germany today," he said.
Chavez says that *Konrad Adenauer's* party is the same people who "supported Hitler"? Odd. I wonder why Adenauer had to spend the war years hiding from the Nazis in monasteries. Or why Hitler finally threw him in a concentration camp.
Those silly Nazis. Persecuting and killing their SUPPOTERS! No wonder they lost the war!
It bears repetition, but my grandfather went to a World Series game at West Side park. In 1908. When the Cubs last won.
The men of this family have been waiting since then.
I can reassure you that this does not feel like The Year. Not enough comets in the skies.
As others have said, do BarBri and follow them to a 'T'. It's painful, but it works. Avoid being "creative" in your studying. Just learn the law, practice your essays, and practice the multiple choice.
One thing in particular worked for me: Because there is so much law to learn, that could potentially be on the exam, I spent a lot of time reviewing former exam essays that are provided with BarBri material. It was easy to spot the topics that are tested the most. Some were expected (such as hearsay). Others were surprising (such as defamation in torts). Then make a list of those topics and memorize a particular statement for each one that can be used in any essay that pertains to the topic (regardless of the actual fact pattern).
For example: "The actions taken by the police constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states that [verbatim quote]. This applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. There are several exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, including ___. Here, [the police obtained consent, the evidence was in plain view, there was an emergency, or whatever.]"
Practice, practice, practice.
Are you seriously considering the comments here as possible topics for future posts, or are you just wasting commenters' time?
Larry Fafarman continues to waste his life making obnoxious blog comments on the subject of blog comments. How sad. The man is obsessed, and suffers from delusions of grandeur. He needs medication.
Larry, Orin is wasting no one's time. People are commenting here because they enjoy it. And anyone who removes your blog comments is not acting arbitrarily. You bring it on yourself. You behave in an abusive fashion. It's not your blog, you silly man. Get a life.
Agree with the above advice. Barbri is a high priced racket but it works. Same with PMBR. To me the most valuable part is that they tell you how much time to spend on the obscure topics and what about them to know. I would plan on about 8 hours a day from when barbri starts. When I was burned out I would take a walk or do yard work and listen to law tapes.
I personally think the last 10 days are really important (and have seen smart people only focus for about 10 days but they had alot of unneeded stress.) The last 10 days have nothing else on your schedule. If you have a significant other tell them you will be very distracted this last 10 days but they can help by bringing you meals. The first 7 of these last 10 days should be intensive with a lot of focus on recent bar exams. The last 2 or 3 days should be low level -- on the order of 4 hours studying and memorizing the obscure rules (you should be down to a few pages of dense notes) -- the rest of the time reflecting.
On my mind -- I don't like any of the three candidates -- all big spenders. We are screwed 2008!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d0a842c3d2
How about having your colleague, Al Alschuler, as a guest blogger? He was my fav prof at U of C before he moved to NU. He might add a different perspective to some of the crim pro issues.
Unless they require payment far enough in advance for all checks to clear and for them to contact you infallibly concerning your eligibility before you show up for the test, they could be in the position of you showing up at the test and having to be turned away, forced to wait for the next date.
If they allow payment at the time of the test and merely withhold your score/accreditation until you pay the necessary fees, they are in the position of withholding your score/accreditation based on money alone. (Similarily for allowing you to take the test 'provisionally' until your check clears.)
In both cases they are on shaky ground in terms of civil rights, and they are dealing with that group of people who are the most likely to sue: lawyers. (And since they won't have passed the bar yet, they won't be able to represent themselves, they'll hire someone competent rather than being idiots.)
Now, the case would be ludicrous, but lots of ludicrous things happen in the courts. What if the prospect found out his scores during discovery, found out he didn't pass, and then dropped the case? Of course he won't pay. It goes on and on and gets silly and messy and more and more improbable.
Requiring a verified guaranteed payment up front cuts out all that trash.
Thanks Orin.
The curse of the Billy Goat, obviously!
Were the White Sox cursed? The Red Sox had the Curse of the Bambino, but we put more effort into reversing it: in fact, we even had our own "Reverse the Curse" ice cream, "Reverse Curve" on Storrow, a song by the Dropkick Murphy's, and other assorted superstitious nonsense. (I wouuld like to think that my family is personally responsible, having named their new boat "Sox Win it All" in March of 2004. We spent the entire summer getting heckled by Sox fans, who thought we were all delusional... but we were right. Ha!)
--
Diff Eq. isn't too bad - boring, if you can get over that. Complex Variables is, IMHO, a lot of fun. You'll have to spend a lot of time thinking about why it works, as opposed to running through problems, but it's pretty intuitive.
I see open threads primarily as an opportunity for reader feedback and self-expression. Specific blog posts sometimes result, and in fact one did result today. But that's not the goal.
When the Red Sox won the World Series, the terrorists won.
I think Judge Stahl's concern can be expanded to all photographic and video evidence. As Photoshop and other similar software packages become more and more mainstream (not to mention CGI for the manipulation of moving images), how do judges and jurors satisfy themselves as to the reliability of the evidence being presented?
Apparently you do not see the issue of arbitrary censorship on the Internet as a topic worthy of a blog post. For example, Wikipedia has been authoritatively cited by several hundred law journal articles and at least one hundred court opinions, yet Wikipedia's objectivity and reliability are seriously questioned today. I would say that is a pretty important legal issue. In contrast, a lot of David Bernstein's posts about Israel have nothing to do with the law. And look at how this comment thread is cluttered up with idle chatter about such things as baseball.
the anti-Larry driveled,
Wrong. My comments are censored even when they are serious, on-topic, and polite. It is persuasive comments that are arbitrarily censored -- the unpersuasive ones are allowed to stay to try to show that the opposition is weak.
The Internet had enormous potential to greatly expand our ability to exchange ideas -- too bad that potential has been sabotaged by jerks like yourself.