pageok
pageok
pageok
Haven't Had An Open Thread
in a while. What's on your mind?
mums (mail):
Waiting on the Drew ruling
4.12.2009 1:58pm
mattski:
4.12.2009 2:01pm
Wayne Jarvis:
This video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yREOUxo6Qdc
4.12.2009 2:04pm
oledrunk3 (mail):
Let us pay down this debt as we die the WWII debt. High progressive tax rates.
4.12.2009 2:16pm
oledrunk3 (mail):
Let us pay down this debt as we did the WWII debt. High progressive tax rates.
4.12.2009 2:16pm
Gilbert (mail):
I very much dislike the more and more common practice of closing comments in routine posts. For instance, I really don't think that political controversy should be a reason to close the comment thread. The question should be whether there is any legitimate discussion to be had about what the author is saying. For instance, if the author is just linking to an article somewhere else (as Eugene Volokh often does) comments will inevitably be about the article, not what the author has said, and should be turned off. Alternatively, when an author tries to write a balanced post on a controversial subject, the content of the author's arguments (as bland as they may seem to the author) should be the legitimate subject of discussion.

I acknowledge there is no a priori reason that comments should generally be open, but if they are invited in trivial posts they should be invited unless there is a good reason not to, and avoidance of dissention is not a good reason. There have been times when it seems like an author just wants to post something inflammatory without incurring the rejoinders, and turns the comments off for just that reason.
4.12.2009 2:30pm
PersonFromPorlock:
What would some good proposals be, that would never pass a legislature, that libertarians could successfully put before the voters as initiatives?

For instance, how about a point system for legislators? Each time a law voted for by a legislator is found unconstitutional, he's 'awarded' one point. Enough points and he's out of government employ for x years.
4.12.2009 2:35pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
On certain topics (usually involving certain authors), the comments will predictably turn out to be an embarrassment for the blog as a whole. I completely understand why the topics are closed. I think it's a mark in their favor that they didn't start with IP bannings of certain posters, but I guess they didn't want to be accused of viewpoint bias.
4.12.2009 2:47pm
MartyA:
I'm really excited about Sandy Berger finding a slot in the Obama administration!
4.12.2009 2:53pm
Federal Dog:
Waiting on Melendez-Diaz.
4.12.2009 3:10pm
Brubaker:
Shamwow guy rents hooker and instead of rendering services, bites him on the lip and won't let go. So he punches her and then gets arrested for battery. Travesty.

story here
4.12.2009 3:16pm
Comments:
I agree that comment threads becoming politically charged is not an inherently bad thing. However, far too often the comments here devolve to partisan bashing, and I have come to just tune out nearly any post that blames or praises "the right" or "the left" or "liberals" or "conservatives", etc. This blog is one of the most intelligently written legal blogs on the internet, but the comments are far too often an embarrassment.

Thoughtful discussion may be had without blaming one side or another, Bush or Obama, or various "agendas". I realize that the blog itself tends toward a certain political view, but at least the writers are generally able to present themselves intelligently and thoughtfully. That is, sadly, more than can often be said of the commentators.
4.12.2009 3:17pm
Hans Bader:
How about the Obama Administration's lying about a Supreme Court decision that it used as a political wedge issue in the 2008 election?

Or Obama's many broken campaign promises, such as his promises to implement a "net spending cut" and not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year (broken by his proposed budgets, which would double the already-massive projected deficits left over from Bush, and broken by his SCHIP excise tax increase and his massive proposed cap-and-trade carbon tax).
4.12.2009 3:18pm
BZ (mail):
Upcoming Supreme Court case: Horne vs. Flores, No. 08-289: does the 9th Circuit have the right to deny Rule 60(b)(5) relief from an injunction forcing the Arizona Legislature to appropriate more money for bilingual education.
4.12.2009 3:27pm
Cornellian (mail):
Why have Open Threads been so rare lately?
4.12.2009 3:39pm
J. Aldridge:
Wondering if a case of double jeopardy could be made in the case of that alleged nazi guard, John Demjanjuk, who seems always in the news. U.S. Govt argues he is someone called Ivan the Terrible. Israel supreme court concluded he is not and set him free after being found guilty to being the guard.

Although he wasn't tried in an American court, the U.S. was an indirect party. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
4.12.2009 3:57pm
J. Aldridge:
BZ: Horne vs. Flores is more federal madness resulting from Plyler. Court is way, way, overreaching here as they did in Plyler. As Burger put it, the 5 justices were just abusing the Fourteenth Amendment.
4.12.2009 4:00pm
OrinKerr:
J. Aldridge,

I don't see any constitutional problems unless you believe in a One World Government governed by a living breathing constitution.
4.12.2009 4:08pm
Cornellian (mail):
Aldridge says:

Wondering if a case of double jeopardy could be made in the case . . . John Demjanjuk . . . . U.S. Govt argues he is someone called Ivan the Terrible. Israel supreme court concluded he is not and set him free after being found guilty to being the guard.

Although he wasn't tried in an American court, the U.S. was an
indirect party. Anyone have any thoughts on this?


Then OK says:

I don't see any constitutional problems unless you believe in a One
World Government governed by a living breathing constitution.


No way can double jeopardy apply here, since it doesn't even apply as
between state acquittals and federal acquittals, let alone foreign
acquittals. The more interesting question is whether the U.S. being an
"indirect party" (whatever that is) means some type of issue
preclusion applies with respect to the factual findings of the Israeli
Supreme Court such that the U.S. could not contest them in a U.S. court.
4.12.2009 4:25pm
Alan K. Henderson (mail) (www):
I'm on the pavement, thinking about the government...
4.12.2009 4:33pm
Curt Fischer:
Profane's link is really interesting, but that is not the kind of police "misconduct" that usually comes to mind in the context of the drug war.
4.12.2009 4:34pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Why aren't Google or Yahoo! acknowledging Easter with something on their front pages?

(I already know why, of course)
4.12.2009 4:50pm
Cory J (mail):
Speaking of the Drew case, did anyone else catch this post at ProFootballTalk.com?

In sum: NFL teams are creating fake MySpace profiles of women, get potential draft picks to friend them, and then dig into the potential player's personal life. The PFT guy (a lawyer) says NFL teams are subjecting themselves to criminal liability.

The tone of the post is too unquestioning about the application, but it shows you how ridiculously far things can go.
4.12.2009 4:52pm
Profane (mail) (www):
Perhaps more "misconduct" will come to light, Curt, should we find out how the police got the search warrant in the first place.
4.12.2009 4:53pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Cornellian:

The more interesting question is whether the U.S. being an
"indirect party" (whatever that is) means some type of issue
preclusion applies with respect to the factual findings of the Israeli
Supreme Court such that the U.S. could not contest them in a U.S. court.


That is an interesting question. I wonder what the answer is....
4.12.2009 4:59pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Brian G:

Why aren't Google or Yahoo! acknowledging Easter with something on their front pages?


Because Easter Eggs and Rabbits will be patently offensive to True Christians(TM)?
4.12.2009 5:00pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Brubaker - the shamwow guy and the hooker both were arrested, according to your linked article, and neither will be formally charged. I think arresting both is the usual thing here. They're both lucky not to be charged with anything.

According to the Smoking Gun: "The affidavit, a copy of which you'll find here, notes that during the 4 AM fight Harris sustained facial fractures and lacerations all over her face...." I don't think they could have taken his word for what happened on the spot and arrested her only.
4.12.2009 5:04pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
My search engine of choice is Dogpile. Arfie(?) is all dressed up as a bunny and there are Easter eggs everywhere. Dogpile generally acknowledges days like Veteran's Day and Memorial Day.
4.12.2009 5:14pm
Terrivus:
When will someone come up with an appropriate counterpart to the phrases "vast right-wing conspiracy" or "right-wing attack machine"?

I can buy that for the last 15 or 20 years -- going back to Lee Atwater or before -- Republicans/conservatives have excelled at the "dirty tricks" kind of politicking. Throughout that time, the Democratic party was seen as the party of wusses that couldn't or wouldn't fight back.

But it certainly seems that in the last 2-3 years, left-wing groups and individuals now occupy this unpleasant space to a far greater degree than right-wingers. Whether it's the personal attacks on Sarah Palin and her family during the 2008 campaign, the retaliation taken toward supporters of Prop 8 in California (and concordant Mormon-bashing in the process), or the establishment of offices in the White House that perform opposition research and engage in organized media attacks against opponents of the administration's policies (e.g., Eric Cantor), it's the liberals -- the traditional "wimps" -- that now seem to be engaging in the most egregious conduct.

So when will we get a name to act as the liberal analog to the "vast right-wing conspiracy" or "right-wing attack machine," and what would or should it be?
4.12.2009 5:22pm
RPT (mail):
How about Hans Bader's assignment as resident anti-Obama ideologue? A new fiction story every week!
4.12.2009 5:25pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
1. Regarding the video Wayne Jarvis posts (youtube.com/watch?v=yREOUxo6Qdc), who exactly is "our" in "Stop Spending Our Future"? And, are they based in Wichita? (hint: lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch21.html)

2. A former WaPo editor supports comments here: peekURL.com/z61dcki

3. Bad comments start with bad posts. Good posts attract good commenters who don't fall into obvious traps by those who are only trying to throw up dust.

4. Perhaps as an actual genius, Eugene Volokh could let others know just how ineffective the tea parties will be and perhaps he could lead the charge to get Obama's opponents to do something that would actually be effective.
4.12.2009 5:39pm
Brubaker:
Laura:

My post and link was meant to be more in jest, though in retrospect I didn't really invest enough effort in it.
4.12.2009 7:16pm
Tflan (mail):
So what gives with MD passing a law basically appropriating the Preakness. Is the racetrack in bankruptcy yet? Does bankruptcy stop everything, even state action?
Isn't passing a law like that against the Constitution? Or something? Whatever it is, it's BS.
I shoulda paid more attention in ConLaw.
4.12.2009 8:05pm
Tflan (mail):
So what gives with MD passing a law basically appropriating the Preakness. Is the racetrack in bankruptcy yet? Does bankruptcy stop everything, even state action?
Isn't passing a law like that against the Constitution? Or something? Whatever it is, it's BS.
I shoulda paid more attention in ConLaw.
4.12.2009 8:05pm
R Gould-Saltman (mail):
Admittedly, I've been reading Niall Ferguson, and I'm in a gloomy mood, even though the Dow finished up a little, but here goes:

Is there a "prosperity gospel" ["religion"? "myth"? "irrational exuberance"?] which some substantial part of the American populace believes, or has been sold, and which has had a significant role in bringing us to the present economic . . .umm. . . unwinding. . . decline... catastrophe?

Does any other part of the industrialized world have as many folks offering therapy, business coaching, "life coaching", "prosperity training", and internet and infomercial "get rich overnight with foreclosed properties" schemes?

Is the basis for the success of the paycheck and tax refund loan biz as much the clients' (presently demonstrably usually false) belief that "things 'll get better for me if I believe they will; this is just a temporary setback" as it is the de-regulation of lending? How about the "liar's loan" refinance industry?

Is it fundamentally misleading to tell people "If you're good at doing X, then you should go into business for yourself doing X and success will follow"?

In 1929, the US still had vast untapped ingenuity, industrial, natural, and agricultural resources on which the economy could be rebuilt. Now, I'm concerned that, to crib from Neal Stephenson's "Snowcrash", the only things we may soon really excel at are movies, music, microcode, and delivery pizza. Oh yeah, and devising "financial services industry" vehicles, and other zany religions...

What can I suggest to my (bright and REALLY charming) 18 yr old college freshman kid, as a job path which is likely to bring him some modicum of success? Heck, when he started in Sept. '08, he wanted to get an undergrad degree in FINANCE....


SAID I was gloomy! I should go listen to some Mingus, then I'll be angry, instead!


r gould-saltman
4.12.2009 8:10pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
Brubaker - sorry for the humor deficit.
4.12.2009 8:13pm
ASlyJD (mail):
R Gould-Saltman:

Tell him to be a civil engineer. People will never stop needing roads and toilets.
4.12.2009 8:25pm
R Gould-Saltman (mail):
AslyJD: Actually, along about 1/10/09, I called him up (he's at Columbus) and said "You know, last I was there, Ohio State had a hell of a vet school! They'll ALWAYS need cow doctors! They'll need 'em in Wisconsin, they'll need 'em in Napa, they'll need 'em in Glasgow, they'll need 'em in Provence, Rome, Rio, and in Fukuoka!"
4.12.2009 8:43pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
For anyone else in the labor law biz, has there ever been a Supreme Court decision that so completely dodged the main practical and legal issues as did Pyett v. 14 Penn. Plaza?
4.12.2009 8:56pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Laura (and Brubaker),

Don't back down so quickly. Brubaker also misstated that Sham Wow guy was bit on the lip, when the article says it was his tongue. That's the kind of distortion of source material that gives the blogosphere a bad name.

(By the way, I don't think irony gets much richer than a prostitute clamping down on Sham Wow guy's tongue and refusing to let go.)
4.12.2009 9:06pm
ASlyJD (mail):
RGS, the only issue is that vet school is even harder to get into than med school. My aunt had to settle for med school as her second choice.

I discovered a couple years ago that switching majors from Architectural Engineering to BA history &BA chemistry prepared me only for a grad school. Hence the JD currently in progress. Fortunately, patents (and the people who write them) have been around 500+ years, so I can probably find a job when I graduate.

If not, I'll be changing my login to Capt. A Sly JD, JAG. :-) (ASlyJD is not a comment on my sneakiness, but my first initial, the phonetic version of my name, and my hopeful degree.)
4.12.2009 9:36pm
Cornellian (mail):
Astounding new policy by Amazon.com to delist books it deems "adult" from its ranking system, regardless of sales. Thus, for example, Lady Chatterly's Lover no longer shows up in the ranking system or on best seller lists, but Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are still there.

Here's one of many links I've noticed popping up on this issue:

http://www.edrants.com/amazonfail-a-call-to-boycott-amazon/
4.12.2009 10:18pm
Justin (mail):
Okay, I have a thought. I've noticed that when certain posters have something indefensible or slanderous to say, they don't enable comments, even when they typically so enable. Has it ever occurred to such posters that if they're concerned people are going to be so offended or shot down if they enable comments that rather than disabling comments they should....not actually make the post in the first place?
4.12.2009 10:36pm
krs:
Sanctimonious commenters suck. If you don't like something said here, start your own blog. If no one reads it, there's probably a reason for that--try becoming an expert in something and posting interesting things for 6 years. The sense of entitlement from some people is ridiculous. I understand that some posts seem to cry out (to some people) for a response, and some people feel this irrational duty to engage certain things on the internet. (This cartoon says it all, I think) But stop blaming your unsatisfied cravings on the posters here.
4.12.2009 11:09pm
krs:
...and yes, in very general terms, the posters who enable comments the least are often the ones who say the most disagreeable things, but nothing really follows from that--judge those people accordingly in your own mind and move on.
4.12.2009 11:12pm
krs:
and before reading the comments, I was vacillating between hating my job and being happy to have one in the first place. It would be interesting if more big firms were more forthright about the fact that despite their claims of "lean staffing" and "early responsibility," they mostly need warm bodies for the discovery mill. Perhaps that part of my brain is still in 2005.
4.12.2009 11:20pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Justin,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't David Bernstein the only Conspirator enabling comments on some threads and not others? And he only enabled a couple this weekend after a while of disabling all his threads. Maybe he didn't open the Massad thread to avoid criticism, but one of the threads he did open (re: Roger Cohen) was probably just as controversial. I don't see a pattern in two comments on, one off, to suggest the viewpoint motive you suggest assuming you are talking about Bernstein.

My guess is he opened the Friday threads because he saw Orin say that he wished his co-Conspirators would keep their comment threads open. And why he kept today's closed, who know? PMS? The Easter Parade? Maybe you're right and he doesn't feel like spending a couple of hours arguing. Anyway, my guess is just that, i.e., a guess. Isn't yours?
4.12.2009 11:31pm
Jim at FSU (mail):
I'm thinking about the awesome job market while I scan the headlines for new financial catastrophes.
4.13.2009 12:00am
Anon21:
I'm wondering what will be unexpected, strange, or challenging about my 1L experience, which begins in the fall. I've read around a bit about it, so I have some idea of what's ahead, but no doubt there are many surprises in store.

Anyone who's been to law school have advice about common errors I might avoid? I'm coming straight from college, so you can assume I'm generally pretty comfortable with my study habits and the academic routine.
4.13.2009 12:41am
TerrencePhilip:
Leo Marvin, sorry for jumping in, and I'm not presuming to speak for DB, but he pretty clearly said he was closing comment threads because there were so many trolls and personal attacks in his threads. The other day he left one open a few hours because he could be there to monitor comments. So I think he's only opening threads for comment when he has time to sit there and monitor all the comments.
4.13.2009 12:52am
TerrencePhilip:
Anon21,

check this link

http://volokh.com/posts/1219803266.shtml

which in turn links to more of Orin's wisdom on this subject.
4.13.2009 12:53am
Betty1:
I just saw that a prior power ranger actor has been sentenced to death in California for murder. Link

Odd.
4.13.2009 1:32am
Cornellian (mail):
Anyone who's been to law school have advice about common errors I might avoid? I'm coming straight from college, so you can assume I'm generally pretty comfortable with my study habits and the academic routine.

In my view, new law students typically make the mistake of not understanding what law school exams are about. They go in thinking it's like the history or poli sci or sociology exams they had in undergrad, write accordingly, then are shocked when the grades come out.

When the prof tells you "there are no right answers" on his exams he's not telling you the whole story. What he really means is that there are no right conclusions. There is, however, correct analysis in support of your conclusion and incorrect analysis in support of your conclusion and the latter will leave you with a bad grade.

Pay attention in class. If the prof spends three whole days talking about an issue, you know he thinks it's important, which means it's likely to be on the exam.

Learn how to write law school exams. Do it now, don't wait for December. It's an acquired skill, no one knows it intuitively and most people can learn it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that being prepared for class means you are prepared for the exam.
4.13.2009 1:34am
Leo Marvin (mail):
TerrencePhilip:

No need to apologize for jumping in. Actually, if I recall, Bernstein said he was closing his threads because he couldn't prevent certain trolls from returning via other internet addresses after he banned them. But I'm guessing someone who assumes Bernstein is motivated by a surreptitious agenda would be skeptical of that explanation.

More important, who does the commenting, Terrence or Philip?
4.13.2009 1:41am
Leo Marvin (mail):
Anon21,

To the question, "Should I study my professor's random musings or the actual law?" the answer is, "Yes." Don't assume anything. Get your professors' old tests and sample answers and do it early. You'll save a lot of time mastering stuff you'll never need to know.
4.13.2009 2:34am
Guesty McGuesterson:
I think the site should adopt an informal policy that any post that is closed to comments cannot be more than a paragraph. If you want to link to an ongoing debate or complex issue and don't want to deal with partisan bickering, fine. Yet Bernstein uses these posts to make a long-winded argument and then immunizes himself from any engagement that might undermine his position. I don't necessarily disagree with him (in fact, I'd probably be coming to his defense were there a comments section) but this kind of behavior makes VC look like a bully pulpit afraid of criticism. It cheapens this site. No-comment posts are ok, but keep them short, simple, and largely news- or outward-focused.
4.13.2009 3:21am
_quodlibet_:
Suppose the gov't can prove that a defendant either committed one crime or committed another, unrelated crime, but can't prove which one he committed. Does the defendant get out of jail free?
4.13.2009 3:40am
~aardvark (mail):
Bizarre Amazon.com practices

Actually, it's not so bizarre--at one point, in the 1990s, Blockbuster tried to reduce the number of movies that they had available with the rating of R or higher, because they were a "family oriented company". When the sales plummeted, they relented and reversed the policy.
4.13.2009 4:27am
David Schwartz (mail):
I seem to remember a Supreme Court holding in dicta where someone claimed double jeopardy and the ruling said that each sovereign had its own chance to vindicate its own laws since in that case there was no showing that either sovereign had unduly influenced the other's prosecution. This would seem to imply that in an extreme case (for example, one sovereign acting as the other's puppet) double jeopardy might apply. I don't remember the details, but maybe someone else will.
4.13.2009 6:09am
IPLawyer:
I am surprised there hasn't been more discussion about the summary judgment ruling in Golan v. Holder (holding that the URAA violated the First Amendment to the extent it restored copyright against parties who had relied on works in the public domain).

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6149

The implications of this case are dramatic. It's the first time a copyright statute has been held to violate the First Amendment.
4.13.2009 9:51am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Yep, these people presuming to set rules about when Mr. Bernstein should be "allowed" to close comments are exactly the reason I think he's right to close them.

Grow up, people.
4.13.2009 10:33am
Justin (mail):
No, Bernstein isn't the only one who does it. I can think of 2 more who do it regularly.
4.13.2009 10:54am
Tugh (mail):
I think the major reason Bernstein closes his comments is because he cannot stand the scrutiny and criticism of his logic, and, on occasion, his version of facts. This is just my subjective opinion, of course.

For example, in his most recent post, Bernstein asserted, with a qualifier, that the Israeli Supreme Court allows moderate physical pressure in exigent circumstances. But this is plainly untrue. The Israeli Supreme Court in a famous decision in 1999 outlawed the use of "moderate physical pressure" specifically because it found that it either is torture or quickly degenerates into torture. Mr. Bernstein will be well served to actually read the decision.

With regard to substance of his post, I, like Justice Ginsburg, cannot understand what is so wrong with consulting international law; much like judges consult law reviews, on occasion. I submit that one of the reasons why Mr. Bernstein does not like it is because much of the jurisprudence of the civilized word is contrary to Mr. Bernstein's beliefs.
4.13.2009 10:56am
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Could we get a thread or series of threads on health law or health care reform-related topics? It seems that the only time the topic gets brought up is in the context of discussing medical malpractice and/or tort reform and that's such a small part of it.
4.13.2009 11:18am
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):

To the question, "Should I study my professor's random musings or the actual law?" the answer is, "Yes." Don't assume anything. Get your professors' old tests and sample answers and do it early. You'll save a lot of time mastering stuff you'll never need to know.



Agreed, also if the professor doesn't have any old tests available, use google to try to locate exams on the subject by other professors at other law schools. At the very least it can help you to become familiar with spotting issues and reading a law school exam but sometimes you might also have a professor who doesn't think twice about "borrowing" an exam from a law professor from a different school, changing the names while preserving the same fact pattern, and passing it off to their students as their own on exam day.
4.13.2009 11:20am
xyzzy:
Following up on Professor Kerr's post here at the beginning of this month, “Senate Legislation Would Federalize Cybersecurity”. . .

Yesterday, Steven M. Bellovin (Columbia) posted a critique of the Snowe-Rockefeller Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773). Professor Bellovin's criticism of the Snowe-Rockefeller bill is worth reading.

Professor Bellovin is recognized in network security and engineering communities.
4.13.2009 12:10pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
xyzzy:

Bellovin's bit is quite worth reading. Thanks.
4.13.2009 1:41pm
ChrisTS (mail):
I'm still trying to suss out the dig (?) at Google and Yahoo for failing to do anything re Easter.

Much as I appreciated einhverfr's point about the pagan symbols, I still don't know what the snark was supposed to be. Are Google and Yahoo anti-christian? Pro-something else? I'm pretty sure Google had several days of quasi-christmas stuff in December.
4.13.2009 4:47pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Google/Yahoo seem to have a special logo for every bizarre holiday you can think of, yet they conspicuously miss a few big ones. I don't pay much attention, but it's my understanding they skip memorial day/veteran's day every year. The real question is why, and for the people who bring it up, it's also rhetorical.
4.13.2009 4:54pm
ASlyJD (mail):
It's also possible that a global company might not want to acknowledge holidays that have different dates. After all, Easter is next Sunday for millions.

It would be cool to have a little Moses raising his arms and separating the o and g in Google for Passover sometime.
4.13.2009 5:15pm
ChrisatOffice (mail):
ASlyJD
It's also possible that a global company might not want to acknowledge holidays that have different dates. After all, Easter is next Sunday for millions.


Ahh, that makes sense - although the snark still does not.

It would be cool to have a little Moses raising his arms and separating the o and g in Google for Passover sometime.

Just so long as they don't follow it up with the Pharoah's army being crushed by the waters.
4.14.2009 3:41pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Looks like there is a case in Boston that is starting to look eerily similar to US v. Lori Drew.....

The warrant application is worth reading.....
4.14.2009 7:14pm
Gilbert (mail):
@Anon21


Anyone who's been to law school have advice about common errors I might avoid? I'm coming straight from college, so you can assume I'm generally pretty comfortable with my study habits and the academic routine.


The most important piece of advice I have is to remember that they are teaching you to be a lawyer, not a judge -- ie. to be able to generate compelling arguments for two contradictory points of view. A lot of times people get hung up on finding the 'right' answer. Even though lawyers of different perspectives might candidly agree on a given question, for purposes of law school exams if you can't come up with an argument against what you think is the 'right' answer, you should try again.
4.15.2009 5:30pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.