Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Law School

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Law School
BoonDockSaint
Member
Member # 279

 - posted      Profile for BoonDockSaint   Email BoonDockSaint   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just thought i would drop in and say hi. I am in law school now and i thought i would tell you guys a bit about it. Most specifically contract law and tort law.

ITS TOTAL BULLSHIT.

It's very obvious from reading the decisions that the lawyer with the better bullshit won the case almost every time. I was getting more and more distressed the more i convinced myself that this was the case, so i stopped studying for a midterm and decided to go in and bullshit my way through it instead of actually going by my outline. I got the best comments on the bullshit midterm.


Posts: 1094 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BDS,

So great to see you back on the board. Check out the OrneryCon II thread as to when the next get together is.

msquared


Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BoonDockSaint
Member
Member # 279

 - posted      Profile for BoonDockSaint   Email BoonDockSaint   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will be in Nice, France taking comparitive con. law from Antonin Scalia, but i hope you guys have a great time.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oh god... he's gonna be corrupted already *Grin*
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BoonDockSaint
Member
Member # 279

 - posted      Profile for BoonDockSaint   Email BoonDockSaint   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gonna Be? I've already been corrupted. US v Oakland Cannibis Buyers Coop. in which SCOTUS ruled a med. nec. defense can't be used when legislature has specifically precluded it even though the defense was specifically created to go against legislature was one of the good ones.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No no, I meant, antonin scalia... man, learning from him would be a nightmare.

my prejudices are showing.

Anyrate, I love law. Its fascinating stuff.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BoonDockSaint
Member
Member # 279

 - posted      Profile for BoonDockSaint   Email BoonDockSaint   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it is quite interesting. i think the funniest part is how all these students read these cases and try and figure out how to make every case work with every other case, instead of just reading it, spotting the BS and then figuring out which BS the prof likes the best.

Learning from Scalia might be a nightmare, but putting a class from him on my resume might not be.


Posts: 1094 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is true. lol. And at any rate, it should be interesting. Even disagreeing on most of what he does, it would be fascinating to figure out how his mind works.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love hearing from people on the inside, especially lawyers. So please, BDS, continue with this thread.

It would help me, though, if you could define BS more precisely. I know of several types of BS that could apply. The BS of talking about something you know nothing about. The BS of starting with erroneous principles and then making logical arguments from them. The BS of taking good principles and making good-sounding but illogical arguments from them. And, of course, the ever-popular BS of using all three at once.

So which type of BS are you referring to? And please provide examples. Nothing is more fascinating than listening to both sides of a Supreme Court argument, because both sides usually make a good case. Issues that make you think are always interesting.


Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BoonDockSaint
Member
Member # 279

 - posted      Profile for BoonDockSaint   Email BoonDockSaint   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I love hearing from people on the inside, especially lawyers. So please, BDS, continue with this thread.

I am still in law school, so take all of this with a grain of salt.

So far, the most prevalent I have seen is the third kind. Common law builds on itself, and the root principles are generally pretty good. The more egregious the crime, the better the logic it seems. However, in contract law and tortious negligence, the issues are so gray that the logic always sounds good. It is hard to pick a side as the morally right side to support, and therefore almost any decent sounding argument rings true. Because of this, the gray cases make law that are precedent for obvious cases and sometimes force those obvious cases to be decided unjustly.

examples:
Necessity is an affirmative defense (def has the burden of proof). It can be raised when the def chooses to do a lesser evil instead of a greater evil, and those were his only two choices. It basically says the defendant gets to break the law because his only other choice was a worse crime. The black lady who refused to move from her seat on the bus raised the necessity defense (forgot her name).

In State v Oakland Cannabis Buyers Coop. SCOTUS said you can't raise med. nec. defense for drug laws because the legislature has already determined that taking drugs is worse than the suffering that those drugs might end. There are apparently (and i found this very surprising) a certain amount of ills that marijuana provides a large amount of relief from, which is exactly the kind of situation that necessity should be raised in, and yet they have precluded the defense because the war on drugs is more important to the legislature than ending those people's suffering. the logic is alot more convoluted than what i have laid out here and it is hard to explain without just reading the case.

Another surprising fact my teacher let us in on during the discussion of this case: the three largest supporters of the anti-marijuana lobby are the lumber industry, the cotton industry, and some columbian businessman lobby.


Posts: 1094 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1