Gun control = TTT

Why should anyone have to apply to exercise their constitutional rights? What a tool...

The Washington Times and its readers are both jokes of the least amusing variety.

SECOND!.......Amendment!

The commenter in the Times has it right. It's only a matter of time before the "application" phase is unconstitutional. You can make it illegal for felons and crazies to have guns without requiring everyone to submit DNA, Blood, SSN and anything else to make sure everyone that has a gun is "allowed". We don't make people register to profess their displeasure with the government in their own home. Why does having a gun in the home require permission?

That flashing blue-and-white banner on the frontpage is terrible! It feels like open season on epileptics every time I load the page.

DC's Gun Grabbing Government = TTT

I'd like to see DC regulate the right to assembly as much as they regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is NOT TTT

Times reader = idiot.

Most states that allow possession of a concealed handgun require some sort of registration and/or licensure. All these gun fanatics think the government will 'use' the information to ferret out handgun owners.

I own handguns. I registered them. I shoot them at firing ranges. If someone broke into my house, I would shoot them with my registered handgun.

Again, what's the problem here?

Washington TTTimes

amirite????

Lat, your comment is wrong. Insinuating that he might go on a shooting rampage at Skadden? C'mon, man! Retract that shit.

The Times commenter is the true tool here.

He states: "What part of "shall not be infringed" does this aspiring lawyer NOT understand?"

Since when are Constitutional rights absolute because of such language? The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make NO LAW . . . abridging the freedom of speech," yet last time I checked such laws are legion (and Constitutional). I'm assuming the commenter would not want an exception to murder laws for those who choose to blow other people's brains out as an expression of their hate for that person.

My how fast and far ATL has fallen. This is a post about a comment to a post on another blog site.

1:08 -- TITCR.

The Second Amendment = TTT

Pray...for...mojo

What school does this kid go to?

www.t14law.blogspot.com

My guess...Penn (state)

1:08: presumably, an advocate of such strict construction wouldn't buy into the concept of symbolic speech, either. put another way, watch who you call a tool.

Someone should email Lat about the Skadden summer story mentioned in the update, sounds juicy.

The Times reader is an idiot. Marriage, for example, is a fundamental right, but in pratice may only be exercised en masse under the instruction of the Washington Times's owner, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Quite copying me 1:12

pray... for... 1:27...

Requiring licensure for concealed weapons is a far cry from the lengths DC is going to impede people from owning a gun in their home. If you read ALL of Scalia's opinion, then it's quite obvious the difference. It is only because Heller asked for a license (probably as a litigation tactic) that the Court said DC should issue him a license.

What is Skadden?

1:15: But an advocate of strict constructionism wouldn't learn to be that way by studying harder in law school, as the Times commenter suggests. As you no doubt know, Constitutional law is all about balancing fundamental rights with legitimate government interests. So, the commenter's accusation that the Skadden summer is somehow not paying attention in law school because he has failed to take a strict constructionist view of the second amendment is off base.

to anyone who knows:

I am around top 15% at a lower T14 w/ secondary journal. what firms should I be looking at this fall (NYC only)?

GW Law will no doubt protest this guy for not being as liberal as 99.99% of their student body. Their SBA will no doubt condemn his application as being against the bleeding heart lifestyle of GW Law.

1:53,

Doesn't your school put together a list of what GPAs get offered at what firms?

1:57 - yes, just wondering whether the secondary journal (i.e. no law review) will change things at all. any insight?

1:53 - have your pick of storefront ambulance chasers on Queens Boulevard !

1:53,

Not really. Sorry. Good luck.

1:57

i want to know the skadden NYC story. i have been dissappointed with this summers aroudn country for their good behavior.

Agree with 1:08(1). Lat's comments about this kid being prone to shoot people at work are really, really inappropriate.

Use some judgment, for hell's sake. It's one thing for the guy to be quoted in a newspaper article. It's another for a widely read blog to impute violent, irresponsible behavior tendencies to him just because he is *doing something legal*. Really poor showing here.

More important than any of this gun nonsense is the fact that this summer associate has not taken to heart one of the golden rules of being a Biglaw associate: do not talk to the press! Ever, about anything! The PR dogs don't like having the firm's name linked to your name saying something even mildly controversial. Stupid, kid.

Agree with 1:08(1). Lat's comments about this kid being prone to shoot people at work are really, really inappropriate.

Use some judgment, for hell's sake. It's one thing for the guy to be quoted in a newspaper article. It's another for a widely read blog to impute violent, irresponsible behavior tendencies to him just because he is *doing something legal*. Really poor showing here.

Oh c'mon, I may not share the politics of the Times guy but I mean seriously, pot meet kettle. That guy wrote in the exact same language that everyone uses here. GW -> "law school" = LOL!

I love how 2d Amend fetishists become so PC-demanding when talking about gun owners.

"I should be able to refer to my female colleagues as 'girls' without offending anyone if I mean no harm, but don't you dare ever insinuate my gun is a weapon associated with workplace violence!"

I didn't know the Washington Times had readers.

2:15, let's see how you would react if a widely-read trade blog names you and insinuates that you might shoot up your workplace, and tells your bosses to 'consider themselves warned'.

Anyone who would apply for a gun license merely to prove a point is an unabashed tool.

So should I go impregnate some chick just to prove my sperm works?

Whn this guy gets to Skadden, someone please place upright thumb tacks on his ergonomically designed swivel chair. Many thanks,

"So should I go impregnate some chick just to prove my sperm works?"

Yes.

What I want to know, as a GW alum, is what, exactly, he needs to protect himself from in Foggy Bottom? Drunk sorority girls? Bad fashion trends? Long Island accents? Because those are really, truly, the biggest threats in that neighborhood.

Skadden will probably non-offer this guy for being a "right-wing gun nut"

What is with these comments? It's not like the Heller decision was logically necessary. Justice Berger said that Scalia's opinion (and the judgment) wouldn't have received a single vote on his court. It's a radical decision that goes against the majority understanding of the 2nd Amendment that's held forever. And one reason there's been more regulation of guns than the right to assembly (though it's not like that's not regulated too) is that the first amendment doesn't have a limiting, purposive clause.

I guess only the Federalists showed up to work today.

3:39, this guy clearly is a right-wing nut. He was among the first people to pick up a gun application. Not because he (or anyone) actually needs a gun; just because he fetishizes the second amendment. That makes you a right-wing nut, sorry.

Lat, nice touch on the numbering for the comments.

3:39 -- yes and yes. there's still hope for the kid, though. unlike others who apparently have second amendment fetish problems -- among many, many others: http://www.bitterlawyer.com/index.php/columns_detail_comment/you_know_its_time_to_call_a_headhunter_when/?cat_id=6

"Justice Berger said that Scalia's opinion (and the judgment) wouldn't have received a single vote on his court. It's a radical decision that goes against the majority understanding of the 2nd Amendment that's held forever. "

Precisely. And the "punumbra of rights" from which the mythical abortion right was derived is entirely plausible.

Its amazing that for 200 years the Court ignored the plain language of the Second Amendment but meanwhile concocted such ethereal rights as -- the right of children of illegal immigrants to free public education, or the right of women to kill their unborn babies, or the right of foreign enemy combatants to habeus corpus...the list goes on.

Only crazy people post comments. Wait -- where am I?

3:37,

FYI: There has been a spate of muggings (3) involving pistol-whipping in the alleys off of 25th Street. The weekly police blotter usually includes one or two "robbery (gun)" incidents around M Street. I'd be willing to bet the possibility of meeting a guy with a concealed 1911 would go a long way toward stopping such incidents, or at least drive them back to SE.

Those muggings have been in Georgetown, really, and also there's a difference between having a gun b/c you need protection, and having one so you can be stupid and wander the alleys with impunity.

Hewes Mewes, Queen Annes, and Snow's Court are not "in Georgetown, really." Nor would I consider walking through alleys in Foggy Bottom to be stupid. Plenty of undergrad, law, and med students live in townhouses or apartments along all-of-the-above. Hell, UPD reported 48 FORCIBLE BURGLARIES on campus alone in 2006, the last year data is available. See http://gwired.gwu.edu/upd/Statistics/CrimeStatistics/

#53

I got a gun b/c I worry about forcible fondling.

"SASMF partners, consider yourselves warned: Jordan Schwartz won't take crap assignments."

Lat - seriously - this is really inappropriate. Please show some decency and edit.

4-RIDE BRO.

#49, wrong. Scalia ignores the plain language of the Second Amendment. You know, the beginning part that goes, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . ."

But the "original intent" of George fucking Washington was for five year-olds to run around with missile-launchers, right?

Attention on the thread:

1. DC will never let anyone concealed carry or take gun outside their house for any reason, so forget about (a) stopping muggers or (b) workplace violence.

2. DC's new "license" system is just as unconstitutional as the old one.

3. According to the Constitution, government powers are limited. Rights are not limited. Therefore, if a court wants to make up an unenumerated right, or expand an enumerated right, I'm all for it. Burger's crew just forgot that unborn children are persons and have rights (e.g., not to be killed, similar the right that 6-month olds have). Making up gov't powers is much less cool, though done all the time so I guess we can't stop it.

Where in the constitution does it say that a 2 month old, centimeter-long ball of cells is a "person"? I don't remember that part. I thought you people were supposed to be literalists.

That rights/powers argument is absurd when you try to expand it to a generality, #58. So if the Court invents a right to kill indiscriminantly that's better than it saying the federal government has the power to levy an income tax? Wait, don't answer that -- I forgot this board has been overrun by federalist society nutjobs.

Huh, 6:29? Where does it say you're a person? Or that a woman's a person?

Abortion puts a lot conservatives on the wrong side of liberty and unenumerated rights because they can't get over Roe v. Wade. They'll say, "Where did they get the right to privacy from?"

I want my right to privacy and all my other rights. I just see that my rights end at your nose- or in the case of a baby, at the baby's life.

6:33, you're sounding like a nutjob by saying that the court might give people a right to kill but not levy an income tax . . .

Oh, wait, you can kill babies without a constitutional amendment but you did need one to levy income tax. My bad.

#60: As for FedSoc types taking over ATL, know that it's just because it's anonymous and we can afford to speak freely without getting run right out of our offices in liberal bubbles like DC, SF and NYC (that vote 90% democrat).

But if you moved to Oklahoma you'd have the privilege of being the radical. This is a big country. We're cats and dogs, living together.

Thanks 61. My point is I don't think you actually need a right to privacy to get a right to abortion. I think it's enough to say as a scientific and philosophical matter a first-trimester fetus is not a person, and therefore has no rights. Do what you will with it. Who cares?

No, #62, it was #58 who suggested it was fine to grant invented rights but not expand government power. This was a reducto ad absurdem. BTW, you can't kill babies in this country - infanticide is illegal. Unconscious, non-cognitive balls of cells are another story. Do you not have the right to masturbate because sperm contains genetic material that might one day constitute part of a person? Drawing the line at consciousness and viability makes absolute sense.

You're missing the point, #64. The Federalist project is to invent a whole new set of rights for a set of non-persons (i.e., mindless balls of cells). They hide the fact that they are seeking to invent new constitutional rights by pretending to be outraged by the derivation of a privacy right (because conservatives HATE to have privacy), which they contend is a horrible invention of a new constitutional right, which is the worst, most "activist-judge" thing anyone could ever do. It's a standard, one might say Rovian, method of argument -- project your own weak point onto your opponent and attack. Unsurprisingly, it's all result-oriented and has nothing to do with the "original intent" or the text of the constitution or any generally applicable principle (other than, somewhat ironically, the general belief that the government should be able to have control over people's lives (whether by denying a right to privacy or granting rights to non-persons in a way that restricts the rights of persons).

I go to school with Mr. Schwartz - he is one of the biggest gunners ever. With his "Skadden" personality and inability at normal social interaction, its no wonder he is so scared that he feels like he needs a gun - and that to in Foggy Bottom. The only danger in this neighborhood is that some spoilt brat of a GW undergrad (I think Jordan was an undergrad at this "most expensive school in the country") accidentally fires off his gun while pulling his roller bag around (yes he owns one of those)!

Cravath associates have no need for guns as, by virtue of being "Cravath Material," are gifted in the arts of muy tai, Capoeira and kung fu.

I also had class with Schwartz. I found this post funny because in my time in law school I never met anyone as much of a gunner as him--not even close. He was relentless, and never quite understood that professors also get annoyed with dbaggery.

Please - "something" happened in New York? Gone fishing much, Lat? You're pathetic.

Wait, let me get this straight...you're making fun of him because (1) he followed the law and applied for a permit, and (2) the press misquoted him and because the Washington Times (that Nazi rag) made him look bad?

Comments 67 and 69, I assume that you're just jealous that he's working at a real law firm while you're forced to chase ambulances. Enjoy.

- Fellow Skadden DC summer

And what about the 9th Amendment?

Hey, a few more years of abortion and birth control will take care of the whole "liberals having a democratic majority" problem, so please go ahead. I'm keeping my kids and raising them to be right-wingers.

Love,

FedSoccer

71 - I'm at a top 10 firm that has amazing work and isn't a sweatshop, so I'm neither jealous of him nor you. If you're going to fault me for anything it should be publicly disparaging a student while remaining anonymous--not the coolest I admit. But it's just too easy here, because we're talking about the absolute worst gunner. Ever.
-69

69 -

There's nothing quite like buying into the rumors and thinking that Skadden is a sweatshop. How many billable hours does your firm average (Skadden DC is roughly 2000-2100)? And how about that bonus (Skadden was 45k last year)? Can it match Skadden's (probably not)? Ohh right, you're a non-gunner at GW Law so you're probably at Shearman.

If you think Jordan is a gunner, you've clearly never talked to him. He's the type of guy who will do everything to make sure he's doing well, but not at the expense of others. Not once have I felt that he was being competitive with me. Not once have I thought that he was doing things that hurt others for his own gain. Heck, I know he even took his secretary out to lunch. Have you done that?

Perhaps before judging Jordan, you should ask yourself why you feel the need to disparage him (on Above the Law of all places) in the first place.

Finally, ask yourself if Jordan has ever done anything to directly harm you. If the answer is yes, reveal yourself and we can have a real chat.

- 71

71 -
You make good points, except a couple silly assumptions, for example that I've "clearly never talked to him." Indeed I have. And that I work at Shearman. Really? You can tell where someone works based on what school they go to?

That said, while you're assumptions are wrong perhaps your frustrations are coming from the right place. This post is a personal attack, and just because Jordan wants to make a statement about carrying a gun in DC doesn't make him a gunner, nor does it justify this attack. I commented simply to verify the accuracy of the post -- he is a gunner. He has made classes annoying. He might be a heck of a guy, but from one perspective, mine, the post is accurate. Does that justify a public personal attack? Probably not. So you would be correct to express your frustrations at a post -- and I concede, my comment -- that comes at the expense and embarrassment of another person, even if it is true.

That is great you can expect such a wonderful work-life balance at Skadden Arps. Good luck to you.
-69

69 -

First off, you're right that I've made assumptions. Whether they are fair or not, I cannot know. After all, you won't reveal yourself. You're willing to attack Jordan time after time, but if you're at a top 10 law firm at GW, chances are that you fit under the "gunner" category yourself.

Second, Jordan raises his hand in class and talks to his professors. Since he's spending $50k a year for his legal education, I think making the most of it is probably a good idea. If this makes class "annoying" for you, perhaps you should take other classes.

I will enjoy my life at Skadden. Thanks.

- 71

And chances are 71 is a douche. Perfect for Skadden.
-78

78 -

Fair enough. But I'm a douche that takes care of his fellow summer associates.

- 71

The first part of the second amendment is obviously declarative and not limiting or purposive. It doesn't say "if, and only if, a well regulated militia is necessary . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms FOR THE MILITIA . . . ". It should obviously be read as "BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary . . . the right of the people to keep and bear ams . . . (no qualification)". The drafters felt at the time that it was important to declare that a well regulated militia was necessary and that that is why they created the right for the people. That may or may not be true today, but if it is no longer true then the constitution should be amended. It doesn't change the fact that the drafters created the right for the people because they felt a well regulated militia was necessary, and the reason they created the right does not mean you can ignore the right because you don't believe the reason for it still exists.

To put it another way, if the first amendment would have been drafted to say "#45, being an asshole, the right to free speech shall not be infringed" it wouldn't mean that you can infringe on the right to free speech if you don't think #45 is an asshole.

I know this dude he's a Dean's fellow at GW and is massively chilled and nice. Back the fuck off him, douches!

***** ADVICE ON DOJ HONORS PROGRAM *****

Does anyone have advice from inside DOJ on how to get a job in AG's Honors Program?

I am a top graduate (top 20% & "cum laude"), from a first tier law school in DC (American University, Washington College of Law), was even on a journal (not the LR, thou), and received the "high 'A'" in three relevant classes during law school (including federal courts, legal writing, and civ pro). I got rejected my first time applying from the honors program originally, but then got a clerkship in a prestigious federal court in the south with a well-regarded mag. judge. My judge thinks that I should reapply pot-clerkship.

Dilemma: Only problems are that i interned for the Public Defender's office in law school (some say that tags me a "liberal", but I think its ok) and I also interned for what many people would call a "liberal" legal service organization. Any thoughts on whether its easier to get a job there now? Does the fact that i clerk for a federal judge give me a greater chance to stick out in the crowd? Any thoughts (especially from DOJ-insiders) is most appreciated.

Thank you for your help,
AU Alum / fed. clerk

#83:

Here are the problems, as I see them:

1. You went to a TTT law school.
2. You proceeded to take a TTT clerkship.

Nothing about your resume says "honors." My advice is that you should try to start over as a first year at Thelen or Heller, who might be desperate enough to hire you.

As for the liberal tags on your resume, nothing's going to tag you harder than going to American WCL, so you may as well just embrace it. If you go to a Cali office of Thelen or Heller you might be able to moonlight at one of those medicinal marijuana shops.

Hope that helps,

#84

Ha, you just got trolled, 84. Nobody would actually come on ATL to brag about a magistrate clerkship, or being on a journal at AU.

Everybody knows the only first tier schools in DC ar GW, GULC and Mason.

Dear 83,

You failed to mention that your law school has graduated many "distinguished" lawyers, like, umm, ok nevermind.

(1) Bragging about being "top 20% & 'cum laude'" at American University is like winning an honorable mention at the Special Olympics.

(2) Pointing out that you "w[ere] even on a journal (not the LR, thou [sic]" at American University is something that you can brag to your parents about (but only if they are non-lawyers, or are TTT grads themselves).

(3) Mentioning that you earned "'high 'A['s]'' in three relevant classes" is like when 50 Cent boasted that he "had been shot a few times, and now [he] walks with a limp" (i.e., nothing to be proud of).

(4) Bragging that you work for a "prestigious federal court in the south" (what -- W.D. Tenn. or S.D. Ala. or some other po-dunk town) is almost as retarded as your statement, that you Article I boss, is "a well-regarded mag. judge." So naive.

(5) Not sure what you mean when you write that your "judge thinks that [you] should reapply pot-clerkship." -- I'll let your unintelligable comment stand on its own.

My advice -- if you want to work for the government, seek a job at the local worker's comp. office. I hear that the hours are great!

Sincerely,

# 85

5:06 PM (aka 83) --

I'm not an insider, but I can offer my lay advice. Join the Federalist Society, donate to McCain's campaign, note your Federalist Society / McCain ties on your resume, and pray that no one on the hiring committee realizes that you went to a TTT law school and clerk for a TTT judge in a TTT judicial district.

Good luck!

84 -87,

83 here. I am not bragging about attending AU (if I was accepted at a higher-ranked DC-area law school, I certainly would have attended the better school). I also am not bragging about clerking for an Article I judge rather than for an Article III judge (if I obtained a job from a district court judge, I probably would have taken), and I am not bragging about my rank (20% of my class did better than me, after all). I am simply soliciting advice on getting into the Honors Program.

I am not trying for the Solicitor's Office and I am not looking for a job with Office of Legal Counsel. I am looking to get a foot in the door of a litigating component (not appellate, trial), and I know that less-qualified (or at least applicants with similar qualifications) have been accepted. SERIOUS ADVICE WELCOME.

# 83.

83 -- lie and say you graduated from Chicago Law.

83, don't reply to people who are obviously pulling your card. It encourages us - er, them.

Try an exec dept other than DOJ and Treasury, like HUD or Interior, that has to litigate all the time.

If you're DOJ or bust and want to litigate/prosecute, try the office of the U.S. Trustee. They prosecute bankruptcy fraud and they have regional offices, so you might be able to interview somewhere they've heard of your judge.

Okay, that's as much honest help as I can give you.

*puts mask back on*

You're TTT and you'll never make it.

Sincerely,

T14

83 & 88: sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you!

83 / 88,

In sticking with the theme of 90's fully post, I will offer you some serious advice before making fun of your TTT credentials.

There are several litigating arms of DOJ (civil, crim, antitrust, environment, immigration, and a few others). Aside from SG's and OLC's office and a few other positions which you aren't interested in, the litigating departments are the hardest to get into. Try to get your foot in the door through a non-litigating division (like BOP or EOIR) and then transfer to a litigating position, or, like poster 90 suggested, through local or HQ US Trustee's Office. Also, there are other litigating departments and agencies -- so try a DOJ client agency, get to know the smart folks at DOJ, and beg them for a job.

Haven't spent enough time giving you serious advice, I feel I have earned the right to make fun of your TTT Credentials. You will not get hired at DOJ (you worked for a TTT judge and went to a TTT law school), and, if you are lucky, you will get a job working in insurance defense, as a contract attorney. Also, I make lots of money in big law and probably will bang your wife, your mother, and your sister. Also, you have Herpes.

GOOD LUCK, Pal !!!

83 is so naive. What a moron -- and, like 92, I heard 83 has herpes.

If Barack HUSSAIN Obama becomes president, he will fill career positions at DOJ with liberals who clerked for magistrates!

John McCain in 2008.

If Barack HUSSAIN Obama becomes president, he will fill career positions at DOJ with liberals who clerked for magistrates!

John McCain in 2008.

If Barack HUSSAIN Obama becomes president, he will fill career positions at DOJ with liberals who clerked for magistrates!

John McCain in 2008.

Yes he can.

The only people who will beat AU grad's for spots in an Obama DOJ are the former Gitmo detainees he's going to waive into the bar to be his civil rights guys.

AU is a great school. I'm not claiming that its a Harvard. But it really is no different -- from the perspective of its ability to train lawyers and the jobs its graduates obtain -- than GW.

GULC and UVA are a step above, but aside from those two schools, GW is equal to other area law schools (and better than many, including Maryland, Baltimore, Mason, Catholic, Howard, UDC, etc.).

And lots of AU grads hold top positions at the Justice Department, and so I am sure that a qualified candidate like poster 83 (honors, journal, law clerk with a fed. judge) can get a job there.

AU Grad / former DOJ intern / Biglaw Cog

Poster #98 is a GULC-reject, an AU hippie, and a douche.

Your boss,
GULC, 2001

Hi, GULC 2001 here!
Forgot to mention I have a Tiny Penis. I now pay Bob from the Enzyte commercials to bang my wife while the pills rev up my system.

GW = Georgetown Waitlist

AU = February signups

I didn't know district court judges hired law clerks. WTF?

- 9th Cir. Clerk

#57 said "#49, wrong. Scalia ignores the plain language of the Second Amendment. You know, the beginning part that goes, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . ."'

And you ignore the second part, which says:

".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note that the second part applies to the "people"'s right to bear arms in order to be in the position to form the "well regulates Militia" or which the Second Amendment speaks. Had the drafters intended the right to apply only to the Militia members, it surely would have said so. Rather, they plainly and clearly intended that it apply to the "people", you know.....US.

Not to mention that Scalia thoroughly analyzed the two clauses of the amendment and their relationship to one another. Not exactly "ignoring."
Better a gun nut than an ignorant stooge.