first?

I've heard more support for eliminating a year of law school rather than adding a year,

It's Ginsburg, Elie.

Elie, start paying attention--that's just unacceptable.

No wonder no one has recommended me... I thought it was complete lack of experience.

Ginsburg's stereotyping about gender belies her bigotry.

Dreier in front of Rakoff getting sentenced right now. Max is 145. What's the over/under?

Better than what? What does that first sentence even mean?

51

Can you guys even triforce?

▲
▲ ▲

There is no liberal "answer" to Scalia, because liberal jurisprudence is nothing but a series of narrow policy prescriptions motivated by agitprop victim/oppressor narratives.

Adding a fourth year to law school would provide a valuable addition to the barriers to entry existing lawyers enjoy.

13, I agree.

I visited Belli's old house about a decade ago. There aren't many lawyers today could afford it. business >>> law.

Ricci, the lead plaintiff in the New Haven firefighters case wasn't hired in 1991 when he originally took the firefighter exam. He then claimed he had dyslexia and sued the city to get them to hire him. Kind of ironic that this guy was then the lead plaintiff claiming reverse discrimination.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/13/firefighter-under-fire-for-scheduled-testimony-in-sotomayor-hearings/

Nice scoop about the Safford case, ATL and Faculty Lounge. I heard that exact same angle discussed on NPR two weeks ago.

"Can you threaten to kill zoo animals in order to get more funding for the zoo? " - you've got to admit it is more effective PR than saying the increased funding will be used for enslaving more animals.

"An ABA committee is toying with the idea of adding a year of law school"

Sure, but at least you can do it online now...

adding an extra year would at least slow a little the oversupply of lawyers.

As for the justices of SCOTUS, the SCOTUS is a creature of the illegally installed federal constitution, and I support whatever it takes disempower and do away with SCOTUS and its evil dictatorial justices.

nice house. someone has a small peep.

nice house. someone has a small peep.

nice house. someone has a small peep.

it's necessity, not duress

- a barbri student (i hate my life so much right now)

"An ABA committee is toying with the idea of adding a year of law school"

NO! Well... maybe. I don't mind that the ABA does extend it a year. It needs to go in one of two directions; less or more. I personally think there is a lot of learning that could be done in the fourth year. Although, the price needs to come down and there needs to be some practical teaching mixed in with the theory courses. Maybe a civil trial lawyer capstone course at the end. Nuts and bolts type classes, so you don't look like an idiot the first time in court (e.g. getting you a$$ handed to you by a more senior opposing counsel).

SMU rules!!

put jay wex on colbert report!

S&S layoffs coming.

Science Fiction's Greatest Legal Minds - Revealed!
http://io9.com/5312141/science-fictions-greatest-legal-minds-+-revealed

Science Fiction's Greatest Legal Minds - Revealed!
http://io9.com/5312141/science-fictions-greatest-legal-minds-+-revealed

Venable

Science Fiction's Greatest Legal Minds - Revealed!
http://io9.com/5312141/science-fictions-greatest-legal-minds-+-revealed

Blarf.

Blarf Blarf.

Blarf Blarf Blarf.

NYTs has the Dreier verdict. Scooped by the MSM? Ouch.

If you're going to link to the Sotomayor/Royals article, you could at least mention that the writer, Jay Wexler, is a professor at Boston University School of Law.

I went to Boston College Law.

"If Obama was looking for the left's answer to Scalia, I think he should have gone with Diane Wood. Can Sotomayor pull it off?"

If Sotomayor had the strengths of Scalia, she'd have the same positions as Scalia. You're confronted with a strong debater on the other side and your reaction isn't "maybe I should listen to him," but "we need one of our own." That's a problem when trying to formulate intellectually strong and consistent arguments against a guy like Scalia.

It's also a problem with liberal jurisprudence in general--it's just a matter of taking what you want to do and justifying it after the fact (something Sotomayor all but admitted in her "we make policy" quote). If you haven't come up with your answer to Scalia after he has been on the bench for a couple decades, maybe you should consider that your positions and arguments against him are somewhat faulty.

Actually, not bad insight on the missed Wood nomination.

But you forget, shes not hispanic. Apparently, that's more important than a little thing called "law" or "Constitution."

Over the past several weeks, I have spoken to partners from other peer firms. The economic outlook is very grim and will continue to be that way for another 4 to 5 years. Obama's "green shoots" and the dow's "recovery" were all false alarms. The DOL and GAO continues to doctor statistics but there is no denying that our unemployment rate is in the double digits and has been there for some time. I believe the real unemployment rate is closer to 18%. The real estate market will not recover in the next 5 years. You will see a few wealthy individuals buy properties for cheap but you won't see large scale lending/buying that this nation saw during 2002-2007. The TARP money is being misused. Banks are not "freeing" up the credit lines as Obama boasted. Banks are hoarding TARP funds and buying up other banks. In the meantime, securitized portfolios that are backed by toxic assets are guaranteed by your tax dollars courtesy of Obama's brilliant plan to spend ourselves out of this brutal recession. Printing more money will only devalue the dollar and sink our national credit worthiness. If Bush started the fire, Obama is dousing it with kerosene. Don't get me started on Obama's tax agenda that proposes to punish hard working and industrious Americans by having them pay the price tag of the "One's" socialist programs.

Many non-peer and peer firms will continue to downsize in response to Obama's economic moves. This is the worst time to become a lawyer or be an associate. As much as I detest associates for their self-entitlement attitudes, a small corner in my heart feels sorry for these cretins that will live in penury by having gambled a huge sum in student loans on a degree that will not compensate them in the way they expected. Hiding out in law school to ride the recession is a poor strategy. Mark my words, if you graduated from law school after 2005 or are in law school, you are doomed. I predict this web blog will report daily massive layoffs starting in September. The 2010 deferred start dates will be pushed back to 2011, 2011 to 2012 and so on. My advice: hang a shingle and get plenty of malpractice insurance coverage.

37, your comment would make much more sense if it were facetious. Sadly, however, I think you actually believe what you wrote. The notion that Scalia presents "intellectually strong and consistent arguments," that are not result-based, is absurd. Whatever - good luck putting up with Sotomayor for the next couple of decades.

Ginsburg is great. Look up her record -- she does not hire black law clerks yet she thinks that standards for firefighters are unfair. Giving preferential treatment to blacks for Supreme Court clerks does not worry me much -- since Justices have plenty of help and they do not do nearly the amount of work an associate performs at a big law firm. However weak standards for firefighters, EMT personnel, police or Emergency Room physicians will cost lives. Ginsburg is a bigot -- her record shows she is a bigot. She just happens to think that being a Supreme Court clerk is more important than an upper level firefighter. Anyone who thinks that "minorities" (whatever that means) need extra help is also a bigot. Even 100 years ago, black Americans (like Paul Robeson) attended top notch law schools. It is amazing to me that Sotomayor (who has no family that were slaves in the U.S. or even subject to Jim Crow) is somehow deserving of preferential treatment. Her family came to the U.S. (NYC!) when the most popular TV show in the U.S. starred an Hispanic person (with an accent) living in NYC! Sure she had it tough! At age 18 she received preferential treatment -- by 37 she was a federal judge. By her own admission her scores did not merit admission. Apparently, Americans have such a disorted view of history that rather than blaming Iberian Americans for the hisorical crimes of enslaving black Africans and killing American Indians -- they are "oppressed" -- while Estonians, Italians and Hungarians -- having nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow -- get blamed for "being white." Yeah, what a great country.

"37, your comment would make much more sense if it were facetious."

40- your comment would make much more sense (and would be as substantive) if you just simplified it to "does not!"

a) The legislature's tort claim against the zoo keeper

A tort defendant can raise a defense of necessity against a claim for interference with property if his actions were necessary to avoid injury. As the other commenter noted, the zoo keeper may be able to claim necessity as a defense to killing the animals if the state brought a claim of conversion (an animal is personal property, and by killing an animal, the zoo keeper likely completely deprived the state of use of the animal) against him. Without funding the zoo keeper would be forced to let the animals loose, some of which are surely dangerous such as lions and bears, which in a city like Boston would surely lead to deaths. Thus, the zoo keeper can raise the defense of public necessity to any claim of conversion.

b) The legislature's contract defenses against the zoo keeper

The legislature could not claim duress as a defense to an action ex contractu appropriating more funds to the zoo. A defense of duress will lie where one party makes an improper threat and the other, vulnerable party has no reasonable alternative. Here, the zoo keeper threatened to start destroying the legislature's property - killing the animals - if the legislature did not give the zoo more money. However, the state could have fired the zoo keeper and hired another one that would not kill the animals. Thus, unless zoo keepers are difficult to hire, the state was not without a reasonable alternative. Consequently, the legislature cannot raise duress as a defense to enforcement of the contract.

c) Virginia courts likely would not adjudicate this case

Assuming Virginia had personal jurisdiction over the parties, a Virginia court would dismiss the case under forum non conveniens. Although dismissal under forum non conveniens is rare, a court will invoke the doctrine when a claim is more appropriately adjudicated in another forum. The court will consider the location of the witnesses and evidence, the domicile of the parties, and where the cause of action arose, among other factors, when deciding whether to adjudicate the claim. Here, the zookeeper and legislature are located in Boston, the claim arose in Boston, and the evidence is in Boston. The factors indicate that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a better forum and a Virginia court would dismiss the cause of action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Obama is our first black President.

Barros needs to go back to school for another year to study the subjunctive mood.

12, you nailed it. Grazzi.

44= fail

Clinton was

If you believe the ABA in classifying it as a blog, JURIST (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu) beats Overlawyered by 3 years, as it started in 1996.

16- He sure does know his way around Title IIV and the ADA!!

Did Justice Ginsburg's experience as a 13-year-old girl produce a better conclusion on abortion rights that the other eight justices would have missed?

I think Elie posts while eating twinkies.