The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
RESOLVED: JUDGES DECIDE CASES ON THE BASIS OF FAIRNESS, NOT LAW
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 9th, 2012 12:02 PM Author: Bipolar senate Any credible disagreement with this proposition? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19930168) |
 |
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:16 PM Author: Slippery Idiotic Stain Blood Rage Did they not teach you about equity vs law? In old England they actually had two kinds of courts. One that ruled based on law and other that ruled based on fairness. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931572) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 8:38 PM Author: Bipolar senate See, e.g., JEFFREY A. SEGAL & HAROLD J. SPAETH, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE ATTITUDINAL MODEL (2001) (arguing that Supreme Court Justices decide cases based on political attitudes and values rather than on legal considerations). |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 1:55 AM Author: cerebral ebony step-uncle's house depressive You think Segal and Spaeth haven't been criticized many times in the literature? Are you just now coming across this citation? Lol, brother, lol. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19935652) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 2:02 AM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete I still think they're right, as flawed as their study might be in this way or that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19935681) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2012 2:13 PM Author: Bipolar senate http://www.hairfinder.com/celebrityhairstyles2/sarah-shahi2.jpg (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#21155031) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2015 12:30 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#28910878) |
|
Date: March 22nd, 2012 12:38 PM Author: tantric offensive sanctuary Gross simplification of British law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20267597) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 3:34 AM Author: Insecure office I tend to agree with slim. However, there are the rare occurrences when Judges rule in accordance with procedural law that results in an otherwise inequitable outcome. During the rare instances that I'm working on the defense side, I shoot for the quick technical win and sometimes you get the job done with the support from the Judge, all the while knowing that the other side clearly has merit.
I would hope that fairness dictates our judicial processes, but what is fairness? To say that ulterior motives are never a factor is to say that Judges are inhuman machines. |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 8:26 AM Author: Ultramarine point he is absolutely correct if you replace "fair" with "whatever the judge thinks is the "right" answer"
anyone who disputes this is a fucking retard. |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 8:47 PM Author: Bipolar senate TYFT, brother. I agree whole-heartedly. Care to elaborate? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19939799) |
|
Date: December 21st, 2012 11:18 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#22294286) |
Date: February 9th, 2012 12:06 PM Author: deranged splenetic international law enforcement agency false (see dismissals on basis of statute of limitations procedural errors etc) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19930195) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 12:09 PM Author: Hairless Potus cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19930213) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 12:09 PM Author: razzle impertinent house jew provide please several citations to such dismissals along with a cogent and succinct summary of each case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19930216) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 12:13 PM Author: Translucent shrine nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19930248) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 3:16 PM Author: Bipolar senate Duh! Those obvious cases are where the judge just applies the law. But in hard cases like Romer v Evans, Heller, and so forth, a decision is made on the basis of fairness. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931274) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:05 PM Author: Fragrant internal respiration haunted graveyard procedural defects aren't always clear-cut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931518) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:06 PM Author: Bipolar senate So do judges decide the bar on successive motions of habeas relief on the basis of fairness? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931520) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:08 PM Author: Fragrant internal respiration haunted graveyard don't know, don't care (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931531) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2015 12:44 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#28766995) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2012 10:47 AM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20257024) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 5:43 PM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete I find 'fairness' a weird name for what you're getting at (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19932013) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 8:08 PM Author: Bipolar senate What's a better word? I am trying to say that a judge decides cases on the basis of his own personal view as to what the best/just outcome should be according to his own peculiar worldview. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933138) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 8:31 AM Author: Ultramarine point you are 100% correct
|
|
Date: April 17th, 2012 9:00 AM Author: Bipolar senate whats a better word then? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20481268) |
|
Date: March 22nd, 2012 11:58 AM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20267364) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 3:23 PM Author: elite hairraiser home most procedural errors are corrected via motion for leave to amend.
it can be argued that it is fair not to subject someone to suit after a significant amount of time (the limitations period) has passed. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 3:24 PM Author: Bipolar senate Very cogent, brother. Expand a little please. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931304) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 3:27 PM Author: elite hairraiser home no (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931325) |
|
Date: December 21st, 2012 11:33 PM Author: Mind-boggling corner windowlicker lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#22294360) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2017 11:03 PM Author: awkward hospital doctorate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#33022612) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 5:48 PM Author: Smoky laughsome stage lettuce (says something unintelligent about equitable tolling) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19932040) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:41 PM Author: deranged splenetic international law enforcement agency Even tolling is applied according to fairly rigid doctrines. OP's assertion is garbage at the trial court level where courts don't stray much from the rules and doctrines set forth from above. Obviously the Supreme Court is more likely to take account of fluffy policy considerations.
I guess it depends on how you define fairness. I believe OP is trying to argue that courts don't follow precedent or doctrines and make decisions according to their notions of justice and good policy which really isn't all that true at the lower court levels. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:42 PM Author: Bipolar senate How about at the COA and SCOTUS level? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933679) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 12:09 PM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete what an idiot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19930214) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 3:32 PM Author: comical masturbator sandwich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931347) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 3:33 PM Author: Bipolar senate What about Maher Arar, brother? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931355) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 3:37 PM Author: disturbing up-to-no-good dilemma ratface uh, by definition, thats what equity courts are supposed to do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931372) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 3:57 PM Author: Bipolar senate even for courts of chancery, they decide on the basis of fairness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931470) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 5:50 PM Author: disturbing up-to-no-good dilemma ratface if chancery is the same as equity, then yes, that is the legal standard they apply: what is fair. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19932054) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:26 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933582) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 5:51 PM Author: Smoky laughsome stage lettuce well duh, they're courts of chancery (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19932067) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2012 11:18 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#21645753) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:02 PM Author: Erotic school cafeteria marketing idea Twist: the law is fair (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931502) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:04 PM Author: Bipolar senate if law was fair, this guy would have gotten monetary relief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:07 PM Author: Erotic school cafeteria marketing idea But Slim, what argument that proceeding w his litigation severely impairs post-9/11 American foreign policy? I.e., fairer to protect American people than this dood. Your take? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931528) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:09 PM Author: Bipolar senate The invocation of the State Secret privilege in this case was invoked disingeniously. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931537) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:11 PM Author: Erotic school cafeteria marketing idea That statement standing alone seems a little conclusory. Describe why if you could (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931550) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:34 PM Author: Bipolar senate read david cole's brief man. He litigated the case on appeal to the 2nd cir. with CCR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931671) |
|
Date: September 30th, 2015 9:40 AM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#28867546) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:11 PM Author: seedy spot to be fair, no (see bush v. gore) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931546) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:11 PM Author: Bipolar senate ya that was decided on the basis of fairness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931549) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:11 PM Author: Erotic school cafeteria marketing idea Sarcasm? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931553) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:12 PM Author: Bipolar senate the conservative bloc thought it was fair to give the election to bush. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931556) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:15 PM Author: Erotic school cafeteria marketing idea But you didn't think it was. amirite (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931565) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 8:38 PM Author: Bipolar senate See, e.g., JEFFREY A. SEGAL & HAROLD J. SPAETH, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE ATTITUDINAL MODEL (2001) (arguing that Supreme Court Justices decide cases based on political attitudes and values rather than on legal considerations |
|
Date: October 20th, 2015 5:37 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#29008298) |
|
Date: March 13th, 2012 2:30 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20195801) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:12 PM Author: seedy spot lol, just lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931554) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:15 PM Author: angry peach orchestra pit Korematsu v. US (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931567) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 4:30 PM Author: Bipolar senate fairness again (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931650) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 5:39 PM Author: angry peach orchestra pit Korematsu would disagree with you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19931987) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 5:42 PM Author: Bipolar senate then what did they decide the case on ? not on the law...on the basis of exigency and thus fairness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19932005) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 5:49 PM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete exigency =/= fairness. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19932046) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 5:55 PM Author: angry peach orchestra pit titocr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19932082) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 5:50 PM Author: angry peach orchestra pit define fairness, brother. is fairness some intangible, public good which usurps the individual's rights in exigent circumstances? please provide no less than 3 cogent, relevant examples in an expeditious manner. ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19932052) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 8:07 PM Author: Bipolar senate See, e.g., JEFFREY A. SEGAL & HAROLD J. SPAETH, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE ATTITUDINAL MODEL (2001) (arguing that Supreme Court Justices decide cases based on political attitudes and values rather than on legal considerations) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:32 PM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete attitudes/values =/= fairness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933610) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:33 PM Author: Bipolar senate You've never noticed that your COA judge decides on the basis of fairness a given complaint? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933614) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:35 PM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete attitudes are not fairness, brother. also, my judge (who I'm not working for yet) always seems to agree with the other judges on their panels, and I find it hard to believe they all have the same views about the "fairness" of this or that. but they do agree on the law (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933625) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:37 PM Author: Bipolar senate I know the law might suggest an outcome, but ultimately, in the hard cases, don't you think the judges just think that their reasoning is outcome-driven? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933639) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:38 PM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete why the fuck does that matter, a hard case by definition is one where the law has probably run out (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933648) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:39 PM Author: Bipolar senate Hard cases are where the stakes tend to be extremely high on both sides, and in which decisions on the basis of fairness are most often generated.
Thoughts on DeShaney v. Winnebago County? Read that case. notice how the Justices decide the merits on the basis of their personal vision of fairness. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:45 PM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete but you see, that's a HARD CASE about which the constitution really says absolutely nothing one way or another, so yeah, what else are you going to rely on but your personal vision of the law (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933695) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:46 PM Author: Bipolar senate There you go, brother. You just recognized my point. Have you ever read the Legal Realists like Alan Watson? They sort of make the same point. I am advocating a Crit position a la Duncan Kennedy, Roberto Unger or Mark Tushnet (i.e. a strong indeterminacy argument). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933705) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:51 PM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete but strong indeterminacy is bullshit, 99% of law is settled (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933744) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:53 PM Author: Bipolar senate I just fucking said that. Christ.
Thoughts on Critical Legal Studies? |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:54 PM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete you so did not just fucking say that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933767) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2012 9:56 PM Author: Bipolar senate Oh apologies, brother. I meant I was NOT advocating Crit. Thoughts on Crit theory? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19933787) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2015 6:34 PM Author: Hilarious sable main people (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#29008620) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2012 11:40 AM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20446400) |
|
Date: September 15th, 2012 1:09 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#21584875) |
|
Date: April 11th, 2012 6:32 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20441378) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2012 11:43 AM Author: Erotic school cafeteria marketing idea (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20446416) |
|
Date: July 13th, 2012 10:58 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#21081826) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:52 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462006) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 2:03 AM Author: judgmental snowy mad-dog skullcap i smoke cocks. not bragging. just being. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19935686) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 3:14 AM Author: fantasy-prone talented den people who are hurt 1s agin the best poast itt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19935822) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 2:41 AM Author: aqua kink-friendly garrison Wrong. For example, there are tons of empirical studies showing a strong correlation between the outcome of case and a judges political preference. These studies are all based off of published opinions (17% of all federal circuit court decisions are published... yes, this is the actual statistic), which include almost all of the "hard cases." If you believe these studies have at least some value, then it becomes pretty clear fairness alone is an oversimplification.
Posner has written extensively on this. Its really a combination of many things - pragmatism, ideological identity, legalism, sociology, etc. Way too many factors influence judges decision to say it comes down to "fairness." |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 2:43 AM Author: Twisted internet-worthy brunch keepsake machete nice "pretending to not know that ssm is flame/retarded/both" schtick (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19935769) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 2:47 AM Author: aqua kink-friendly garrison someone's gotta feed the fire man (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19935775) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 8:59 AM Author: Bipolar senate Fairness includes ideological preference. All I am trying to say--and to which you agree with--is that judges don't apply the law like its some brooding "thing" in the sky. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#19936326) |
|
Date: May 6th, 2012 3:35 PM Author: Erotic school cafeteria marketing idea (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20628241) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 11:36 AM Author: rambunctious violent weed whacker lodge Apt, timely example: United States v. Jones.
Whatever that mess of opinions actually establishes, it is a significant departure from settled Fourth Amendment doctrine. The Court just got creeped out by the "Big Brother" feel to it, and fished around for some way to say that the cops can't do that. Totally based on gut rxn, not sensible principles. Also, wrong, IMO. |
|
Date: February 10th, 2012 11:40 AM Author: Bipolar senate Thank you brother.
Also, can you discuss whether Justice Alito's concurrence is based on notions of fairness? |
|
Date: February 26th, 2012 12:59 PM Author: Bipolar senate FROM A JOB OPPORTUNITY--BASICALLY PROVES JUDGES DECIDE CASES ON THE BASIS OF FAIRNESS
The normal procedure followed by a judge in working with a law clerk on a decision or order is to discuss the case with the law clerk, advise him/her of the decision and approach to be taken, as well as to discuss the style in which the decision or order is to be written. The law clerk then independently conducts the necessary research and prepares the draft decision or order for the judge's review. Outstanding critical analysis and writing skills are therefore essential. Law clerks will have the opportunity to sit in on parts of trials, oral arguments and mediations.
It is highly preferable for candidates to have taken the bar exam prior to commencing their clerkships. Appointees commencing work prior to passing the bar exam are designated by the Office of Personnel Management as "Law Clerk" – a designation that cannot under any circumstances exceed 14 months and cannot be extended. This means that the appointee must pass the bar exam before the 14-month period ends. Once admitted to the bar of any state, the appointee’s designation is converted to "Attorney Advisor."
The FERC law clerk position requires a firm two-year commitment. The energy field is highly technical and requires substantial training to achieve competence. Once achieved, however, this competence affords our attorney advisors highly coveted and otherwise unavailable employment opportunities, both within the agency and in prestigious private law firms throughout the country. FERC law clerks typically receive multiple job offers within weeks of becoming eligible to interview (after twenty-two (22) months of service).
As a general rule the starting grade for law clerks at FERC is GS-11, currently starting at $62,467, where one or more of the following apply:
(1) Top third of law school graduating class. (2) Member, Law Review. (3) Member, Order of the Coif. (4) Winner of moot court competition; member of law school moot court team. (5) Full-time or continuous participation in a legal aid program. (6) Significant summer law office clerk experience, particularly in the economic or energy regulatory fields. (7) Other equivalent evidence of superior achievement.
Law clerks also receive such annual cost of living increases as may be approved by the Congress each January. In addition, if performing at the fully successful level at the end of the first year, the law clerk will be eligible for promotion to GS-12, currently starting at $74,872 (plus any cost of living increases). GEOGRAPHIC PREFERENCE Washington Metro Area POSITION TYPE Entry Level Attorney DESIRED APPLICANT TYPE Current Student, Alumni LOCATION(S) City Washington State/Province District of Columbia Country United States COMPENSATION See description section. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:58 PM Author: Buff station Your position is interesting, and perhaps even persuasive, but I'm not sure that it is COGENT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462036) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:59 PM Author: Bipolar senate Why, brother? Where you been? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462037) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:06 PM Author: Buff station Just messing with you man. I've been in lurk mode lately man. Not poasting much. I guess I'm just haven't been feeling inspired enough to participate in the noble dialogue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462068) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:07 PM Author: Bipolar senate How is California legal practice treating u, brother? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462073) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:17 PM Author: Buff station I like it for the most part man. I'm getting put on some fairly interesting cases for how small the firm is.
Kinda stressing about developing a NICHE to separate myself from the general lit riffraff so I can lateral in a few years. Been trying to focus on environmental cases and the "business tort" cases (intentional interference with K, trade libel, etc.) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:18 PM Author: Bipolar senate ahh nice, brother. Are you trying to open up your own place in the Bay Area? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462136) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:40 PM Author: Buff station that would be awesome, but I don't think I'm entrepreneurial enough. Would love to just lateral to a small firm in the Bay that does quality litigation, brother.
Are you working these days, brother? |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:01 PM Author: Hilarious sable main people pretty easy argument when you define fairness as anything the judge bases his opinion on (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462042) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:07 PM Author: Bipolar senate Your sophistication on these matters is utterly rudimentary. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462074) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:08 PM Author: Hilarious sable main people explain in a cogent sentence please (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462082) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:09 PM Author: Bipolar senate http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1463&context=ilj (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20462087) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:16 PM Author: Hilarious sable main people that's not a sentence brother.
whose supreme court justice's writing do you most admire brother |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2012 10:00 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#20754774) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2012 7:25 PM Author: Diverse stage hissy fit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#21736756) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2012 7:06 PM Author: Diverse stage hissy fit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#21803706) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2014 10:56 AM Author: vivacious range miss this guy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#25270436) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 4:59 PM Author: Buff station (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#26918434) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2015 12:37 PM Author: vermilion macaca set NFL refs too (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#28910900) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2015 5:41 PM Author: Bipolar senate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#29008326) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2015 6:22 PM Author: frisky kitty stag film (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#29008554) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2017 11:02 PM Author: awkward hospital doctorate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#33022599) |
|
Date: May 26th, 2018 10:23 PM Author: exhilarant cruel-hearted french chef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#36133889) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2018 12:17 PM Author: awkward hospital doctorate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#36319016) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 1:37 PM Author: exhilarant cruel-hearted french chef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#36849122) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 1:43 PM Author: rose locale This is a question of legal philosophy. See “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers” and analysis for further reading. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#36849153) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 1:44 PM Author: Irradiated boltzmann Honestly, I agree, especially at the appellate level. If there is any gray area and it could go either way, it is going the way they think is the right answer/consistent with their politics and views. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1869594&forum_id=2#36849165) |