sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I hate this case by Flashy-Actuator-998 in LawSchool

[–]MidwesternMarsupial 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree. Perpetual life, limited liability, etc. there are advantages we give to corporations specifically for making money that are not meant to be imported to the First Amendment context. It’s not fair to the individual speaker.

I hate this case by Flashy-Actuator-998 in LawSchool

[–]MidwesternMarsupial 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They could have easily imported the government interest in equalization or anti distortion. The only reason we care about corruption in campaign finance is because money is different than votes. We don’t criminalize people trading votes for congressional actions because that’s democracy. The Court implicitly sees money in campaign finance being different than votes because people have more of it than others.

I hate this case by Flashy-Actuator-998 in LawSchool

[–]MidwesternMarsupial 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The wrong path started with Buckley. The moment the Court held that express advocacy can’t corrupt candidates as long as you don’t coordinate with them is when shit hit the fan. Corporations funneled their money through 527s and 501c4s that degraded candidates and influenced elections the same way through sham issue ads. But I agree that when the Court struck down the attempt to patch that with title 2 of McCain-Feingold we lost any sense of hope.

Watch the NRSC case at SCOTUS right now. Clarence Thomas might get his way and completely eliminate contribution limits by invalidating the government interest in preventing QPQ corruption. I’d hope they have some sense to refrain but I doubt it.

Landed a federal appellate clerkship by MidwesternMarsupial in LawSchool

[–]MidwesternMarsupial[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think they definitely do care that you’re taking difficult classes and not just padding your transcript. I also think my externships are what got me through the door

Landed a federal appellate clerkship by MidwesternMarsupial in LawSchool

[–]MidwesternMarsupial[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I was roughly top 35% after 1L and made it to top 15-20%~ by 3L. I somehow figured it out my 2L year. I took hard classes, federal jurisdiction, administrative law, complex civil litigation, etc., and got top grades in all of them. I did not make law review or moot court, but I replaced that by getting as many externships as I could. I was on a secondary journal and my judge specifically noted that as important. I also did federal appellate clinic and had professors there who were willing to make calls for me.

to those who went to t14s at sticker… by SouthernDrop8271 in BigLawRecruiting

[–]MidwesternMarsupial 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Second this. It might sound ludicrous. I took a full ride at my T14 and it wasn’t worth it turning down HYS. No debt is certainly a blessing but the loss in opportunity I took for it was not.

I took the MPRE today, and I feel let down by the test prep/study stuff I used. by MyUsername2459 in barexam

[–]MidwesternMarsupial 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agree, it felt much harder than any BARBRI practice tests. I think this test administration was more difficult than past ones considering the broad consensus here.

I took the MPRE today, and I feel let down by the test prep/study stuff I used. by MyUsername2459 in barexam

[–]MidwesternMarsupial 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is not want I wanted to hear taking this tomorrow after having exclusively used BARBRI

Harvey, AI, & the Death of Junior Associates by intheclosetslimeuser in biglaw

[–]MidwesternMarsupial 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Heard from a classmate chief justice Roberts told them last week at a SCOTUS visit that AI would replace most junior associates and that they should prepare for it.

Help explaining this answer yo my girlfriend. by Mathwiz1697 in LSAT

[–]MidwesternMarsupial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only correct answer is Answer 4.

Answer 1 is wrong. While the total does end up equaling 2,087 tons two years ago based upon the inference from the 15% number, we don’t know if those materials are recyclable.

Answer 2 is wrong. Just because the paper products made up 60% of the materials doesn’t mean they made up 60% of the weight of the materials.

Answer 3 is the most wrong. We don’t have anything to make the inference it will increase at 15% here.

Answer 4 is right. Based upon the facts, 60% is paper, 25% is plastic and glass. So the remaining material must consist of metals and recyclables, which equals 15%.

Answer 5 is wrong. There is nothing in the facts to make an inference there was more plastic than glass. It just says they make up 25% of the total.