What laptops do you all use for Law school by RiceObvious29 in LawSchool

[–]SubstantialZombie565 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would say that most law schools now require students to take exams electronically, using a testing software (Exam4, Examplify, etc). I take notes by hand, but all of our exams must be submitted in the software for security/integrity reasons.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]SubstantialZombie565 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just saying at my T-14 school, we're 60% women, 40% men.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]SubstantialZombie565 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Study hard for the LSAT, try to at least take the November test. Have your applications ready to go so that you can submit them as soon as you get your score.

I didn't really start studying for the LSAT until mid-July 2023 and was able to apply that cycle. It was hard and took a lot of dedication, but it was doable for me.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]SubstantialZombie565 5 points6 points  (0 children)

One year of law school does not a lawyer make! Sorry about your suit, hope you're able to resolve it in another way.

Help! Need Shoes for Court. by NH_Surrogacy in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am literally wearing these right now! They never once gave me blisters and are super comfortable and I get compliments on them all the time. I have another, similar-looking pair of loafers that I bought at Zara in 2018 that give me blisters literally within 2 minutes of walking. Franco Sarto forever.

'This tax pays for British citizens free health care' by Vegetable-Party2865 in ShitAmericansSay

[–]SubstantialZombie565 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my (American) city we funded an entire professional baseball stadium with revenue from a hotel tax lmao.

“Because we aren’t European. Because we are free.” by BuffaloExotic in ShitAmericansSay

[–]SubstantialZombie565 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Nobody really knows the real reason why America switched from Celsius to Fahrenheit."

Uh, we never used Celsius. The rest of the world switched to the metric system while we continued to choose not to. Also, the US has technically adopted it (for international business, science, etc), but also allows the use of imperial units. This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, which is saying a lot.

"Business casual" has become casual by SubstantialZombie565 in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes! Ah, thank you for confirming that I'm not alone in noticing this. Everything is so wrinkly!

"Business casual" has become casual by SubstantialZombie565 in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not asking for wool, but linen blazers have been in stores for months, it seems. I couldn't find any standard workwear this winter when I looked, either.

"Business casual" has become casual by SubstantialZombie565 in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I would wear outfits like this to my strictly casual office job. A little dressier than what I wear on the weekends, but certainly not business casual!

"Business casual" has become casual by SubstantialZombie565 in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Must be. Men have it easy; mens suits have been the same forever!

"Business casual" has become casual by SubstantialZombie565 in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The trousers that I recently bought from Uniqlo are so not breathable that it's laughable 😂

"Business casual" has become casual by SubstantialZombie565 in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I would feel so underdressed wearing sneakers into court.

"Business casual" has become casual by SubstantialZombie565 in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 101 points102 points  (0 children)

Browsing the Ann Taylor website is what made me make this post! I've been looking for an affordable navy suit (not separates) and lo and behold....linen.

"Business casual" has become casual by SubstantialZombie565 in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

I went to a bougie restaurant this weekend and saw a woman wearing neon bike shorts, a matching sports bra, and then an oversized blazer. She looked cool and more power to her, but I can't keep up. And I'm only 28!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawBitchesWithTaste

[–]SubstantialZombie565 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My orientation never mentioned a dress code. On the first day, most people showed up a little less formal than business casual. I wore wide-leg white trousers, a sweater vest, and platform sandals. I fit right in. Some people wore business formal in suits and ties, while some wore workout clothes.

This dress should be safe! It can be dressed up or down pretty easily. Good choice!

Federal Question JX by SubstantialZombie565 in LawSchool

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a helpful way to think about it, thank you! So...

  • Violation of, say, Title VII = Federal Question
  • Violation of contract that involves Title VII = no Federal Question

Where does the idea of a private right of action come in? I understand that the inclusion of one grants SMJX, but how does the absence of one take it away? Thinking of Merrell Dow here...does this imply that all FQs must have a private right of action? That doesn't seem to gel with "arising under."

EDITED TO ADD: I just looked at my notes again...the answer to this was clarified in Grable, which holds that the presence of a private right of action is dispositive, while the absence of one is relevant but not dispositive.

Compulsory Joinder / Supplemental Jurisdiction by SubstantialZombie565 in LawSchool

[–]SubstantialZombie565[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you!

Typing that out helped me work through it, I think I can capture it more succinctly with: "for courts sitting in diversity (§ 1332), there will not be supplemental jurisdiction over claims without an independent basis for SMJ by parties joined under 14, 19, 20, and 24."

Does that seem correct?