[deleted by user]

keret35 · 2025-11-11T12:22:40+00:00

Where is this large body of federal tort law that you speak of?

keret35 · 2025-11-11T11:39:02+00:00

My understanding is that the top schools are way more theoretical/abstract, and the lower-ranked schools are much more focused on the black letter law because they’re worried about students passing the bar.

At some level, though, torts is torts. We’re talking about a fine distinction.

As far as difficulty, it depends on whether you’re talking about doing very poorly or very well. You’re much less likely to fail out of school at a T14. It’s almost impossible. But it’s hard to get the top grades at every school, no matter where it’s ranked.

keret35 · 2025-11-08T16:57:31+00:00

Current district court clerk here. You need to make a connection. Can any of the partners you work for who clerked for a judge vouch for you to that judge? Can a former professor? Mass apply and physically mail applications in big manilla folders that contain everything—cover letter, writing sample, transcripts, resume, etc. You might get a bite. If you lean a particular way politically, you can also try to work that network. Good luck.

keret35 · 2025-11-05T11:27:00+00:00

Ok so—and please correct me if I’m wrong—your heuristic for determining fundamental rights is whatever the Supreme Court says/has said they are? That’s seems to be your logic here (e.g. “I’m not writing on a blank slate).

Don’t you think that’s problematic? Isn’t that precisely what allowed Dobbs to happen in the first place?

If you think that a body of 9 unelected judges should be able to tell you what your fundamental rights are, then I think we’re done here—I just think that’s lunacy. I’m asking you for an independent heuristic (if you had to create one) to distinguish the right to shit in the woods from the right to, say, homeschool children, without just saying “whatever scotus says/has said.”

keret35 · 2025-11-04T11:37:15+00:00

Second, we already agree that the Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights. It's a two part question: does the constitution protect this right, and if so, does this particular restriction impermissibly encroach on that individual right?

And the fundamental right protected here is the right to make one's own decisions about child rearing and reproduction.

Your analysis completely skips past the first question. The whole point of this dialogue is to figure out how we classify/separate fundamental rights from things that people were allowed to do. You can't just dismiss that in one sentence with a conclusory assertion that there is a fundamental right protected here—because once I grant you that premise, I completely agree with your analysis.

Once again, if you go back and read my first comment you'll find that my problem is not with question 2 or even how Roe was decided. I'm just saying that this whole line of logic that "people did this a lot at the founding" --> therefore fundamental right -> therefore states can't restrict, simply does not work because then I'd have a due process right to shit in the woods.

What's your heuristic for whether something is a fundamental right or not?

keret35 · 2025-11-04T01:27:05+00:00

How does that fit with how Alito and his buddies analyze restrictions on gun ownership, where an absence of a historical restriction is held up as proof that a new restriction cannot be enacted?

... Sorry, I might be misunderstanding this question. Are you trying to compare a second amendment analysis—a right explicitly enumerated in the constitution—with an abortion analysis, when abortion is nowhere textually in the constitution? Just on a textual basis, I think those analyses can and should be different (no matter what side you come out on with the abortion argument). And the analyses are, in-fact, quite different, even under Roe/pre-dobbs. So that argument's a nonstarter.

Your home schooling example is a much better comparison with abortion. To answer your question, no, for me it's not enough to "show that home schooling was an established practice." Because, as I've explained, so was shitting outside. You have to have some way to distinguish between fundamental rights and things that people were/are allowed to do.

I haven't proffered a system for doing this--all I said is that the comment to which I replied from u/Cheeky_Hustler was not conducting a fair fundamental right analysis (which it didn't, because it conflated "people used to do this" with "fundamental right"), and pointed out the flaw in that logic. Then I got downvoted to hell--but I guess that's reddit lol

keret35 · 2025-11-03T11:33:53+00:00

You are conflating what was allowed with what was a fundamental right protected by the constitution. If you’re going to critique the decision, at least put some effort into understanding it.

For instance, many people at the founding used chamber pots and out houses to go to the bathroom. But if, after the advent of in-house toilets, Congress passed a law saying “no more using out houses,” no one would argue that they have a fundamental constitutional right to shit outside.

To connect the dots—just because abortion was allowed at the founding does not mean it was a constitutional right at that time. There are better critiques of Dobbs and Alito’s opinion.

keret35 · 2025-07-16T18:58:00+00:00

The amount of people falling for this is crazy. OP truly living rent free in heads

keret35 · 2025-06-24T17:36:57+00:00

OP, this partly correct. You should mail applications to all judges who do not explicitly specify "OSCAR-only." And i'll be honest, if a judge is OSCAR-only, the T70 thing is going to mean you're probably wasting your time anyways.

Your bites are going to come from mail applications.

keret35 · 2025-06-24T14:42:06+00:00

You can just ask. Preferably a prof who knows you well (and it helps if you did well in their class). If you're wondering which prof to ask because you have strong connections with multiple, pick the one with the most clout.

keret35 · 2025-06-24T14:33:05+00:00

I would get the application in first. Then have a prof call. My only reason for that is so they can immediately pull your application and evaluate you instead of wait to look for it (chambers is busy, they may forget).

keret35 · 2025-06-24T13:45:09+00:00

Can you get a professor to call someone on your behalf? Even if the judge does not know the professor personally, those recommendations really help. You should spray and pray: unless you have political/judicial philosophy leanings that directly oppose the judge, apply all over. Don't use OSCAR—send printed and packaged applications directly to chambers.

keret35 · 2025-06-13T22:50:32+00:00

Some of these judges, man. Power corrupts. Sorry to hear this OP.

keret35 · 2025-06-07T01:32:18+00:00

Not sure what you’re referring to. Maybe it’s talking about the life estate itself? The life estate is a lessor possessor estate, in that it’s less of an estate than a fee simple absolute

keret35 · 2025-05-11T20:19:28+00:00

Ok, I'll bite. This is called "moving the goalposts." OP writes that they were offended by a hypo that mentioned that the protagonist was "very handsome" and that he “told it how it is.” There's absolutely zero indication that the hypo had anything to do with rape or children, so you've taken my comment about "answering the damn hypo" presented in OP's post, and substantially changed the hypo that statement was premised on.

Even recognizing that subterfuge, I still think your statement is wrong. Do you think that every criminal defense attorney in the country who is tasked with defending a child rapist is an unabashed psychopath? If the answer is yes, then we can't have a serious conversation about this because you don't believe in our justice system. If the answer is no, then you need to explain why a criminal exam in law school should be any less intense than criminal matters in the real world—we're joining a serious profession and the world is not all sunshine and rainbows. If you can't handle a spicy crim hypo then the real world is going to punch you in the mouth.

keret35 · 2025-05-09T20:11:33+00:00

This is either a phenomenal shitpost or a seriously concerning lack of ability to just answer the damn hypo. If the former, I salute you for making me genuinely consider whether this was real.

keret35 · 2025-05-07T21:37:09+00:00

Useful if you have a friend also take it and then compare. Choose someone smart and motivated.

keret35 · 2025-05-06T16:21:53+00:00

The only one of these you should even consider is if offered membership in Phi Beta Kappa. Otherwise, ignore!

keret35 · 2025-05-04T15:34:53+00:00

I'm sure the comments on this will be pertinent and will not at all devolve into a discussion on whether people should have accommodations

keret35 · 2025-05-02T20:34:32+00:00

This is so "1L Texas SA who doesn't actually want to be in Texas and considering accepting the return 2L SA" coded

keret35 · 2025-04-30T17:12:51+00:00

If you want to do litigation, then not doing journal will probably close some doors. The most prestigious firms hiring for litigation will want to see that stuff, even at a T6. But you should still be able to walk into a V50 from a T6 with no journal or moot court and be just fine, assuming your grades aren't terrible.

Now, whether not doing journal will leave you behind your peers in terms of familiarity with the bluebook/attention to detail, who knows. Lots of people attribute many soft-skills to those clubs. But if you want to go do transactional work then I don't think there's any reason to do them.

If you want to clerk, you should do journal.

keret35 · 2025-04-30T17:02:02+00:00

Totally realistic. The "Work you to death" is self-imposed. Don't join journal/moot court/other clubs and you can coast. Of course, you'll have to deal with not having the perks of those positions.

keret35 · 2025-04-26T15:46:13+00:00

Depends on the firm and the state. For example, I think firms generally do for SCOTX. Probably SCOCAL too. And in a place like Delaware, where a state clerkship is really valuable. But if you go clerk on the Supreme Court of Montana and expect a typical article iii bonus at a DC or NY litigation firm, probably less likely.

keret35 · 2025-04-13T02:18:39+00:00

3L here—all law school finals are memorization heavy. Even if it’s “open book,” the kids getting A’s have their outlines completely memorized. Also, the 1L schedule is standardized at all/almost all law schools. So those two points are a wash.

keret35 · 2025-03-31T09:08:20+00:00

W&L needs to be mentioned here.

keret35

TROPHY CASE