Archive for the Law School Category

Senate Repeals Constitution.  Oh, And Happy Presidents’ Day! (February 18, 2019)

Posted in Congress, Courage, Democrats, First Amendment, Freedom / Liberty, Law, Law School, Republicans, Rule of Law on February 18, 2019 by e-commentary.org

. . .

J          “They cannot do that.  It’s treason.”

K          “Treason is not a good enough reason for them.  They did do it because they proclaimed themselves above the law and unbounded by the United States Constitution.  It’s the American political way.”

J          “They clearly violated their oath to support and defend the United States Constitution.”

K          “There is that.”

. . .

K          “In a grand irony, Senate Bill 1 purports to repeal United States Constitutional Amendment 1.”

J          “There is something surreal and unreal about it.  We need to generate public interest in moving America toward considering the adoption of the Rule of Law.  Like that is going to happen.”

. . .

K          “The Supreme Court already addressed the issue in an unanimous opinion in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), with Marshal obviously not participating and Rehnquist obviously only concurring.  The decision reaches the not surprising conclusion that the government cannot prohibit the peaceful advocacy and conduct of a politically motived boycott.  No one has even thought to question this established bedrock of Constitutional law.”

J          “Some of the senators actually have a flickering scintilla of integrity, except when it really counts and character is revealed.”

. . .

K          “Following the criminal indictment of each Senator and as a consequence, the law degrees of the lawyers among the pack also should be revoked.”

J          “Law schools do whatever advances their economic interests.  Bar associations do whatever advances their economic interests.  Some bar associations consider treason to be a reason to revoke a law license, but not all of them.  Placing graduates in the Senate is great for the law school’s financial bottom line.”

K          “Someone should tabulate a list of the law schools that spawned these critters.  Someone observed that American-trained lawyers are only concerned with whether they can get away with something, whereas European-trained lawyers are concerned with whether an action or decision comports with the law.”

. . .

K          “The judges who will be asked to review the treasonous repudiation of the Constitution are by-products of the same law schools that spawned the criminals and the criminality.”

J          “The feedback loop is bleak.  The prospects are terrifying.”

K          “Four Justices support the First Amendment and five Justices support the First Amendment when they like who the person is and what the person is saying.”

J          “Bleak and terrifying.”

. . .

K          “The vote provides much valuable . . . and free . . . insight and information.  Rubio along with Cruz, Graham, Klobuchar and Romney announced that they are unfit to be Senators and unqualified to be President.  Booker, Brown, Gillibrand, Harris, Hirono, Kaine, Sanders and Warren announced that they may be worth additional consideration for the top slot.”

. . .

K          “Yes, and Rand Paul who is the only Republican who voted to uphold the Constitution.  He is the only Republican qualified for the top slot.”

J          “Or fit for the Senate.  An entire political party less one is unconstitutional per se and all of its members less one should be impeached and indicted.”

K          “And half of the other political party is unconstitutional and those members should be impeached and indicted.”

. . .

[February 23 – No War on Venezuela Day]

[See the e-commentary at “At War With The First Amendment (February 27, 2012)”, “The Supreme Court On Drugs (June 25, 2007)” and the e-commentary under the Category “First Amendment”.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Senate Bill 1 > United States Constitutional Amendment 1  United States Constitutional Amendment 1 > Senate Bill 1

Treason is treason.

“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”  Maya Angelou

A few years ago, the original vote card tallying the Senate vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that passed in 1964 was displayed at a National Archives exhibit.  For all time, there are check marks under “No” next to Ernest Gruening’s name and next to Wayne Morse’s name and under “Yes” is the name of every other Senator then in office. 

77 Senators Voted To Repeal The First Amendment / Constitution:  

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Braun (R-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Jones (D-AL)
Kennedy (R-LA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
McSally (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Perdue (R-GA)
Peters (D-MI)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Romney (R-UT)
Rosen (D-NV)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Schumer (D-NY)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sinema (D-AZ)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)
Young (R-IN)

23 Senators Voted To Uphold The First Amendment / Constitution: 

Baldwin (D-WI)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Carper (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Markey (D-MA)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Paul (R-KY)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warren (D-MA)

The “Intellectual Infrastructure Investment Act” (“III”)  Oh, And Happy Valentine’s Day! (February 11, 2019)

Posted in Courts, Economics, Education, Law, Law School, Schooling, Schooling Industrial Complex on February 11, 2019 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “Who is doing the thinking in America?”

J          “Who is even thinking about who is doing the thinking in America?”

K          “Troubling, when you think about it.”

J          “America has the chattering class and the blabbering class and the blogging class and the twittering twit class, but not really a thinking class.”

. . .

K          “We can draw on the bipartisan enthusiasm for infrastructure.  Think about the ‘Intellectual Infrastructure Investment Act’ (‘III’) or the Triple ‘I’ as it is known in the vernacular.”

J          “Would you first establish and endow a great School of Economics or a great School of Law?  Thought must be given to establishing and endowing a great School of Foreign Policy and not long after that a great School of Journalism.”

K          “We need greatness.  We may have to settle for goodness.  We may have to settle for okayness.  We may have to settle for notcrappyness.  Some institutions need to respond to that must elusive thing in recent American experience:  Competition.  Competition with the Schooling Industrial Complex (‘SIC’).”

J          “But we really need to put the SIC out of business.”

. . .

K          “In a delightful irony, the SIC will fund the new paradigm.  A billion dollar judgment in the CTJ against Harvard Law School for damages from Pompeo’s criminal activity and a billion dollar judgment in the CTJ against Yale Law School for damages from Bolton’s criminal activity provide enough seed money to fund the undertaking.  If necessary, the judgments can be satisfied from the assets of the respective parent corporations.  Just transfer the assets digitally.”

J          “Brilliant.  Shift resources from ‘Schooling’ to ‘Education’ without any government dollars.  The project also should aspire to take the ‘A’ out of the MICAC and to substitute a real ‘A’ for clear thinking.  Let’s get going.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Suing Law Schools; Suing Gun Makers.  Oh, And Happy Law Day! (April 30, 2018)”, “Close the Harvard Business School (February 23, 2009)”, “The Court Of Truth And Justice (CTJ) (August 29, 2016)”, “On The Digital Revolution (March 22, 2010)”, “‘Adjunktification’ In The S.I.C. (Schooling Industrial Complex) (March 13, 2017)”, “Schooling The Apparatchiks For the Kleptocrats (December 7, 2015)”, “On Merit and the Meritocracy (January 11, 2010)”, “Clinton, Inc., Trump, Inc., Bush, Inc., Kennedy, Inc., O’Bama, Inc. (October 24, 2016)”, “MPP / MPA:  Are They Really Masters? (November 13, 2017)” and “Johnnie Bolton:  The Triumph Of the Chickenhawks And Neo-Cons.  Join Fellow Patriots For The ‘April 14 Rally’ And The Memorial Day ‘March For America’.  Oh, And Happy April Fool’s Day. (April 2, 2018)”.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

I support the “III Act”

Think big, think long

Second Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 16, 2017)

Posted in Awards / Incentives, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Constitution, Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Law, Law School, Noble Prize in Jurisprudence on October 16, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “A prize dedicated to acknowledging and celebrating the work of someone who really knows something about jurisprudence and the impact of courts, judges, lawyers and police on the lives and livelihood of ordinary citizens.  Someone who lives the conviction that men and women should establish and respect some norms and standards that are promulgated clearly to all and enforced equally in favor of and against all.”

J          “The law schools are vacuous deserts of inbreeding and infighting that gestate little legal gamesters.  The bench is a magnet for wankers who played the legal game profitably and perpetuate the racket for the benefit of the judges and a few lawyers.  Is anyone qualified in America?  Is someone outside American eligible?  Give the nod to another underappreciated and overworked public defender who somehow manages to make a difference.”

K          “They were included within the group of individuals acknowledged and celebrated last year.  The recipient of the second annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence . . . is John W. Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute for his and its dedication to the protection and defense of civil liberties and human rights.  He and the Institute are indeed public defenders of law and policy who have made and are making a difference.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “First Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 17, 2016)” and “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

I wasn’t using my civil liberties anyway

Federal Judges: Institutionalized Bullying (September 18, 2017)

Posted in Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Law, Law School, On [Traits/Characteristics] on September 18, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1        “I pursued law to protect the kids from the bullies and discovered to my horror that the bullies are on the bench.”

L2        “Me too.  The legal system is not failing, it is failed.”

. . .

L1        “The Federal Courts are the House of Lords.  The state courts are the House of Commons.  The Federal Courts serve the interests of the U.S. government and the well-to-do/the well-connected and address a few high profile and sexy cases.  The state courts offer occasional relief to the common man.  The racket is also known as ‘Federalism’ in American law.  Charming system.”

L2        “The process is aided and abetted by selecting bullies from the bar to serve as Federal Judges.  The carefully calibrated system of checks and balances rewards those least fit and places them in power.”

L1        “In one case, the lawyer who had been bullied as a little boy spent day and night building the network and contacts to get the Federal Judgeship.  I warned a few of the kids who threw snow balls at him as he stood in line waiting for the yellow Blue Bird to land muttering to himself ‘Someday I will be a Federal Judge, someday I will be a Federal Judge, someday I will be a Federal Judge’.  He did what needed to be done to get into a profitable law school and then got the Federal Judgeship.  He now peers out from his perch at all the kids who threw snow balls at someone they did regard as a peer.  He got and is getting his revenge.  Not by challenging the bullies but by becoming a bully.”

L2        “No surprise.  Bullies were bullied.  It is contagious.”

. . .

L1        “Imagine if you could look up at him – while privately looking down on him – and say ‘How about you and me step outside big boy and handle this like real men?’”

L2        “Bullies need to be confronted.  But for simply challenging a bully, the wimp could unleash his enforcers from the U.S. Marshal’s Service and after roughing you up issue you a ticket to Florence.”

L1        “Now that is not such a bad outcome, really.  Tuscany is beautiful this time of year.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “SCOTUS on TV:  ‘They Might Not Be Such Bastards’ (March 26, 2012)”, “The Paradox Of The Republican Federal Judge:  Republican Federal Judge Syndrome (September 23, 2013)”, “Assigning Blame:  The Lawyers:  50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public:  50 Percent; The Judges:  100 Percent (December 3, 2012)”, “Arctic High School Court (May 23, 2016)” and “The Ninth Circuit:  Two-Tiered ‘Just-Us’ Review (February 13, 2017)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

September 17 – Have a happy Constitution Day

Here Comes Da Judge; Dere Goes Da Justice (August 31, 2015)

Posted in Courts, Federal Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Law, Law School, Magazine Reference on August 31, 2015 by e-commentary.org

. . .

B-W L          “I told my client in a personal meeting face to face in the office that we were assigned a judge who would rule against us without reading any of the pleadings.  Zero percent chance of success.  An appeal was too expensive.  The client said to proceed making the arguments and angle for an angle, some angle, any angle.  You should always send a separate letter as an attachment to an e-mail and by snail mail to the client confirming your concerns that the outcome may not be favorable as discussed.  I slow rolled things playing for time with no grand plan.  Out of the blue, an entity moves and is allowed to intervene; the judge steps out of the case without comment.  New judge takes over case; new judge follows the law; client prevails.  You need to get lucky some times.”

W-E L S          “We are spending the third year trading war stories like this in the student lounge.”

B-W L          “And that part of the process is not even covered by tuition.  I told another client that we drew the right judge and could expect a favorable outcome.  Some judge gets deployed overseas to join in killing innocent folks and a new judge is assigned.  A judge who liked to use the expression ‘a no-brainer’ and met that qualification.  However, the argument required a brain.  He employed his patented ‘no brainer’ analysis.”

W-E L S          “Dead.”

B-W L          “DOA.  Upon notice of the reassignment, the first reaction was utter dread.  Game over.  A death notice from the court.  You may not realize that your state still has the death penalty in civil cases.  And not a shot was fired.  How do you explain it to a client who is utterly disgusted with the whole process.  He kept yelling that he wanted the first judge and wanted me to get the first judge back.”

. . .

B-W L          “MSU is a military expression that applies to the law.  Making Stuff Up.  The facts and the law.  No one will ask the fundamental question whether all the money, public and private, spent to indoctrinate a young law student is worth fomenting the illusion and delusion.  Is there value in the truth?”

W-E L S          “Can I get a refund on my tuition?”

. . .

B-W L          “Few if any of your law professors ever practiced law.  You are obligated to repeat and are rewarded for propagating the myth.  That is the Game.”

. . .

[B-W L: Battle-Weary Lawyer; W-E L S: Wide-Eyed Law Student]

[See the e-commentary at Playin’ The Legal Game (March 28, 2011) and Assigning Blame: The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“Your honor, we will be filing a motion this afternoon to transfer this case to an entirely different judicial system.”  “The New Yorker” cartoon in office.

MSU:  The motto of the American judicial system

A system of men and women not a system of laws.

The first thing we do let’s banish the American-acculturated judges.

“You Can’t Be Smarter” (August 10, 2015)

Posted in Bureaucracy, Courts, Entertainment, Journalism, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Law, Law School, Newspapers, Personal Stories Series, Personal Story, Press/Media, Television on August 10, 2015 by e-commentary.org

. . .

P          “You might as well leave law school with some useful insight.  When you begin practice, ferret out the longest serving person at the firm.  That person likely will be female and the secretary for a senior partner.  Take her to lunch.  Ask for advice.  Listen carefully.”

. . .

SS          “Your biggest challenge?  You must accept that you can’t be smarter than the judge.  That will vex a person like you.  And don’t expect much civility or any humility from the bench.  Good luck.  You will need it.”

. . .

YL          “So it is like law school but with consequence.  It is like high school writ large.”

SS          “And I am downstream from the bullying and arrogance of the judges and the senior partner.”

. . .

YL          “Looking back, I realize that professors were and judges now are the greatest impediments to advancing sound ideas.”

SS          “They don’t teach you much in law school.”

. . .

[Jon Stewart left The Daily Show recently.  See the e-commentary at Brian, Jon And Journalism Today (February 16, 2015).]

Bumper sticker of the week:

Better to know the judge than the law

Commenting On Legal Commentators (November 4, 2013)

Posted in Book Reference, Courts, Education, Law, Law School, Schooling, Writing on November 4, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1        “Did Ronald Dworkin ever practice law?”

L2        “Doesn’t seem so.”

L1        “Did H.L.A. Hart ever practice law?”

L2        “Seems that he may have handled a few traffic violations.  Some of them moving.”

L1        “Now I admit that they spouted some pretty city talk and a few inspiring aspirations, but do they have a clue.”

L2        “Does having a clue matter?  Two branches of the ‘Quaint Theory’ of the practice of law.  The say what others want to hear.”

. . .

L1        “Now Benjamin Cordoza did play the game, but he missed the boat.”

L2        “Accord.  The Nature of the Judicial Process should be filed under ‘F’ for ‘Fiction’ or for ‘Fairy Tale.’”

L1        “And given an ‘F’ for failing candidly to explicate the American legal game.”

L2        “He failed in describing how the legal game works, but he succeeded in trying to make the legal system work.”

. . .

L1        “Academic law is more closed and cloistered than any other area of academic pursuit in America.”

L2        “Except a few other areas of academic pursuit in America.”

L1        “Many of the failures of the legal system find their genesis in America’s legal schooling industrial complex.”

. . .

L1        “Did Fred Rodell ever practice law?”

L2        “He did not need to play the game.  He got it.  And got out of the game before ever entering the game.  That takes finesse.”

L1        “Lucky guy.  But he is an anomaly.  The legal schooling complex today would not allow a young Fred Rodell even to labor as an adjunct professor at a night law school.”

L2        “If they would even admit him as a law student.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled Playin’ The Legal Game (March 28, 2011).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing.  One is its style.  The other is its content.  That, I think, about covers the ground.”  Fred Rodell

I entered law school already knowing how ‘to think like a lawyer’ and exited law school still knowing how to think like a human being.