Southwestern

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Danteshek » Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:49 am

[my news piece I submitted for publication in the next issue of the Southwestern Commentator. I haven't been told whether it will be published or not. In any case edits are likely.]

Local Rules vs. Gay Marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court cast its first vote last week in the latest fight over gay marriage. At issue was whether the District Court improperly changed its rules to permit a broadcast of the federal case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage. A bench trial began on January 11, 2010, in the North District of California.

In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court stayed the broadcast. The Court reasoned that the District Court violated a federal statute in amending its local rules to permit a broadcast to several other federal courthouses.

The Court said that “[a]pplicants have shown that irreparable harm [would] likely result from the denial of a stay, [and] it would be difficult – if not impossible – to reverse the harm from those broadcasts.” The Court also noted that “some of applicant’s witnesses have already said that they will not testify if the trial is broadcast, and they have substantiated their concerns by citing incidents of past harassment.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 09A648 (U.S. Jan. 13 2010).

The Court observed that in those districts where broadcasting was permitted, courts had allowed the broadcast of their proceedings on the basis that those cases were not high profile. Since this case involved “issues subject to intense debate in our society,” the Court concluded that this case “[was] not a good one [to broadcast].” Id. at 16.

According to the Court, “federal law … requires a District Court to follow certain procedures to adopt or amend a local rule. Local rules typically may not be amended unless the District Court ‘giv[es] appropriate public notice and an opportunity to comment.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2071(b); see also Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 83(a). A limited exception permits dispensing with this notice-and-comment requirement only where ‘there is an immediate need for a rule.’” Id. at 8.

The parties disagreed about whether the District Court had allowed for a meaningful notice-and –comment period. On December 23rd the District Court indicated on its website that it amended Civil Local Rule 77-3. The revised version created an exception to general prohibition against broadcast to allow “for participation in a pilot or other project authorized by the … Ninth Circuit.” Id. at 5.

On December 31, the District Court revised its Web site to remove the previous announcement about the change to Rule 77-3. A new announcement was posted indicating a “proposed revision of Civil Local Rule 77-3,” which had been “approved for public comment.” Comments on the proposed revision were to be submitted by Friday, January 8th. Id.

On January 4th, 2010, the District Court again revised its Web site. The announcement regarding the proposed revision of Rule 77-3 was removed and replaced with a third version of the announcement. This third version stated that the revised Rule was “effective December 22, 2009,” and that “[t]he revised rule was adopted pursuant to the ‘immediate need’ provision.” Id.

On January 8th, Judge Kozinski issued an order approving the District Court’s decision to allow the broadcast. Id.

In light of these facts, the Court believed the District Court failed to make a good faith effort to provide a sufficient period for notice-and-comment. It believed that the District Court’s express purpose was to “change its rules at the eleventh hour … to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.” Id. at 16.

In his dissent, Justice Breyer argued that since the trial judge discussed with the parties on September 25th, 2009, the possibility of broadcasting trial proceedings, the parties themselves “had more than adequate notice and opportunity to comment before the rule was changed.” Id. at 2 (dissent). Breyer also criticized the court for micromanaging District Court administrative procedure and granting certiorari for a legal question for which there is no conflict among the state or federal courts. Id. at 5. The dissent also noted that by January 8th, 2010, the court had received 138,574 comments, all but 32 of which favored broadcasting the proceedings. Id. at 3.
Last edited by Danteshek on Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Southwestern

Postby PDaddy » Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:55 am

Temka wrote:Status says decision mailed, and it shows two $500 deposits due. I hope I am in!


U are in!! Congrats!

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Danteshek » Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:28 am

PDaddy wrote:
Temka wrote:Status says decision mailed, and it shows two $500 deposits due. I hope I am in!


U are in!! Congrats!


I'm confused. Temka got into Southwestern a month ago. See above.

Temka
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Temka » Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:09 pm

Yes, and I just got back from their diversity day/ open house thing and was very impressed!

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Danteshek » Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:17 pm

Temka wrote:Yes, and I just got back from their diversity day/ open house thing and was very impressed!


Did you have the chance to speak to any professors? Which ones?

Temka
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Temka » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:57 am

I sat in on a Mock class held by Nyree Gray ( I think that was her name), and she was really charming. The lecture was examining a case pertaining to a dispute over an oral contract. Pretty interesting.

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Danteshek » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:40 am

I am beginning research on my appellate brief for LAWS II. The topic is really interesting - the Outrageous Government Conduct (as distinct from entrapment) claim to dismiss an indictment in the context of an ecoterrorism case involving the bombing of a Hummer dealership. Basically this is a criminal due process defense in cases when the government conduct is so outrageous as to shock the conscious. Unlike entrapment, this claim can be successful even when the defendant is predisposed to commit the crime. I am floored by the quality and complexity of this problem (which was created by my legal writing instructor - Prof. Turner). We will argue for one side in our briefs and then again orally for the moot court honors competition later this semester. For the oral arguments the first round we argue the side of our brief and the second round we argue the other side. The first two rounds are part of the LAWS II class. We then sign a letter of intent to participate in the Moot Court Honors competition which consists of several elimination rounds culminating in the semifinals and finals to be argued before the 9th circuit in Pasadena. Students are only allowed to participate in one of the honors competitions, but only students in the appellate advocacy track are allowed to participate in the Moot Court Honors competition. Last semester we had an equally interesting topic: the california 3 strikes law. I think I got really lucky this year with interesting criminal law topics. Criminal law and criminal procedure are shaping up to be my principal interests in law school.

littlepiggie818
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby littlepiggie818 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:22 pm

Temka wrote:I sat in on a Mock class held by Nyree Gray ( I think that was her name), and she was really charming. The lecture was examining a case pertaining to a dispute over an oral contract. Pretty interesting.


I was there too. Everyone I met at the Diversity Day told me that Professor Gray is amazing. Are you planning to attend Southwestern?

Temka
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Temka » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:48 pm

I am still waiting on SCU and USF, but it is very likely that I will attend. Were you wearing the admitted student badge thing? Cuz I think I only saw a few people with on besides myself and could probably remember who you are...

littlepiggie818
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby littlepiggie818 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:59 pm

Yeah I was. Which section were you in? Did you do the mock law class first or second? I didn't see anyone else wearing the admitted badge. I don't think I was paying too much attention to who are admitted and who aren't.

Temka
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Temka » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:03 pm

littlepiggie818 wrote:Yeah I was. Which section were you in? Did you do the mock law class first or second? I didn't see anyone else wearing the admitted badge. I don't think I was paying too much attention to who are admitted and who aren't.


Yes I was wearing a badge. I did the Mock Class second. I saw maybe 3 people with badge...

littlepiggie818
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby littlepiggie818 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:18 pm

We were in the same section. What do you think of the school so far?

Temka
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Temka » Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:07 pm

I was impressed. I thought the campus was nice, it seems very student friendly, and they are taking steps to grow as a better school and grow in the rankings. I feel like it is on the way up. I am thinking that it will provide much better career opportunities than their current ranking may suggest. I would put it in the same class of school as loyola, SCU, USF even though it is tier 3.

P.S. I am thinking I want to do Entertainment Law, and they are top in the country for that so I may be biased

User avatar
chango
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Southwestern

Postby chango » Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:20 pm

Temka wrote:I was impressed. I thought the campus was nice, it seems very student friendly, and they are taking steps to grow as a better school and grow in the rankings. I feel like it is on the way up. I am thinking that it will provide much better career opportunities than their current ranking may suggest. I would put it in the same class of school as loyola, SCU, USF even though it is tier 3.

P.S. I am thinking I want to do Entertainment Law, and they are top in the country for that so I may be biased



Top in the country for Entertainment Law? Cite please?

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Danteshek » Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:45 pm

For entertainment law we are basically first out of one. There is no other law school in the country that has close to the same offerings (as far as I am aware). SW is definitely the only school to offer an LLM in Entertainment Law.

772C Advanced Copyright Law Seminar 2.0
772 Advanced Entertainment Law Seminar 2.0
668 Advertising Law Practice 2.0
762A California Defamation, Privacy & Publicity Seminar 2.0
563IT Comparative Electronic Commerce Law and Regulations 3.0
661IT Comparative Information Privacy Law and Regulations 3.0
538 Copyright Law 3.0
660 Defamation, Privacy & Publicity 2.0
673IT Drafting Information Technology Agreements 3.0
673 Drafting/Negt Tech Agreements 3.0
674 Drafting/Negt Video Game Agreements 2.0
694 Entertainment Industry Labor & Employment Law 2.0
540 Entertainment Law 3.0
540CP Entertainment Law (Capstone) 3.0
772 Entertainment Law Seminar 2.0
680BX Externship N/A
680EP Externship: Entertainment Practicum N/A
665 Financing & Distributing Independent Films 2.0
704 First Amendment Seminar 2.0
643 Historic Preservation Law 2.0
661 Information Privacy Law 2.0
542 Intellectual Property Law 3.0
539 International and Comparative Copyright Law 2.0
452 International and Comparative IP Law 2.0
650 International and Comparative Media Law 3.0
658 International Art Law 2.0
541 International Entertainment Law 3.0
659 International Internet Law 2.0
656 International Sports Law 2.0
563 Internet & E-Commerce Law 2.0
600 Mass Media Law 2.0
651M Media Coverage, Law and Public Policy 1.0
845 Media Litigation (Intersession) 2.0
666 Motion Picture Production Law 2.0
772 Museum and Art Law Seminar 2.0
672 Music Industry Contracts 2.0
672OS Music Industry Contracts (Off-site) 2.0
667 Music Publishing Industry, The 2.0
586 Patent Law 3.0
772D Patent Prosecution and Drafting 2.0
670 Representing Journalists 2.0
544 Sports Law 2.0
601 Telecommunications Law and Policy 3.0
664 Television Production Law 2.0
640 Trademark Law 2.0
671 Video Game Law 2.0

User avatar
chango
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Southwestern

Postby chango » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:14 pm

So you're saying Southwestern beats UCLA in terms of Entertainment Law? I know you're being a loyal cheerleader for your chosen law school, but really now...


http://www.top-law-schools.com/entertai ... hools.html

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Danteshek » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:52 am

chango wrote:So you're saying Southwestern beats UCLA in terms of Entertainment Law? I know you're being a loyal cheerleader for your chosen law school, but really now...


http://www.top-law-schools.com/entertai ... hools.html



That article is ludicrous. Southwestern has over 40 courses in entertainment/media law. UCLA has only 16. Plenty of people come to Southwestern specifically for the unparalleled entertainment law curriculum. I don't think that can be said of UCLA.

User avatar
chango
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Southwestern

Postby chango » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:18 am

Danteshek wrote:
chango wrote:So you're saying Southwestern beats UCLA in terms of Entertainment Law? I know you're being a loyal cheerleader for your chosen law school, but really now...


http://www.top-law-schools.com/entertai ... hools.html



That article is ludicrous. Southwestern has over 40 courses in entertainment/media law. UCLA has only 16. Plenty of people come to Southwestern specifically for the unparalleled entertainment law curriculum. I don't think that can be said of UCLA.



Well, I'm not sure I accept the # of courses = strength of program, and like I said, I consider you a biased (although highly likable) source. Since my specific interested is Entertainment Law, I guess what I'm looking for is independent evidence to collaborate the assertion about Southwestern Law school has a top-ranked Entertainment Law program (since I may likely end up there.)

Whew. Talk about a circuitous sentence. Apologies.

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Danteshek » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:49 am

I think you should be concerned first and foremost with the objective quality of the program, and NOT the program's reputation. UCLA may have a better reputation in entertainment law (undeserved) but that is basically a product of its overall reputation. Your goal should be to become the best attorney you can be, not to have the best piece of paper on your wall. Again, this goes to the importance of pursuing excellence, and not chasing success.

Temka
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Temka » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:47 am

Danteshek wrote:I think you should be concerned first and foremost with the objective quality of the program, and NOT the program's reputation. UCLA may have a better reputation in entertainment law (undeserved) but that is basically a product of its overall reputation. Your goal should be to become the best attorney you can be, not to have the best piece of paper on your wall. Again, this goes to the importance of pursuing excellence, and not chasing success.


Totally true ,but then again, if I had the numbers to go to UCLA, I probably would. The program at Southwestern may be better and there is a good chance I will be in it, but regardless of your specialty, being from a program like UCLA gives you the advantage. Southwestern should be compared more with Loyola and Pepperdine type schools. UCLA is in a different league and if you can actually get into that league I doubt you would be considering a school like Southwestern or Loyola or Pepp or Santa Clara, etc

savesthedayajb
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:21 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby savesthedayajb » Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:00 pm

Decision mailed yesterday along with scholarship info. Submitted 12/22 and UR 1/14(ithink)

User avatar
cconnoll
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby cconnoll » Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:08 pm

Danteshek wrote:
chango wrote:So you're saying Southwestern beats UCLA in terms of Entertainment Law? I know you're being a loyal cheerleader for your chosen law school, but really now...


http://www.top-law-schools.com/entertai ... hools.html



That article is ludicrous. Southwestern has over 40 courses in entertainment/media law. UCLA has only 16. Plenty of people come to Southwestern specifically for the unparalleled entertainment law curriculum. I don't think that can be said of UCLA.



The question everyone wants to ask, yet no one has asked yet; since a lot of people go to SouthWestern solely to break into entertainment law, and considering we know how vain the entertainment industry is, are the 1L females hotter than you'd expect the average 1L female to be?

star10
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:17 am

Re: Southwestern

Postby star10 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:13 pm

In with 20,000 scholarship....!

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Danteshek » Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:29 pm

star10 wrote:In with 20,000 scholarship....!


Congratulations!

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Southwestern

Postby Danteshek » Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:26 pm

cconnoll wrote:The question everyone wants to ask, yet no one has asked yet; since a lot of people go to Southwestern solely to break into entertainment law, and considering we know how vain the entertainment industry is, are the 1L females hotter than you'd expect the average 1L female to be?


There are a lot of hot people, especially the 1Ls this year. It's actually creating somewhat of a problem for me as I'm having a hard time choosing. I'm like a kid at a candy store.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: genjustice, proteinshake, Tomthecat and 11 guests