Top Law Schools

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

brickman wrote:Pardon my douchitude, but I believe in little in this world but my eloquence and ferocious intelligence, and I think it would just be criminal not to share. I SHALL BEGIN TO TYPE, KINDLY TAKE YOUR SEATS.

jpSartre wrote:hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture

bjsesq wrote:

brickman wrote:

My god. Quakeroats. PM him. You can have some intellectual mutual masturbation.

dailygrind wrote:

jpSartre wrote:hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture

0Ls starting threads with hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

D-hops wrote:

bjsesq wrote:

brickman wrote:

My god. Quakeroats. PM him. You can have some intellectual mutual masturbation.

Or Sogui.

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

jpSartre wrote:

dailygrind wrote:

jpSartre wrote:hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture

0Ls starting threads with hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?

You're right bro, 0L's shouldnt be allowed to talk to each other. Are you a Leiter groupie?

dailygrind wrote:

jpSartre wrote:

dailygrind wrote:

jpSartre wrote:hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture

0Ls starting threads with hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?

You're right bro, 0L's shouldnt be allowed to talk to each other. Are you a Leiter groupie?

No, but I'm a dickbag with a power complex who's this close to banning you. Talk to each other all you want, but do it in the appropriate forums. The forum for law students is reserved for law students to converse with each other, and for 0Ls to clandestinely snoop and very occasionally ask intelligent questions.

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

jpSartre wrote:On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."

jpSartre wrote:On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."

jpSartre wrote:
On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? I actually responded to the topic. If you're going to ban anyone, wouldn't it make more sense to ban the people posting shark pictures? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise...

brickman wrote:For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law.

brickman, all one sentence wrote:The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

brickman wrote:If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

dailygrind wrote:And he's....outta here!