Law archive at Haemet

Archive for the 'Law' Category

It’s Sort of Like Trading Papelbon for a Little League Pitcher

Published by

at October 15, 2009 in Academia and Law. 2 Comments

As Massachusetts is one of only six states in the nation to not have a state-run law school, UMass is making a bid for the unaccredited Southern New England School of Law. Part of the deal would be for SNESL to give UMass the campus and its cash for free; the university would then take over operations, gain ABA accreditation (the school is currently accredited only by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges), increase enrollment, and offer a discount to Massachusetts students.

Even with the donation of the buildings, cash, and campus to UMass, this proposal is not setting SNESL to be the next UC Irvine. The latter school offered free tuition to its entire incoming class; as a result, it built a class with an average GPA of 3.61 and an average LSAT of 167. Currently, SNESL charges $22,175 for tuition and fees (exclusive of other expenses, such as living costs and books). If the school is taken over by UMass, in-state students would be charged about $24,000/year. Exclusive of living expenses, then, a student who graduates from the “economically-priced,” newly accredited, and poorly ranked state law school would accumulate about $75,000 in debt before interest, housing expenses, and bar loans.

Moreover, the UMass school could remove an economical option for students in the Commonwealth: reciprocity with UConn. Full-time MA students are charged about $34,000 for their first year and, if they choose to obtain Connecticut residency, $20,000 per year for the next two years (here). The total cost is almost equal to that of UMass’s proposed law school – but UConn is a well-respected, strong second-tier school, not an unaccredited upstart. Should UMass take over SNESL, UConn would likely revoke the privileges of reduced tuition and admissions advantages.

Thus, the argument for a state law school is not that Massachusetts students need an affordable option for law school – under the definition of “affordable” that is advanced by the Commonwealth, that is already available to them via UConn – it is that students who have no hope of getting into a second-tier law school need an option for a JD that will only run them into six figures of education debt after living expenses. Issues of the Commonwealth’s billion-dollar budget deficit aside, it is beyond senseless to trade the UConn option for the unaccredited, almost-unknown SNESL.

Individualism Round-Up: Liberties, Religiousity, and Molecules

Published by

Roxeanne de Luca

at September 2, 2009 in Conservatism, Law, Obama Administration and Religion. 0 Comments

From Patterico’s Pontifications: apparently, Obama’s approval ratings and Monica Lewinsky have a lot in common. People who were squeamish about the Bush Administration’s actions towards terrorists must be absolutely irate over the current crowd’s manhandling of the Americans next door.

Not surprisingly, the Obama Administration intends to radically change the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. This naturally reveals, yet again, the folly of this business of the centralisation of power: the changing of the guard in Washington should not change so much about people’s daily lives.

On a philosophical level, the difference between modern conservative civil rights and modern liberal “civil rights” movements is not, as the NYT proclaims, to be one about the availability (or lack thereof) of evidence of intentional discrimination: it is about individual civil liberties. The progressives believe that membership in a politically favoured group is a basis for a civil rights action; conservatives focus on ensuring that human beings are not oppressed by a hostile government.

Carrie Prejean is suing the Pageant for religious discrimination (HT: Volokh). While I would like to think that this is a case designed to put liberals in a bind – giving them the choice between endorsing Miss Prejean or complaining about lawsuits that infringe upon the rights and actions of private entities – it could just as easily be one that ends up further eroding religious liberty. That clause of the Constitution is already applied with less vigour than other elements of the First Amendment, as its only liberal champions are prisoners who use it to vindicate their temper tantrums.

More nerdy fun from Volokh.

Second Amendment Love

Published by

Roxeanne de Luca

at March 6, 2009 in Conservatism, Law and Obama Administration. 0 Comments

I shamelessly stole this from Tieki. It’s great stuff.

What I never understand is the people who think that the Second Amendment ought to be read out of the Constitution. Yes, our guns are bigger, better, faster, and more readily available than they were in the late 18th century, but, given the choice between getting shot in, say, 1789 and getting shot in 2009, I would choose the latter, and not just because the doctor would be more likely to give me a blood transfusion, rather than bleeding me to balance the humours. Yes, it can be dangerous to arm private citizens, but the alternative is to have a government – or foreign powers – that have more firepower than the people they could oppress.

Frat Party + Guns = Disaster!

Published by

tiekirae

at February 17, 2009 in Academia and Law. 2 Comments

Disaster, they say! Who? The authors of a shoddy poster board sign at the Cornell Student Assembly’s debate about concealed carry on campus.

Other common arguments were that stressed out college students would start shooting whenever anxiety strikes or hockey fans would go on shooting rampages whenever our team lost! You know, because stressed students are always stabbing people with scissors and other pointy objects, we sure as heck don’t want to give them a gun. (/sarc)

(See part 1 and part 2 of our series on last year’s gun control debate at Cornell)

Anyway, Robert VerBruggen of Phi Beta Cons injects a little common sense into this debate that is still alive and well on campuses around the country:

I’ve heard many people, even some otherwise pro-gun ones, get queasy when it comes to guns on campus. Quick question: If the law says any 21-year-old can get a permit and carry a gun, why should we put additional restrictions on people who have been selected for their academic ability? If anything, those people will be less inclined to cause trouble.

Oh no, logic!

P.S. During my sabbatical from blogging, I became the PROUD owner of a new Ruger Mark III .22 handgun. It is beautiful and I love it. I also have this sticker on the ground level window of my apartment. The maintenance guy is a huge fan and suggested that I find some Remington or Winchester ones to add.