US Politics Mega-thread - Page 10020

On March 06 2018 07:53 zlefin wrote:
I see.
So what's the point of the bar exam then? just a way to screen out people who shouldn't even be trying? no longer necessary regulation that once had a use?

On March 06 2018 07:53 zlefin wrote:
I see.
So what's the point of the bar exam then? just a way to screen out people who shouldn't even be trying? no longer necessary regulation that once had a use?

On March 06 2018 07:56 Mohdoo wrote:


Same as MCAT. It is just a way to filter out people unwilling to work hard. If you put the time in, you'll pass.

On March 06 2018 07:58 Plansix wrote:

Its a filter. Just like law school and LSAT. There was a day that you didn't need to attend law school to take the bar. But over time lawyers decided it would be better to have a minimum level of universal legal knowledge. When you become an attorney, you are admired to the state bar, which has a governing body. Attorneys police themselves when it comes to who can or can't practice law. In my state they take it very seriously and will crack down on attorneys who behave badly. Rhode Island, not so much. Though one attorney I know of did accuse a Judge of being part of a Zionist conspiracy, which was way to much for even Rhode Island.

On March 06 2018 08:01 ticklishmusic wrote:


To nitpick, in terms of what they act as gatekeepers for, MCAT would be more equivalent to the LSAT. Except I guess MCAT you need to know a lot of stuff (which is the bar), while LSAT is kinda more logic puzzles. And then the bar exam would be the equivalent of the boards for MD candidates.

TBH, the (practice) LSAT was kinda fun. MCAT, not so much.



Isn't reading law still allowed in some places?

On March 06 2018 08:17 farvacola wrote:
It definitely screens some people out; there were a number of people who had a nervous breakdown at the one I took, so that was fun. Particularly among those who come from "bad" law schools, you'll definitely run into folks who have taken a bar exam 4-5 times with no success. Many states have a limit on the number of times you can take it, too.

On March 06 2018 08:25 Mohdoo wrote:

In your perspective, what separates people who pass from people who fail? Drive? Commitment? Obsession? Does the quality of your school impact your ability to pass the bar? Does someone walking out of Harvard have an advantage other than the fact that are apparently smart and capable if they went to Harvard?

On March 06 2018 08:28 xDaunt wrote:

Drive and commitment are the biggest factors. The real question is do you have the discipline to sit in a chair for 6+ hours per day for a month to study up on substantive law before taking the test. Beyond that, the next question is one of intellectual capacity. Specifically, are you able to recognize and understand the legal issues that are presented to you. This is where the people from the unaccredited and other, lesser law schools (ie the people with lower LSAT scores) get weeded out.

On March 06 2018 07:58 Plansix wrote:

Its a filter. Just like law school and LSAT. There was a day that you didn't need to attend law school to take the bar. But over time lawyers decided it would be better to have a minimum level of universal legal knowledge. When you become an attorney, you are admired to the state bar, which has a governing body. Attorneys police themselves when it comes to who can or can't practice law. In my state they take it very seriously and will crack down on attorneys who behave badly. Rhode Island, not so much. Though one attorney I know of did accuse a Judge of being part of a Zionist conspiracy, which was way to much for even Rhode Island.

The bank that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen used to pay $130,000 in hush money to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford — known as Stormy Daniels in the industry — flagged the payment as suspicious, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

An LLC that Cohen established used First Republic Bank to pay Clifford in order to keep an alleged sexual encounter between her and Trump under wraps; First Republic later reported the payment to the Treasury Department, one unnamed person with knowledge of the matter told the Journal.

The Journal said it was unclear when First Republic first reported the payment. Cohen previously told the paper, while declining to say why he used his own money to “facilitate a payment” to Clifford, that “just because something isn’t true doesn’t mean that it can’t cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump.”

Days before the 2016 election, Clifford’s lawyer threatened to cancel her nondisclosure agreement with Cohen because Clifford hadn’t yet received the promised money, the Washington Post reported Friday. Ten days later, the Post reported, the money arrived. The timing, according the paper, could support two groups’ complaints that the payment was essentially undocumented election spending.

In January, the campaign finance group Common Cause said Cohen’s payment to Clifford violated election law because the hush money “was an unreported in-kind contribution to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.” The advocacy group filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, as did American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, a Democratic Party-aligned advocacy group.

Mr. Cohen had missed two payment deadlines earlier in October “because he couldn’t reach Mr. Trump in the hectic final days of the presidential campaign,” the Journal reported, citing another unnamed person familiar with the matter. Anonymous sources told the Journal that, following the election, Cohen complained to friends that Trump hadn’t reimbursed him for the expense.

Cohen replied to the Journal’s request for comment with two words: “Fake News.”

Clifford acknowledged a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump in a 2011 interview with In Touch magazine.

Clifford and her attorney were using a client-trust account with City National Bank, which received Cohen’s payment on Oct. 27 2016, the Journal reported. The bank asked Clifford’s attorney in September of 2017 about the source of the payment, the Post reported. The Journal noted that the gap between the payment and City National’s internal investigation of it, nearly one year, was unusual.

On March 06 2018 00:50 LightSpectra wrote:
*haven't posted here in awhile*

Is there any point in talking to Trump supporters at this point? They live in a parallel reality to ours, where FOX/other Murdoch outlets/Breitbart/InfoWars are legitimate, honest journalistic outlets, and every other outlet in the entire world is part of a giant conspiracy to undermine the right-wing.

That's really what it comes down to. If you think FOX is genuinely "fair and balanced," then Trump (if you are morally capable of putting aside his active campaigning for a child molester, which even the FOX hosts stopped denying eventually) seems like a competent and well-meaning guy that's being undermined by career bureaucrats. If you give any credibility at all to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, BBC, WaPo, NYT, the Guardian, Reuters, McClatchy, WSJ, LA Times, Vox, Bloomberg, etc. etc. then he's a corrupt, petulant moron of the highest degree being kept afloat by a Republican Party that is now complicit in the corruption.

After his refusal to divest his financial holdings, Charlottesville, DACA, Roy Moore, escalating civilian casualties in the Middle East/Africa, near-universal corruption in his cabinet, etc., I doubt there are any actual independents left. There's four groups now: the anti-Trumpers, the deluded ones who entrust their immortal souls to FOX [et al.], and the ones who know the pro-Trump media are liars but don't care because they're enthusiastically malicious. And a comparatively small group who don't pay any attention to the news and only know what they see on social media, but that sector is probably split roughly halfway between left- and right-wingers.