Justice Department to investigate destruction of CIA tapes

Socrtease said:
My managing partner graduated from Regent. Was an assistant DA that NEVER lost a case and is now an outstanding lawyer. Desh's lack of knowledge about law schools and about the profession in general is colored by her elitism
Click to expand...

That’s great that your managing partner came out of there Soc, but irrelevant. Here are the facts: It’s a piece of shit law school, ranked, rated and views as the bottom of the barrel. This administration hired 150 or more of them straight out of those doors. It was payback to the religious right. Shit in, shit out. There are exceptions, but for the most part, shit is going into that school, and shit is coming out of it.

We hired them, with the money I get up at 5am every morning to bust my “elitist” ass to earn, to keep the religious part of his base happy. When George bush and dick cheney and scooter libby and Karl Rove needed personal lawyers, and oh by the way, they all have needed them, they didn’t go to that shit law school. But they spent my money to do the people’s business at that shit law school, because that shit is good enough for the people, but not good enough for them

And most of the people coming out of there have as their allegiance, Jesus Christ their lord and savior, and George w bush…not the law. Not the people’s business.

So let’s put away the bullshit.
 
I dont care that it is a 4th tier law school. In fact I personally find that the best lawyers went to State Schools that were less expensive than Harvard or Yale. Unfortunantly in my opinion, the "quality" of the law school does not relate to the quality of the lawyer, only the quality of the lawyers connections.

If you went to Harvard law you likely were classmates with a Senator, Congressman or president. That means something to the firm that might be hireing you. If you went to Regents you were not likely to be classmates with anyone, untill now.

I do find it shamefull that clearly the Bush Administration clearly gave some preference for jobs to Regents because it is Pat Robertsons school. They did not hire that many lawyers from any other 4th Tier law school.
 
Jarod said:
I dont care that it is a 4th tier law school. In fact I personally find that the best lawyers went to State Schools that were less expensive than Harvard or Yale. Unfortunantly in my opinion, the "quality" of the law school does not relate to the quality of the lawyer, only the quality of the lawyers connections.

If you went to Harvard law you likely were classmates with a Senator, Congressman or president. That means something to the firm that might be hireing you. If you went to Regents you were not likely to be classmates with anyone, untill now.

I do find it shamefull that clearly the Bush Administration clearly gave some preference for jobs to Regents because it is Pat Robertsons school. They did not hire that many lawyers from any other 4th Tier law school.
Click to expand...

Jarod I have no doubt that this holds true in many cases. But clearly, in the case of Regent, it does not. If it held true we wouldn’t have the justice department scandals, and after watching several of these regent people testifying under oath on Cspan, it is apparent they are stupid and incompetent. One of them even testifying that they answered to George bush, not to the law. They are unqualified, period. Jesus-loving fuck ups, doing the people’s legal business.

Anyone like the results so far?
 
Jarod said:
Anyone who boasts he never lost a case is not trying enough cases. Or he is not trying any close calls, just slam dunks. I pride myself on being willing to go to trial on close cases, but I admit, I loose some of them.
Click to expand...
Not boasting that I never lost a case. Just never lost a case to that particular attorney and she is from a very highly regarded school. You know as much as I do that the US New Rankings are as much about the name of the school and who teaches there than anything else. Regent doesn't teach Contracts from some unknown textbook. Crim law is taught from LaFave just like it is in most every other law school in the US. The Bush Administration picked Regent grads because they were pandering to Robertson and they like the conservative bend from that school. But Desh thinks that because a school is a third or fourth tier school that those schools are teaching something other than the law or teaching unaccepted legal theories and you and I BOTH know that is bullshit.
 
Socrtease said:
Wow Desh you are on a roll today. So know the lawyers that work for the DOJ that went to ABA accredited law schools went to "fake" law schools. Please for those of us in the unwashed masses tell me what a REAL law school is? Harvard vs South Texas? Yale vs. Washburn Law School? Berkley vs. University of Kansas? Which of these are real and which are fake and what is your guage of that? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Whichever one you went to is obviously fake. I mean GAWD you can hardly put two coherent sentences together with regards to issues pertaining to law.

:rolleyes:
 
Jarod said:
Anyone who boasts he never lost a case is not trying enough cases. Or he is not trying any close calls, just slam dunks. I pride myself on being willing to go to trial on close cases, but I admit, I loose some of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you are a shitty lawyer who probably went to like Tulane instead of Yale. Thus, you cannot be a real lawyer.

:D
 
Socrtease said:
Not boasting that I never lost a case. Just never lost a case to that particular attorney and she is from a very highly regarded school. You know as much as I do that the US New Rankings are as much about the name of the school and who teaches there than anything else. Regent doesn't teach Contracts from some unknown textbook. Crim law is taught from LaFave just like it is in most every other law school in the US. The Bush Administration picked Regent grads because they were pandering to Robertson and they like the conservative bend from that school. But Desh thinks that because a school is a third or fourth tier school that those schools are teaching something other than the law or teaching unaccepted legal theories and you and I BOTH know that is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Wow, an honest lawyer.... who would have thunk it?
 
Desh: This is why they Packed the DOJ with right wing idiots who could not get into real law schools. They will do anything the Bush team tells them to do.

See I don't have a problem with what Desh said. Yeah, suggesting regents is not a real law school is a use of hyperbole, but I know what she meant.

I read this as saying BushCo went out of their way to use our USDOJ as an employment opportunity, for hundreds of rightwing christians from one of the worst law schools in the nation.

A well run, competently managed DOJ, I would think would hire a lot of people from the top tier and middle tier law schools. And, even a few well qualified people from bottom tier schools. I want my tax money spent on quality and excellence.

But to hire 150 lawyers from Regents? Please, that is the very definition of cronyism, and using our tax dollars for political payback.
 
Socrtease said:
Not boasting that I never lost a case. Just never lost a case to that particular attorney and she is from a very highly regarded school. You know as much as I do that the US New Rankings are as much about the name of the school and who teaches there than anything else. Regent doesn't teach Contracts from some unknown textbook. Crim law is taught from LaFave just like it is in most every other law school in the US. The Bush Administration picked Regent grads because they were pandering to Robertson and they like the conservative bend from that school. But Desh thinks that because a school is a third or fourth tier school that those schools are teaching something other than the law or teaching unaccepted legal theories and you and I BOTH know that is bullshit.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that. Here is what I think; if there are gifted students at lower ranked schools, and there are, every effort should be made to recruit them into these positions.
But there were not 150 gifted students at Regents.
And when it comes to minds, I am an elitist. Who founded this country, a bunch of bumpkins, or the premier intellectuals of the day? Damned right I want the premier intellectuals of my day in DC. Not a bunch of Jesus freaks who can’t even testify under oath without making damned fools out of themselves.
I am not an anti-intellectual, though I know that’s all the rage in this country. And look where it’s got us.
 
Darla said:
I don’t think that. Here is what I think; if there are gifted students at lower ranked schools, and there are, every effort should be made to recruit them into these positions.
But there were not 150 gifted students at Regents.
And when it comes to minds, I am an elitist. Who founded this country, a bunch of bumpkins, or the premier intellectuals of the day? Damned right I want the premier intellectuals of my day in DC. Not a bunch of Jesus freaks who can’t even testify under oath without making damned fools out of themselves.
I am not an anti-intellectual, though I know that’s all the rage in this country. And look where it’s got us.
Click to expand...
I am not anti intellectual either, and you are right there were some tards that got hired from Regent to DOJ. But Desh made the comment that they didn't go to a real law school and the ABA would differ with her on that since they passed their very difficult accreditation. Desh should go to UNLV's law school and ask them how much bullshit you have to go through to get accredited. They just did it in the last decade or so. Most of us with law degrees did not go to harvard and yale and boalt hall. Some of us went to law school where it did not cost 20k per year to get the same education we got for 9k per year. Doesn't make our education any less valid.
 
Socrtease said:
I am not anti intellectual either, and you are right there were some tards that got hired from Regent to DOJ. But Desh made the comment that they didn't go to a real law school and the ABA would differ with her on that since they passed their very difficult accreditation. Desh should go to UNLV's law school and ask them how much bullshit you have to go through to get accredited. They just did it in the last decade or so. Most of us with law degrees did not go to harvard and yale and boalt hall. Some of us went to law school where it did not cost 20k per year to get the same education we got for 9k per year. Doesn't make our education any less valid.
Click to expand...

No, but I don’t think Desh meant it that way. I think she means it the same way I mean it. We saw them on television, and it was bad. They came out of a Robertson school. We can kind of tell why there were hired and it wasn’t for their legal minds.

I didn’t go to any fancy school either, so I am not putting people down. This seems a bit beyond the pale though.
 
Socrtease said:
I am not anti intellectual either, and you are right there were some tards that got hired from Regent to DOJ. But Desh made the comment that they didn't go to a real law school and the ABA would differ with her on that since they passed their very difficult accreditation. Desh should go to UNLV's law school and ask them how much bullshit you have to go through to get accredited. They just did it in the last decade or so. Most of us with law degrees did not go to harvard and yale and boalt hall. Some of us went to law school where it did not cost 20k per year to get the same education we got for 9k per year. Doesn't make our education any less valid.
Click to expand...


You were right that they are accredited.

I just think this was another "gotcha" distraction, aimed at desh though. With all due respect. I went to a public state school. I don't think that was desh's broader point. The point was (and its been acknowledged all through the media) that BushCo. used DOJ to hire a bunch of Regents law school graduates, far in excess of what ANY bottom tier law school would have merited.
 
I do agree that, from what I can tell, Regents teaches the law from such a bent toward religous law that the graduates may well likely not understand basic constitutional law. I suspect many componants of the law that the professors at Regents dont like are not fully explained. Such a large bent in the perspective of a school and have a negative effect on the students understanding of the topic as a whole.
 
Jarod said:
I do agree that, from what I can tell, Regents teaches the law from such a bent toward religous law that the graduates may well likely not understand basic constitutional law. I suspect many componants of the law that the professors at Regents dont like are not fully explained. Such a large bent in the perspective of a school and have a negative effect on the students understanding of the topic as a whole.
Click to expand...


I wonder if top tier Bio-tech research labs, hire Regents University biology/creation science students? :eek:
 
Socrtease said:
Not boasting that I never lost a case. Just never lost a case to that particular attorney and she is from a very highly regarded school. You know as much as I do that the US New Rankings are as much about the name of the school and who teaches there than anything else. Regent doesn't teach Contracts from some unknown textbook. Crim law is taught from LaFave just like it is in most every other law school in the US. The Bush Administration picked Regent grads because they were pandering to Robertson and they like the conservative bend from that school. But Desh thinks that because a school is a third or fourth tier school that those schools are teaching something other than the law or teaching unaccepted legal theories and you and I BOTH know that is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I wonder if Regents is leaving out part of the story on some legal theories due to the bias they clearly have.
 
Desh said:
http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...andal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/

Regent is a Law School which puts more emphasis on Religion than law.

American Law is not christian it is suposed to be free of religious bias.
Click to expand...

“The changes resulted in a sometimes dramatic alteration to the profile of new hires beginning in 2003, as the Globe reported last year after obtaining resumes from 2001-2006 to three sections in the civil rights division. Conservative credentials rose, while prior experience in civil rights law and the average ranking of the law school attended by the applicant dropped.”


Thanks Desh, that’s a really enlightening article. It’s funny how Desh never turns out to be the idiot that some people, like my friend SF, call her, isn’t it SF?
In particular reference to the above excerpt I want to say, that experience counts too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top