Comments for Ohio Law Library

Comment on How do I know if going to Law school is really the right thing for me? by A R

A R — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:51:59 +0000

The person above me shows his arrogance, which is the hallmark of a lawyer. That said, he’s correct – the "do you like to argue?" idea is one of the silliest things ever. Do you like to analyze, pick apart fallacies, read things over and over trying to find flaws you can exploit? Further, do you mind reading – and I don’t mean just merely reading, but understanding to the point of being asked to explain the intricaties of it – many pages of dense, boring texts? If so, law school might be all you. Make sure and sit in on some classes though and do talk with lawyers and law students. It’s not for everyone by any means. A lot of people enter the profession disappointed, but I think that’s much more due to not being adequately informed about the profession and/or education in the first place. I think law school is a great idea for someone with a finance/economics background and, at least in the finance industry, it is often viewed by HR people as a better degree than a MBA (read more challenging).
References :
Law student.

Comment on How do I know if going to Law school is really the right thing for me? by bweaing

bweaing — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:04:59 +0000

The people who answered your question truly show their ignorance in what the average lawyer does. If you like to read a lot and pick up on the smallest loopholes or logical inconsistencies in arguments and statements, then write about it, you’d probably make a good lawyer.

There’s a book titled "So you want to go to Law school?" I recommend you pick it up and read it. (I think that’s the title, don’t rightly remember since I found it at the bookstore and read it for 2 hours)
References :

Comment on How do I know if going to Law school is really the right thing for me? by Poor Horatio

Poor Horatio — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:43:59 +0000

I know one person who graduated from law school, passed the bar exam, and then decided not to practice law. She ended up getting a job working in a laboratory because she was more interested in science.
In my case, I was not interested in corporate law, nor tax law, nor civil law. I was only interested in criminal law. So I ended up getting a degree in Criminal Justice.
Are you sure you understand what being a lawyer involves? Try visiting your local county court house and sit in on some cases. Visit civil and criminal court rooms. Once you are dead set on becoming a lawyer, then that should give you enough motivation to make it through law school.
Since I never attended law school, I can’t tell you what you need to survive it. I will leave that for a lawyer to answer.
References :

Comment on How come the Supreme Court’s decisions are always carried into effect? What enforces them? by daniel_dubv

daniel_dubv — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:34:59 +0000

people listen and obey the SCOTUS (supreme court of the united states) because they are the highest court, and they are the only ones that can deem something un-constitutional....my political science teacher in college said once, " The Supreme Court isnt last because their right, their right because they are last" meaning the last stop for appeals in a court case.
References :

Comment on How do I know if going to Law school is really the right thing for me? by Bre D

Bre D — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:05:59 +0000

Like politics? Like to cross examine ( argue with people)? Law may be perfect for you. Its not going to be a easy road, and you really need to figure out what you want to do,because law school is not cheap. I suggest thinking hard about what you yourself want, and not what other around you think is right for you.
References :

Comment on How come the Supreme Court’s decisions are always carried into effect? What enforces them? by Yak Rider

Yak Rider — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:02:59 +0000

They are voluntarily complied with.

Back during Andrew Jackson’s presidency the court handed down a ruling he didn’t like. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, prohibited President Andrew Jackson from forcibly moving Indians from southeastern states to the western territories. Jackson refused to obey, saying "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
References :

Comment on How come the Supreme Court’s decisions are always carried into effect? What enforces them? by Adam B

Adam B — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:34:59 +0000

One of the nice things about living in a country that respects the rule of law is that court decisions are obeyed even though the Court has no independent power of enforcement. People carry Supreme Court decisions into effect because they understand that the entire system depends on respecting court judgments. A state court that ignored an order of the Supreme Court would be sawing away at the branch that it sits on.
References :

Comment on When will the Supreme Court have the courage to rule on the 2nd Amendment? by practical thinking

practical thinking — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:29:59 +0000

I look at it like this: the criminals don't follow the laws, so regulating firearms will only put ridiculous and costly restrictions on law-abiding citizens. All the new legislation will just cause more taxes and government waste. There's this quote I'm rather fond of: "An Armed Person is a Citizen; An Unarmed Person is a Subject." While I don't really expect the government to turn into a serious dictatorship, the subjugation need not come from the government. If the criminals will be armed in spite of legislation, while we are not, it is then that we become subjects of the armed criminals.
References :

Comment on When will the Supreme Court have the courage to rule on the 2nd Amendment? by laughter_every_day

laughter_every_day — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:13:59 +0000

This year. The case arose in the District of Columbia and the supreme court has agreed to hear it.
References :

Comment on When will the Supreme Court have the courage to rule on the 2nd Amendment? by coragryph

coragryph — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:45:59 +0000

Very likely now that there is a clear circuit split — prior to the DC Circuit ruling, every other circuit but the 5th had ruled the same way, so the split wasn’t that significant.

Now, with two circuits coming down with the individual rights interpretation, and 4 others with the collective rights doctrine (but two of those only because the others had as well) — it finally reaches a point where the split is significant.

Besides, if I recall, the US SupCt has already agreed to hear the appeal from the DC Circuit case during the upcoming term — the only question is whether the individual rights vs. collective rights issue is one that will be argued, or whether DC’s status as a non-state makes that a moot point that doesn’t need to be addressed given the selective incorporation issue.

That’s the thing that makes the DC case unique — DC is not a state, so it has no sovereign rights the way a state does — as such, any laws it passes are the same as if they were federal laws — and given that the 2nd Amendment was never incorporated against the states, there is a significant (and potentially dispositive) difference between gun control laws passed by DC and gun control laws passed by any state.
References :