Here are exchanges I've had with some people from my law school.  This was prompted by the Supreme Court's recent decision to not allow the execution of those with low I.Q.'s.  

The e-mails are in order from earliest to latest and the names have been changed.  Other than that, they are intact (with some editorial explanation by me where appropriate).

I obviously took a lot of heat here.  Tell me what you think.  

Unfortunately I don't have the e-mail the started this thing--it was from a professor declaring a "Victory" as a result of the Court's decision.  

Here's the first response:

From John:
Who was Eric Nesbitt?  An airman in the United States Air Force who was kidnapped, forced to withdraw money from his bank account and then taken to the woods and shot eight times by Daryl Atkins.  

Daryl had sixteen prior felony convictions for "robbery, attempted robbery, abduction, use of a firearm, and maiming."  Daryl also has an I.Q. of 59.  As such, the U.S. Supreme Court says he can't be executed for his crime.  Part of the reasoning Justice Stevens used is that those who are mentally retarded (an I.Q. under 70) have difficulty understanding the consequences of their actions.  Apparantly, 16 prior felony convictions were not enough to make Daryl understand that robbing, beating and shooting people were bad.

In addition, Daryl is black.  Ordinarily this would not be a concern for the court, since justice is (or should be) blind to a person's race, creed or color.  However, since many of the same ilk who applauded yesterday's decision* also claim that I.Q. tests are culturally biased, how can an I.Q. test be determinative in evaluating whether someone is mentally retarded?  According to several sources, the standardized I.Q. test used in this case may be culturally biased to such an extent that Daryl actually scored a 79 on the test.  That would place him outside the recognized zone of retardation.  So, maybe we should fire up Ol' Sparky anyhow.

Below is a link to the decision for those who wish to read J.P. Stevens' majority opinion and Rhenquist and Scalia's dissents.  Requires Adobe acrobat.

*A "victory for the supreme court" consists of using public opinion polling and other nations' laws to interpret our constitution.  In addition, it is unclear who the Supreme Court beat to obtain this victory or what game they were playing.  Just punching away at the dreariness of bar review.




 

Here's me chiming in:

From Magnum_99:
Well, naturally John, they beat us narrow-minded and heartless try-um and fry-um conservatives that's who.  Sheesh.  

Seriously, the decision is misguided in that it ignores alternate features of punishment, namely retribution and specific deterrence as opposed to general deterrence. The idea that mental incompetents should not be put to death is based (partially if not substantially) upon a lack of knowledge re their acts that aims at general deterrence.  In other words, how can the death penalty deter those whom can't even understand just what it is they are doing. (This in addition to the more "moral" idea that capital punishment is just wrong anyway).    

Yet, we have this dull knife serially robbing and kidnapping, and now murdering.  Who cares if he is fully aware, in the sense that a law professor or even your merry garbage man is aware (and if you take that as a comparison of the intellect of law profs. and garbage men then just get offended, you will anyway whether I meant it that way or not) of "the nature and quality of the act."

Tell that to the wife or kids of this human garbage's victims that he "doesn't fully understand the nature and quality of his act, or he didn't know the act was wrong."  Phooey!  

Societal retribution alone justifies volting the creep.  Not to mention specific deterrence. (Even if that means the end result of the deterrence is mere protection of the other inmates who will be forced to share a cell with him--can you imagine, you get sent up the river for a little black bag job on some bank, no guns or killing involved--Mission Impossible style, or for distribution of twenty or thirty pounds of pot-God knows the pot heads aren't violent-and you have to share a cell with this wing-nut!  Even prisoners shouldn't have to put up with that!  

I submit that the fact that Atkins/"Corky" doesn't know the "nature and quality of his act" makes him MORE dangerous than if he did!  If he knew what he was doing could either land him in jail in perpetuity or result in a trip to "the vet" for some night-night medicine, then HE WOULD NOT KILL PEOPLE!

Of course, I agree with all the statements John made re intelligence testing--after all, I'm just a conservative clone who can't think for myself and refuses to have an "open-mind."  

And a follow up by me:
From magnum_99:
Oh yeah, can you imagine being the poor shmoe who gets picked for that little double homicide and consistently scores a 71!    

You'll have guys ramming their heads into walls to kill off a few brain cells just to get that number down!  ("Please doc, not a total lobotomy, just a little off the sides!")

How low can it go?  Nobody knows!

Here's where things heat up a little:

Quote from Magnum_99's email:

" I submit that the fact that Atkins/"Corky" doesn't know the "nature and
quality of his act" makes him MORE dangerous than if he did! "

Mr. Magnum_99, I submit that your email is as dangerous as you are offensive. By calling the convicted-murderer Atkins, "Corky", to satisfy your childish/right-wing/eugenic humor, you are showing the entire law school community how wonderful it is not to be bombarded with idiotic e-mails. Chris Burke, the mentally-challenged actor whom you liken a convicted-murder to, is something that you must definitely are not - a person who overcame severe prejudice and adversity to make something of himself. The very fact that you fail to understand the "nature and quality of" your own email message proves that it does not take a mentally-challenged individual to make himself "MORE dangerous".

Fred, 3L

Here's me with a shot over the bow:
From magnum_99:

Blah, Blah Freddy.  

I've mentally jousted with you before and you're boring.  

The last time we did this little dance you lost--do you really want to go again?

Oh, what the heck, why not.

"Eugenic Humor."  That's nice--I'll remember that one for future use.

RE "Corky"--Childish you say?  Maybe, but effective.  You understood EXACTLY what I was getting at didn't you.  

Of course I wasn't comparing Chris Burke to a convicted murderer.  So far as I know, Chris Burke is happily and peacefully enjoying his royalty money somewhere.  

BTW, I liked the show "Life Goes On" starring t.v.'s Chris Burke.  Who can't get behind a guy who overcomes adversity and makes good?  Everyone loves the movie "Rudy" for just that reason.  We all love a winner, especially not the natural winner, but the one who just has to try harder.

Oh, and for the record, I think Chris Burke has down's syndrome--does that make him "retarded."  Does he even have a low I.Q?  Someone with some medical knowledge could stand to enlighten us here.

I have no prejudice re the "mentall/physically challenged."  They deserve the same treatment we all do (and an little help sometimes--while in high school, I volunteered at a local Special Olympics meet FYI--no, I'm not a saint for this, just trying to do a little for my fellow man--in the Christian sense).  Yet, that also means that punishment for bad acts should be just as certain as well.  No free rides here pal.

Try this on for size. IF Chris Burke were up for murder, would you be against giving him the death penalty?  No doubt he's mentally challenged in some way (whatever that may be exactly), but I'd bet you found no trouble with his character getting married on the show.  

Yet, how did he understand what marrige was all about if he's so challenged?  (If I remember, the show dealt with that very idea) If he's capable of understanding the nature and quality of such emotions as love and devotion embodied in marriage, then surely he would understand hate and death, and the subsequent pain of others resulting from his actions.  

Would society allow Atkins to be married?  Damn straight it would--pretty low standard of competance required there.  But we get all wiggly on the issue when trying to decide that he can't understand about death and killing.  It boggles the mind.    

Finally, I love how you intimate that I am dangerous for expressing my thoughts.  What happended to the left-wing ideals of free thought, open-minded exchange, and tolerance?  

Oh yeah, only tolerance for those whom AGREE with you.  Get off your HIGH horse and practice what you preach.

And another dissection:
From magnum_99:

By the way, not to be obsessive about it (o.k., I'm being obsessive about it) but "eugenics" refers to a "science" that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed--per Merriam Webster.  

Not sure that you got quite the right usage here Fred--I thought not but wanted to double check the "Aaauthoriti" just to be sure.  

Nice try though.  It sounded suitably "Nazi-istic."  That was what you were going for, right?

Now, we see the libs come out into the day--this in respose to John's e-mail:

From Buck:

John,
 
It is too bad that there is not a portion of the bar exam designed to combine Seinfeldian sarcasm with William Bennetts Moral Authority, as John would surely raise our paltry 63% bar passage rate into the rafters. I know, perhaps he should e-mail the state with a pithy anecdote, coupled with a inner message of the TRUE INSIGHT(Apparently only obtainable if you watch Fox News or read the Federalist's Tripe we all recieve courtesy of John). Hey, guess you can't win them all John, don't worry I am sure our Supreme Court appointed president would sign any piece of legislation you authored, if you were to take the time to lobby you local Congress person. Or are you too busy studying for the bar to lobby, but not busy enough to enlighten us with one last going away present.  I am positive the former Texas Governor is missing the good old days when he executed at the same rate as Iran, a member of the AXIS OF EVIL.

From the "Canadian Left," which is a tad short of Socialism..."AAAAAAAAAAA not socialism," God forbid that every child have health care, they need to get out and "pull themselves up by the bootstraps," and we both know that is the mantra of you and the rest of the Fox news correspondents.

Buck

I can't wait for some of those dumb asses in Law School to get out in the real world and get their dumb asses handed to them!

They should 'know' better, but in reality, it is quite possible that 'Corky' Atkins has more on the ball than they do!

Eric The(JustImagineWhatThisCourtWouldDoWithThe2ndAmendment!)Hun[>]:)]

And John's kick-ass response:

From John:
Buck, Buck, Buck...

It is indeed unfortunate that such a portion of the bar exam does not exist, because to be quite honest I fear that after August 1 I will be attending Harry Wendlestadt's Umpire School in Daytona Beach, Florida.  Nonetheless, I must remark on some other areas of your reply.

While it is true that Fox News is on the list of favorites on the digital cable remote (joined only by CSPAN, Discovery Wings, the ESPNs, Spice and HotNet), this should not distract from the questions raised.  In addition, my absentee ballot mailed to the great state of Florida did not contain a mark next to W or Pat Buchanan.  Nonetheless, the rule of law must be followed, even when determining a president.  These laws were followed by the U.S. Supremes.  Rather than appointing W, the U.S. Supreme Court merely sought to void the appointment of one A. Gore, Jr. by the Florida Supreme Court.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..." U.S. Con. Art. II Sec. 1.

The key phrasing there being "as the Legislature therof may direct."  It doesn't say as the state supreme court may direct by extending deadlines, rewriting state code and then ignoring deadlines they themselves set in a vain attempt to have local cronies tamper with ballots and recount countinuously until the desired result is reached. There reasoning was supported, either directly or indirectly, by various trial courts throughout the state.  In addition, numerous investigations have concluded that no one was deprived of their right to vote in the state.  Florida's committe (a committe controlled by partisan democrats) that investigated such allegations did conclude that there were indiscrepencies, but their report did not allow any dissenting opinion and would not permit the lone Republican on the committee to examine a draft of the report before it was released.  The committee member in question was also blind and needed additional time to study the conclusions.  The report was released anyhow without his input.  So much for the much touted Democratic ideas of inclusion and help for the handicapped.  Finally, numerous independant recounts by news agencies have shown that W. did indeed win.  But, as you mentioned, you can't win them all.  Perhaps if you become naturalized, if you are not already, you can participate in the Democratic party's vote buying schemes, fraud and spread of disinformation in 2004.

A more indepth analysis of this can be read in Posner's book on the subject.  I'm sure you read it already, since it was mentioned on the Federalist Society's Book of the Week list.

cont'd

As for the execution rates in Iran being comperable to those in Texas, once again I would recommend you read the Texas State constitution which gives the governor no authority to pardon death row inmates, although he may ask for a review of the evidence.  To compare Iran with Texas is another example of the leaps in logic and hysteria.  Over in these parts we have trials by jury, procedural safeguards, rights of appeal and all those other little things that theocratic dictatorships overlook.  While you can be executed in Iran for having an extramarital affair (among other things, which is one of the reasons my uncle and his family left the region), I have yet to hear of such developments even in Texas.  Last I checked they save the most terrible of punishments for people who have taken another human's life, such as Mr. Atkins.  However, since he did use a gun, it probably was the gun manufacturer's fault.  Or the fault of society, capitalism, a mom that beat him, racism, sugars in twinkies, PMS (I don't think he could use that one), Republicans, rich white guys, trying to live up to the pressures of competing in a male dominated society or anything else besides himself.  I still wonder why many of those who hate the death penalty are so gung-ho about abortion.  Sure, I can see how killing a person who exercised his freewill to commit a heinous crime could be bad, while killing an unborn baby is good.  Still, it would make sense if parties would believe in either the sanctity of life in its entirity or be pro-death.  Personally, my views lean towards the pro-death side.

On to Canada, our fair neighbors to the north.  The medical system is quite good in Canada.  Why after taking patents from U.S. pharmacuticals and placing price controls on them, the cost of medication is cheap.  In addition, major surgical procedures are so good that those of means often flock south of the border to have said operations performed in the United States.  How long is the waiting list to get non-emergency surgery in Canada?  Although not an expert in the area, my own experiences have shown me that by paying $7/week to my evil, capitalistic employer's HMO I was able to have multiple operations and only pay for 10% of the total costs.  By the way, no one is this country is denied emergency service.  As for non-emergency treatment, perhaps children would be able to afford such care if their parents took responsibility for those they bring into the world and, if they cannot, avail themselves of numerous birth control means handed out for free in the town elementary school.  Whenever anyone proposes anything "for the children" I lock and load the Beretta and 12 gauge, swing by WalMart for ammo and a Mini-14 and shut the door.  The government is soon to come to take more of my freedom and money.  

Of course, we are not as enlightened as our neighbors to the north, whose great contributions include Brian Adams and the sport of pacifists, hockey.

And now, a female take:

From Sally:
I don't even know where to start...

Mr. magnum_99, I would just highly recommend that you work with those with special needs on more than a ONE time basis.  Not only will it give you something to brag about (which seems like all you learned from you past volunteer experience) but, if you truely let it, you might learn some skills that will help you "lawyer" -- Compassion, patience, tolerance, accepting difference, knowing that big words and how to read a Webster's Dictionary do not make you a better person -- just to name a few.  It is obvious that you have some learning to do in that area.  Lord help the special needs client who walks into your office and looks for compassion.  

Beyond all that, it really saddens me to see ANYONE, but especially law students, have such ill regard for those suffering from mental illness.  There are huge misconceptions and misunderstandings being thrown around and I would really hope that before you stick you neck out there and send an e-mail to a group of well-educated individuals you would take the time to educate yourself.  

Aside from a persons views on the death penalty, what is obvious is that in these United States we ignore and ill-treat those with mental illness.  We have substandard care facilities, most cities do not offer day programs for families, etc. and so on.  The problem lies in that it is cheaper to just place someone in jail then it is to go through the bother of finding them real help.  

And my laser beam retort:
From magnum_99:
I DO know where to start.  

First of all, Ms. Sally, why all the anger?  I indeed said nothing derogatory toward the mentally challenged.  I believe, in fact, I made some rather kind comments toward Chris Burke, from t.v.'s "Life Goes On", in that I lauded his perseverance in overcoming an obstacle.  Those with Down's Syndrome or any other mental/physical impairment deserve no less than any other individual; respect, kindness, and sometimes a helping hand. (But not a hand-out or pity, it's demeaning, THEY will tell you that).

I thought I made it clear that I wasn't "bragging" about helping out at a Special Olympics event.  I merely mentioned it because it seemed pertinent.  If you've had time over the last three years to dedicate to those noble-type purposes then you should be commended.  I had to study.  I, like "Rudy", am no thoroughbred; I have to try harder too.  Before that, I was working in the real world putting food on the table and paying off college.  Noble in its own way methinks.    

I don't think I'm the one who needs to do any learning here.  Fred brought up "eugenics"; a term last and most famously reserved for the "experiments" of Dr. J. Mengele of the Third Reich.   He obviously meant to intimate that I either espoused Nazi-istic doctrine in my comments or that I indeed am some sort of neo-Nazi.  Neither of which is true, and if called that to my face, I'd say thems be fightin' words!(Yes, in the Con-Law sense).

And how do you, Ms. Sally, presume to know just how I will deal with a "special needs" client.  Do you really think I will turn them away?  Make fun of them behind their backs?  Slack-off on their case and over-bill because they aren't worthy?  Put simply: Horse-shit!  If you knew anything about me you'd know I treat everyone I meet as I would expect them to treat me, better in most instances.  That's the way I was raised, in the Southern-Christian tradition.  

That does not mean, however, that a murderer, even with a low intelligence quotient (whatever that may be exactly is obviously subject to great and varying interpretation) should not be punished.  Do I believe in the indiscriminate killing of total mental incompetents?  No.  Do I have serious reservations about what standards will be applied in determining just what it means to be impaired enough to avoid the death penalty?  Yes.  We all should.  But that may be a moot point for anyone opposed to the death penalty in general.  But then again, I'm a more fire and brimstone kind of guy.  We'll judge you here, and let the good Lord take it from there.  

Also, I don't think we were even talking about "mental illness."  I believe we were talking about low I.Q.'s.  I'm no M.D., but I think I can safely say they are mutually exclusive terms.  

Does Atkins have a "mental illness"?  I have no idea.  If "metal illness" means committing multiple felonies and now murder and then claiming you shouldn't be punished because you're not intelligent, and then GETTING AWAY WITH IT, I'd say it's society that is "mentally ill" for letting it happen.  (Please hearken back to my marriage analogy, I think it's rather appropriate here and I stand behind it).    

cont'd

cont'd

I happen to agree with you, MS. Sally, re the U.S. "treatment" of mentally ill people.  The 1970's and '80s say massive closing of state run institutions for the treatment and care of these people.  The result was the massive "homelessness" problem that emerged in the 1980s and received massive publicity at the time but now is not even back-page news. What happened?  Has the "homeless" problem gone away?  Hell no.  Once we "figured out" that a majority of the so-called homeless are in fact either mentally ill or substance-addicted persons, society chose not to care so much.  Can I figure out a solution?   Not likely.  I'm just a dumb, recently-graduated lawyer without the resources to tackle the issue in any way other than some awareness.  Is there a problem? Damn Skippy.

Allow me to conclude. ("Thank Goodness", the audience sighs!)  The Atkins case obviously addresses a "hard case."  We all know those make for bad law.  The borderline is always tricky and is by definition rather arbitrary in nature.  Yet, I surely can see no justice in a borderline "hard case" (again, Atkins, according to some, may be over the line, that is, have a higher I.Q., depending upon what test you administer or "grade-up" accounting for "cultural bias", etc.) where the accused didn't just slip up once and make a mistake, but has committed multiple violent felonies against other people (we aren't just talking about a guy who steals stuff, or causes any number of other non-violent offenses, but he abducts people, robs, and kills them!) and then is permitted to avoid a penalty that would surely be meted out against anyone else (not to mention the accused with the 75 I.Q. that would just barely make the cut--surely he will claim bias in the test, or perhaps resort to some other means of lowering, artificially or otherwise, that ultimately arbitrary number, hence the debate).  

Does that view reflect anathema, hatred, or bigotry toward mentally challenged people?  Of course not.  Does if reflect REALITY?  You bethcha!

Freddy's witty redux:

From Fred:
Actually Mr. Magnum_99, you are the angry one here. It was you who made derogatory comments towards those individuals with mental handicaps. Now as you backpedal quickly so as not to appear as unkind as you actually are, you bring up what you believe is a trump card - the special olympics. This trump card is, in fact, a farce. Here you are, not more than a few days removed from comparing convicted murderers to an actor with Down's Syndrome, attempting to appear as enlightened as you possibly can. The kind comments you have co-opted, like some ridiculously transparent politician, were made by me. Such a short attention span will not get you very far in the putting bread on the table world - even you must know that by now.

As for the "Con-Law" fighting words, take the eugenic-comment in anyway your "Southern-Christian tradition" allows. That said, the "Southern-Christian tradition" gave rise to what I feel is one of the worst Supreme Court phrases ever - "Two generations of imbeciles are enough." While that was brought to us by an old-school Boston Yankee, the case was southern, as were several of the eugenic programs this country participated in. Programs that I have no doubt were heartily endoresed by "Southern-Christian tradition."

You are a joke, Mr. Magnum_99. A joke to all those who came before you at this law school and all those that try not to step in the droppings you left behind.

And my final word on the topic to the law school at large:

From magnum_99:
I must respond however to Freddy's calling me a "joke."  He's attacked my three times now and has never responded substantively to any of my arguments.  He first intimates that I'm a Nazi and then outright states that I'm somehow of an embarassment to the law school for expressing opinions on what are obsiously not clear calls (even the Supremes can't decide conclusively for they keep changing their minds on it).  

Your damn straight I take offense to being called a joke and especially a Nazi.  Fred  must resort to ad hominem attacks on me personally (no doubt as a result of me expressing my displeasure a few months back when he unilaterally and presumptively took it upon himself to tamper with someone's e-mail account; a real harm to someone, that he acts based upon his personal feelings about the content of the mail that he received.  Do you think he tries to close down the accounts of all the spammers that send him mail? Yeah right.)  No, Fred is the joke.  I MADE a joke.  That's the difference.  

Now, I'm taking my ball and going home.  I don't want to play with cheaters anymore.

I'm sure the only reason that law school professors would argue this is because they, themselves don't want to be executed if they kill one of their students one day.  I mean really...how many professors can you say are competant outside of the class room?  I had two drunks and a prof with a blood sugar problem who went a little nutty in class, sometimes telling students they are "fucking stupid."  

Anyway, don't drop to mud slinging, keep on the topic, they love to play on the high ground as they really do feel superior to the guy on the street.

That's the trouble Eric, they have never been in the real world.  98% of them have had everything handed to them by mommy and daddy.  They don't know what it's like to really work for a living.  I do.  

I was in the real world for 8 years loading compressed gas cylinder trucks by hand and then moving up into management from there after college before I went to law school.  

Screw em!  

I always try to take the high ground but IT'S SO HARD!  

That's funny about your profs.  

We have one old queen who is completely unintelligable in class and an alcoholic.  

We have another who has been to Betty Ford three times, most recently this year.  

Another who almost was almost disbarred after several DUI's and drug arrests but now plays it straight.  

Seems to prove the adage that those who can't do teach.  

But isn't it immoral, or at least improper, to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man? [}:D]

That's what my buddy "John" said:

"Like shooting fish in a barrel."

Why does that quote about competing in the Special Olympics come to mind here?

If Mr. Atkins possessed no moral cognizance, then why did he feel the need to utilize a firearm to compel Mr. Nesbitt comply with his demands? How does a dearth of moral perception allow one to come to such a conclusion? Does every mentally-retarded individual w/ an IQ < 70 get a morality pass? Why not consider individual behavior, rather than generalizing (again).

If any of your fellow students, professors, etc. wish to put their beliefs to the test, I'd challenge them to do short stint (3-6 months) in the mental health field so they can prove to themselves how right they are. Somehow, I imagine they will be "too busy", either now, or ever in the future.

Armchair morality warriors - always postulating untested "solutions" from a safe distance. I worked in the mental health field for for 6.5 years as a nursing assistant. If any of your "friends", professors, etc. can stomach walking a mile in my shoes & then continue to sing the same tune afterwards, I'll take up their cause.

But, like I said - they're probably all just "too busy".

You are correct.  

It is apparent that they are too busy to even have a cogent thought on the subject for they seem unable to rebut ANY of my substantive arguments and instead resort to just calling me "insensitive."  

They indeed are the paramount of intellectual laziness.  

Good points re Atkins' "understanding" of his acts.  Obviously, he understood enough that if he pointed a gun at Nesbitt in a threatening manner that Nesbitt was very likely to comply with just about any request to avoid harm.  Atkins clearly understood that very fundamental cause and effect relationship, didn't he?    

What you need to do is get them all fired up right before exams so you can go in there and wreck the curve. :)

Seriously though, I deal with idiots like this all the time. They shut up and get real when the partners explain to them that they are NOT paid their exorbitant salary to do research to facilitate the potluck brunch for queers of color. If they want to do that, go find another job and an audience that gives a shyte.

-dbrowne1
(rising 3L, currently working in the "real world" for the summer)

Great read.

You exposed those liberals for being morons.  The debate wasn't even close.  You won by 15 touchdowns.

Ugh, this whole debate really chaps my hide.  

I have worked in special education for the past eleven years.  I have worked with people with varying levels of mental retardation with and without mental illnesses.  The problem with this debate is there is a big difference between people with mental retardation and mental illness.  

People with mental retardation are first people. They are human beings just like the rest of us and run the gammut of good and bad just like the rest of us.  They simply have a harder time developing life skills.  The guy related to this case obviously had the skills necessary to commit the crime so why should he be given a pass?  People with mental retardation know when they are doing something right or something wrong.  I have worked with students with IQs in the thirties who knew right from wrong.

Now with mental illness, to get a pass it has already been defined that you need to not be able to distinguish right from wrong.  Does this need to be changed?  Of course I feel that you should not get a pass even if you can't distinguish right from wrong.  Doesn't that make this person even more dangerous to society.

And it is against the law to do I.Q. tests on African-Americans (for any substantive purpose).  Parents of African-Americans have even gone to the courts for the ability to have their children tested.

This debate reminds me of the Simpson episode when Lionel Hutz said, "Could you imagine a world without lawyers?" and they showed the world holding hands and singing, and Hutz shudders.

Too bad finals are over.  I bowed out of the thing but would keep going just to piss them off!  

How true about the partners!  Unless they win the lottery or have mommy and daddy pay off that $100,000 of debt they will indeed learn about the cold hard reality of real law practice.  

Noble causes and social engineering be damned, I want stock options and to play golf (just like the partners)!

I'm a cop and a 2L and I'm of the frame of mind a dirtbag is a dirtbag. Most of the shitheads I meet on the street are probably below 70 and couldn't tie their own shoes. Its the way things are. Some would call me a conservative / federalist but I'd say I'm more a Darwinist. May the strong survive and let the idiots fill the holes in the ground.

An entertaining read and study of verbal sparring a la lawyer.

My own comment is short and to the point.

I can feel sorry for a rabid dog, but that won't stop me from putting a bullet into him.

-legrue