Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The phrase "logic dictates" is a poor way to argue your case that the 3rd year of law school is unnecessary
Despite some intuitive appeal, I'm not the only one who doesn't understand the legal basis for this Georgetown Law student's argument that the third year of law school piles on unnecessary debt in exchange for impractical or meaningless electives. (The student took off his third year of legal education to sue the California Bar arguing that he should be allowed to take the exam after only two years of law school). His arguments were rejected right up to the U.S. Supreme Court and one commentator offered these reasons:
Michael Kessler, an assistant professor of government and the Assistant Director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown, is critical of Gordon’s unsuccessful petition and legal arguments.
'It’s a far-fetched, poorly written brief that glides over the salient points as if nine justices will be magically persuaded to his views by the inclusion of ‘Logic dictates’ at the beginning of a sentence, Kessler said.
Kessler also believes Gordon misinterpreted the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.
'The petition is all over the map on this, Kessler said. 'Great way to imagine [the law], but the law doesn’t work that way.' While Anthony Clark Arend, the director of the Master of Science and Foreign Service and current adjunct law professor at the Law Center who also founded the Institute for International Law and Politics at Georgetown, said he found the case interesting, he thought there was little legal ground for Gordon’s case.
Logic dictates that GU won't be getting any alumni gifts from this student. You can read more courtesy of The Hoya, the GU student newspaper.
Hat tip to Above the Law.