Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AmishDude
No law school requirements to take the bar exam.

That was the case in many states until relatively recently. Yes, that change definitely helped the law schools financially.

I can understand every word of every law review article.

You have a good point there in comparison to mathematics, but you have to have a pretty darn good vocabulary and/or a good dictionary in order to understand every word of every law review article.

Every lawyer is a [lobbyist] both nationally and statewide and subject to lobbying restrictions..

I see where you are coming from, but many lawyers do not have connections with any legislators, so how can you fairly say that every lawyer is a lobbyist.

The funds on which the courts operate should come exclusively from taxes on lawyers.

If so, the tax would just be passed along to the clients, thus impeding access to the courts, especially for for people not in a good financial position.

122 posted on 05/16/2010 7:01:49 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: justiceseeker93
You have a good point there in comparison to mathematics, but you have to have a pretty darn good vocabulary and/or a good dictionary in order to understand every word of every law review article.

You can look up words. It doesn't take long. And it proves my point even more strongly. Most people who do productive things (to borrow a phrase from Scalia) actually use the language to communicate complicated ideas. Only in the law and the humanities is language viewed as a tool used to obscure simple ideas to make them appear to be more complicated.

I see where you are coming from, but many lawyers do not have connections with any legislators, so how can you fairly say that every lawyer is a lobbyist.

Doesn't matter. Every lawyer benefits from every law. They have an intimate vested interest in each and every piece of legislation and are de facto lobbyists.

>The funds on which the courts operate should come exclusively from taxes on lawyers.

If so, the tax would just be passed along to the clients, thus impeding access to the courts, especially for for people not in a good financial position.

Wrong. If the tax is progressive (either applied to the fee itself or the total take of the lawyer) it will not effect those who are unable to afford the most expensive lawyers anyway.

Besides, the problem with this country is too much access to the courts. In the abstract, it sounds all nice and noble that it is so easy to sue anybody for any reason, but in practice it's what's bringing us down.

We have far more lawyers per capita than any other country and it's still a good living. There is something very wrong with this picture.

124 posted on 05/16/2010 7:41:20 PM PDT by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for, it matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson