Posted on 10/01/2010 10:40:08 PM PDT by Qbert
It took Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, five attempts to pass the Alaska Bar Exam, a piece of her biography that has gone unreported until now, when she faces a long-shot write-in bid for another term in her Senate seat.
Murkowski, who graduated in 1985 from Willamette University's College of Law in Oregon, wasn't admitted to the Alaska Bar until November 1987.
She flunked the exam in July 1985, February 1986, July 1986 and again in February 1987. She passed on her fifth try in July 1987. Murkowski said that although her failures on the exam aren't something she talks about regularly, she's never hidden them. It's an example of how she "stayed in there," Murkowski said, "and I did not quit."
[Snip]
Miller - the other lawyer in the race - is a 1995 graduate of Yale's law school. He took the Alaska Bar Exam once, passing it in July 1995. He was admitted to practice law in Alaska in November 1995. Generally, about two-thirds of people taking the exam passed it in the years Murkowski failed it. In July 1985 and February 1986, 69 percent passed; 62 percent passed in July 1986, and 74 percent in February 1987.
The year she passed it, 63 percent of exam-takers aced it.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
“I guess lawyers can afford to do that since they get paid whether their clients go to prison or not.”
It’s even harder for people to get paid for practicing law...when they’re not real lawyers. ;-)
“And if you were as great at reading comprehension as you are at tossing insults, you would have noticed that I said FULL-TIME study. The vast majority of those who are working their way through school, which I assume includes Sarah Palin, generally do not study FULL-TIME, for which colleges usually require a minimum of 12 to 15 credits per semester and 2 full-time semesters per year.”
I try to avoid reading tortured logic and non sequiturs such as the post in question. Exactly what does time in college have to do with failing a bar exam four times, which is the subject of this thread. The answer: Zero. I don’t have to labor like a bulldog over the little rabbit trail you are on to see where it leads: Exactly nowhere.
“So I would have to say that you have to be infinitely dumber to take seven years to go through college (assuming you are a full-time student for those seven years, which I assume Palin was not), than to take the bar five times.”
It is Murkowski you are defending here, not Palin. All you do is ASSUME Palin was not a full time student for seven years, as if this assumption has anything at all to do with Murkowski or the bar exam. And you are wrong in the premises. Someone can be pursuing a double major, taking extra courses or attempting to discern their vocation. You assume facts with no more than your own suspicions as evidence. And the facts you assume have nothing to do with the subject. If your post is any indication, reading one of your legal memos would be a real challenge.
(I notice from your posting history that you seem to continually slam the conservative, whether it is O’Donnell or Paladino. Now you are defending a dim bulb RINO quisling like Murkowski. Do you ever defend the conservative? If so, who?)
And I repeat what I said. Four failures on a bar exam is prima facie evidence of low intellectual wattage. The rest of what I know of Lisa Murkowski renders the presumption irrebuttable.
Got somebody in mind?
No I didn't. Your attention to detail is pathetic. I hope your clients realize that.
wink-wink.
Hussein has failed multiple times. Never got one headline.
Actually Slick Willy did not voluntarily surrender his law license. He kept it while he was Gov. of Arkansas and for most of his Presidency until it was suspended by a judge in Arkansas for misconduct. Loads of Congress critters have active law licenses so it is still puzzling why both 0bamas "retired" their law licenses simply because Barky became a state senator.
Look at the posting history on this thread.
If you look at my post, number 81, I responded directly to two posters: you and napscoordinator. (Your post #23 was in response to his post #21)
In post 21, napscoordinator had stated, “Remember when they tried to say Sarah was stupid for taking seven years to finish a four year degree.”
But really, go ahead, continue with the personal attacks. They seem to be allowed on FR lately as long as you are on the perceived “right side” of an issue.
But she DID pass it. Our Mayor Tony Villagairosa never could. Poor little Tony.
A personal attack? You do torture logic to the enth degree don’t you?
Lack of attention to detail? Hope my clients notice it? Sound familiar? Sound a bit personal?
In any event, it doesn’t matter. I just asked Jim Rob to zot me at his earliest convenience — this site is just not for me anymore as it has taken an extremely ugly turn in the past year or two. This thread is just an example. Can’t disagree without it getting ugly, can’t have a debate that raises disputed views on Palin, and Murkowski, and O’Donnell, or much of anything.
I know, I know, don’t let the door hit me.
Don’t worry — I won’t.
She is a goof ball for sure, but to make fun of someone for taking a test multiple times just seems like a liberal thing to do. Remember when they tried to say Sarah was stupid for taking seven years to finish a four year degree. Everyone stuck up for her.
If you weren't trying to support the obvious contention that failing the bar exam four times is equivalent to taking seven years to complete a four year degree then every post you have made is a meaningless non-sequitur because you neither support my point or napscoordinator's nor make one of your own. Your post #81 was a direct response to me, not napscoordinator, and it doesn't address my point ("You don’t seriously think those two things are equivalent do you?") in any way.
That's absurd. Nothing that is posted these days matches the rancor that occurred many years ago. You just don't like being bested on the substance of your arguments which numerous posters have done here.
“this site is just not for me anymore as it has taken an extremely ugly turn in the past year or two. This thread is just an example. Can’t disagree without it getting ugly, ...”
—Lawyers are dragged through the dirt in law school in a competitive ugly rat race, humiliated in front of their classmates under the Socratic method by conceited law professors, subject to sometimes mean-spirited judges, forced to deal with the child-like bickering of opposing counsel, and then crammed into a new rat race to make partner if they are in private practice in a big law firm (where few will actually make it despite going to top schools).
And this is double for most NY attorneys....wink-wink
But 5 times? She is stupid for just having tried that many times.
I know a few people (this is over around 30 years in practice) who failed the bar exam the first time. Either they were just goofing off (like my dad) and didn't study or didn't take a bar review course and thought they could skate through, or they were having a really bad day (I know one lady who was in the throes of morning sickness, and a guy who had a bad bout with the flu the week before).
Things like illness or personal emergency aren't likely to recur, and the smart-alecks who thought they could walk in and wing it sobered up and studied. All but 2 people I know who flunked the first time put on their big-girl or big-guy pants and passed it the second time. One of those 2 gave up after 2-3 more tries. She was a transfer from a night law school who was obviously in over her head. The other fellow is a really nice guy who just hasn't got the smarts to practice law. He never "got" what the bar examiners were looking for. I think he is still taking the exam from time to time . . . 15 years out of law school!
It sounds like growing a thick skin would be an asset. The rewards are certainly worth a little abuse.
Indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.