Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
GAW wrote:
“Expect to soon see many same gender (which may not be blocked by incest laws) “marriages” between parents and their children for both tax and benefits purposes. I can’t see any acountant worth their salt not using this ruling to get around estate taxes.”
This comment is so off-base and silly I don’t even know where to begin.
The slippery slope argument is a bad and unconvincing argument. Just argue against Toeiva marriage and/or state regulation of marriage. It has nothing to do with parents marrying their kids, people marrying dogs, etc.
You pick up most Jeopardy material from being well read.
Also, there’s a way of listening to the questions to figure out what they’re asking that’s often more simple than it appears. I can’t really think of an example of that right now.
Traitor
Health- the Supreme Court decision said that the proponents of the law did not have standing to appeal. The people who originally brought the case, the toevaniks, had standing because they were injured by the law, whether or not the law is a good idea or not. It impacted them. It doesn’t impact the proponents of the law. You clearly do not understand the concept of standing, so don’t bother ranting and raving about it. That’s ok. Not everybody has to understand the legal concept of standing.
Most of those are not analogies.
Health, your posts are devoid of any knowledge of legal or constitutional principles.
To address just to of your points-
Why did the toevaniks that brought the case have standing? In the California case, the case was not brought by Toevaniks. It was brought by people who just didn’t like that the law was overturned by the district court.
As for what would happen if the democratic process determined that social policy should require everyone to be mechalel Shabbos, that is precisely what is protected by the First Amendment, so it would be invalidated by the Supreme Court if it were to even pass in the first place.
I don’t think it was 30 years ago.
You feel the same way about John Galiano? Jesse Jackson?
I don’t really Cindy doing anything other than saying I’m going to do whatever I want, and others will provide for me. No society can function that way.
Based on yytz’s suggestion, I read R’Slifkin’s blog. Very good response. Straightforward, plain and hard to refute.
There is no right to opt out of “the economy.” Everyone has hard choices to make whether Haredi, conservative christian, secular, etc.
Its not even a question of a legal right. It just can’t be done.
Perhaps marginally hurt, but one really has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Choose between them based on lifestyle and the type of lifestyle you want. Both are great professions. Try to talk to people who do each and see what they like about them. The training for becoming a doctor is probably more demanding and more costly.
I’m not a psychologist. Just someone on the internet with an opinion, so take it as just that- one person’s opinion.
As for improving reading comprehension, again, I’m just one guy on the internet, but I think reading quality non-fiction might be helpful. Try reading articles in a magazine like the Economist, or the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.*
*I am not making any comment on the spiritual or political implications of reading those publications, just expressing the view that they contain quality writing.
Based on my observations of you in this comment thread only, I would say don’t go to law school. Your analytical abilities and/or educational background seem to prevent you from figuring out the answer to your question, or what information others might need to answer your question. This sort of reasoning would be basic to doing well in the law school curriculum. I don’t mean to be harsh at all, I’m just trying to give you a realistic answer.
Moreover, the starting salary you mention doesn’t justify what law school will cost. Now, even if you’re not paying the tuition, and your Shver is offering to pay the tuition, it is still a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere- perhaps investing in a business, or a property or some other professional training program. Also, in a firm of 10-20, it is possible that other lawyers might be resentful of your shver bringing in his son in law, especially if you just scrape by in law school. And finally, what if you don’t like working with your shver? Where will you be then?
I’m just trying to be constructive- there are lots of great professions out there. Right now, law is not one of them, even under the circumstances you describe.