Monday, September 29, 2008

Failure To Make Bail

The bailout bill has failed in the House. Interesting. Didn't see that coming, and don't exactly have thoughts on it as of yet. But Matt Yglesias wonders if Republicans aren't capable of bringing in the votes anyway, then why not just scrap the entire thing and write the bill from the left?

In other news -- first day of law school continues apace. So far, no blood spilled. But I still have Torts coming up. And I avoided a near crisis by finding out in the nick of time I have readings for Property tomorrow (taught by a professor nicknamed "the hammer").


PG said...

I love the House Republicans who are covering for their failure of leadership by saying it's Pelosi's fault for her statements on the House floor. I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for the GOP on WF Buckley's behalf. He must be rolling in his grave to see grown men change their votes on a matter of national importance based on a comment from a small woman from San Francisco. Refusing to vote for the bailout because you believe it is wrong is principled; refusing to vote for it because it's unpopular with constituents is political; refusing to vote for it because your feelings got hurt at the last minute is pathetic.

Jack said...

I've never flip-flopped on an issue more than this one. In the last 48 hours I've held every conceivable position on the bailout.

It doesn't help that the experts I trust disagree too.

Julia said...

In Legally Blonde: The Musical, there's a song by the (corrupt) law professor called "Blood in the Water," and you should listen to it, now that you've (finally) started law school... mayhaps I can send it to you!

PG said...

Speaking of law school, any thoughts on these?

Michigan Law drops LSAT requirement for 3.8 GPA undergrads from Michigan colleges;

Harvard is joining Yale and Stanford in having pass-fail 1L.

I'm guessing that Harvard just doesn't want to lose students to its rivals based on the students' desire to avoid grade pressures. The Michigan shift is interesting -- I wonder if it is at all a response to the rebuke from the Bollinger dissenters that the school had few in-state students.

David Schraub said...

Brian Leiter certainly has some choice words for Michigan's new program. As for grading changes -- well, all I know is that Chicago would sooner shut down the law school than switch to a pass/fail system. Even the Legal Writing course here only went that way kicking and screaming -- or so I've heard.

PG said...

He's more charitable in the "update," where he considers the program (which requires students NOT to take the LSAT, thus rendering them ineligible for other law schools) as a way to lock in excellent applicants.

I'm just uncertain about how that works, though -- is this like the post-Hopwood "guaranteed admission to a TX college for anyone in the top 10% of TX high school"? Because surely many more pre-law people graduate with 3.8+ from Michigan colleges who would like to go to UMich law than the law school can take under this limited program. It seems to me that the law school would have to start accepting these folks' apps earlier than the other law schools do. E.g., for someone to get into the class entering fall 2010 w/o LSAT, they need to submit their transcript of freshman and sophomore grades and intended junior year courses to Mich Law by October 2008, which the school can review over the course of the fall and give them the up or down before Christmas. At that point the student either is in at Mich Law and just needs to maintain the 3.8 and planned courseload, or isn't in and has spring 2009 to prepare for the June LSAT with the other lemmings. If they are going to review the 3.8 kids with the other applicants, that seems like a big gamble to take unless you're OK with delaying law school a year after you get rejected by Mich Law and need to scramble to take the LSAT and apply everywhere else.