Saturday, July 07, 2007
Dude, It's the Law
And you were tested on your knowledge of it, not your agreement with it. 365gay.com reports that a disgruntled bar candidate who failed the Massachusetts bar exam is suing the MA Board of Bar Examiners, the Supreme Judicial Court and four of the justices (no details, but I'm assuming they are the four that signed onto the ruling in the Goodridge case - Marshall, Greaney, Ireland and Cowin). The article states that he "took" the exam last November, but I'm guessing that he actually took it last summer and got his failing results in November - since that's how it works. Anyway, he refused to write anything on the essay regarding marriage equality in Massachusetts, and he is now suing on the grounds that requiring him to answer the question violated his freedom of religion and also placed an undue burden on interstate commerce.
He didn't have to endorse the law - just know it. It's the freaking law in Massachusetts, and he's applying for a license to practice that law. If he felt that strongly, he should have at least written something tangentially related to the essay question but include his arguments for why the law is wrong. But he had to demonstrate that he at least knew what the law is. At least acknowledge that a question had been asked.
And how the fuck is he planning on retaining the individual justices as defendants in his whining about failing the exam because he refused to take part? Answer the fucking question - he needed an additional 1.134 points (scaled) to pass the exam, get his license and focus his efforts on trying to amend the fricking MA constitution. With the scale system, he could have gotten that simply by stating the law and how it would be applied to the facts, with no further elaboration or anything that could be construed as an endorsement.
As far as I know, there are no religions with edicts against discussing the current state of the law - how else would they work so hard to oppose it? "You know that wrong law? The one we can't talk about? We need to change it! We need to convince people that it's wrong! How will we convince them without discussing it? Um... Well... It's just WRONG - that's how!"
Ass-hat.
|
He didn't have to endorse the law - just know it. It's the freaking law in Massachusetts, and he's applying for a license to practice that law. If he felt that strongly, he should have at least written something tangentially related to the essay question but include his arguments for why the law is wrong. But he had to demonstrate that he at least knew what the law is. At least acknowledge that a question had been asked.
And how the fuck is he planning on retaining the individual justices as defendants in his whining about failing the exam because he refused to take part? Answer the fucking question - he needed an additional 1.134 points (scaled) to pass the exam, get his license and focus his efforts on trying to amend the fricking MA constitution. With the scale system, he could have gotten that simply by stating the law and how it would be applied to the facts, with no further elaboration or anything that could be construed as an endorsement.
As far as I know, there are no religions with edicts against discussing the current state of the law - how else would they work so hard to oppose it? "You know that wrong law? The one we can't talk about? We need to change it! We need to convince people that it's wrong! How will we convince them without discussing it? Um... Well... It's just WRONG - that's how!"
Ass-hat.
|
Posted by Rogueslayer at 10:54 AM 
