 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:24:59 |
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit contesting the election results in four battleground states, ruling that “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” What does the court’s order mean in plain English? Should the justices have said more? Why did Justices Alito and Thomas issue a separate statement? “The bottom line is all nine justices rejected this case,” David explains. “Seven clearly for one reason, two for any number of additional reasons that they didn’t specify.” After breaking down the Texas lawsuit, Sarah and David discuss Trump v. Wisconsin, Bush v. Gore, the counting of the electoral college votes, and what options President Trump might still have to contest the election. They wrap things up by answering some listener mail about the LSAT.
Show Notes:
-Arizona v. California dissent, Supreme Court’s Friday order on Texas lawsuit, Trump v. Wisconsin, Bush v. Gore, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd, 3 U.S. Code § 15.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
First, I have to say that I'm an enormous fan of the pod, but I need to say this as an audience member and admirer. I need the law school discussion to take on a different tone. I went to a small third-tier law school in the middle of the country. My classmates and I have gone on to fill the halls of state courts, prestigious firms in the Midwest (and other places too), county offices, elected positions, local start-ups, and vital (vital, I say!) practices in rural America. That contribution is completely ignored by our otherwise very lovely and genuine hosts. It is not okay to advise everyone to steer clear of law school if they don't get into a top 25 school. Yes, there is a conversation about what someone's expectations should be at that level, but I haven't heard that full nuance yet. I'm deeply proud of the legal support we offer people in our communities. We won't be the lawyers interviewed on the networks, but we touch the lives of Americans. In fact, we often hold the keys to changing peoples' lives in the most concrete ways and we do so while being good neighbors and friends. Please, please, reconsider the message you send to listeners who were not lucky enough, by resources, or birth, or opportunity, or mental or emotional support from family and friends, or sheer intellect, to get into a the elite law schools in the country. It doesn't mean that what we have vastly less to offer. And I would, without any hesitation, puts some of my professors up against those at any top 25 law school any day. Now if you want to have a conversations about how smaller non-elite law schools can best serve the interests of their students and communities, I'm here for it. Thanks for reading.
Oh man, like Sarah, I was always super good at standardized tests. Not because of nervous energy/competitiveness, but from extreme self-confidence leading to a total lack of nervousness. Standardized test were, for me, a game -- a game that I knew I was extremely good at, so I never felt like there were stakes to worry me.
In my test-taking prime -- probably around sophomore year of college -- I think I likely could have sat down to any standardized test on any subject that I'd never even had a class in, and scored at least a 60%, just purely from understanding how to formally analyze the test structure (and maybe barring time constraints).
It's actually led me, more than anything, to question the value of standardized tests as measurements of actual academic subject mastery. Since I know that test-taking is its own skillset, and since in my experience mastering that skillset can be as much if not more useful than actually learning the subject that the test is about, such tests often don't actually measure very accurately how well students have learned the material on the test.