Who is the gatekeeper in the Supreme court w/r/t agreeing to hear a case? Do they vote just like a decision and simply not tell us the score? Does it have to pass some sort of staff screening first? If there is voting, is it a simple majority? Sometimes I wish I went to certain parts of law school.

I think they need 4 votes in order to grant cert.

And yeah, they don't have to tell us the score.

I frequently wish I went to certain parts of law school -- just not the parts that cost $120k.

4 votes is correct and they're under no obligation to announce the results of the vote.

PS, if my law school debt were $120,000, I'd be $60,000 happier than I am today.

"grant cert" means they'll hear it, or means they won't? What does that stand for/mean in English? What input do they consider when deciding -- just briefs, arguments like a Grand Jury trial, whether the case sounds cool, or something else?

I assume by Lorelei's comment she would like to go to 1/3 of law school. Judging by your reports, RD, I would like to go to the final 1/3.

Grant cert means they'll hear it. That's short for granting "certiorari" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari#United_States_Law).

I think they can consider whatever input they want, as they don't have to explain themselves. There's probably a bunch of academic thought about how they should decide to take cases, but theoretically, they are supposed to take cases that are in that gray area of law where the SCOTUS's input is most valuable. After all, they can take only so many cases.

If you want a crash course in the mechanisms of the Supreme Court, from a liberal perspective, and want to save yourself $160,000, I highly recommend "Closed Chambers" by Edward Lazarus (http://www.amazon.com/Closed-Chambers-Future-Modern-Supreme/dp/014028356...).

When determining whether to hear a case, the judges hear input from their clerks based on the briefs and whatever outside knowledge they bring into the process and then sit in a room and do an informal vote. There are no oral arguments.

RE: the money, I was merely saying that my debt is not $120,000 -- it is $180,000. My use of math was ambiguous. Sorry.

I understood RD's math. Though apparently I have drastically underestimated the cost of a professional degree from a good school.

I actually read something today suggesting that the third year of law school could be skipped because it's all electives. (Assuming I read him right.) But then again, I'd think the electives would be useful to people who want to specialize. I can't think of too many places where you can be a general lawyer anymore.

True, but I can't think of too many places where specialization happens in the classroom.

Your math wasn't ambiguous, and all subsequent comments reflected your intent and our comprehension of your intent. Though that $180k isn't all tuition and books, right?

My guess is that living expenses and a stipend are included, is that right?

First off, all this money talk is gauche.

Secondly, what did people call something that was Orwellian before Orwell.

The debt includes living expenses.

The third year of law school could be skipped with no major losses. My third year schedule consisted of:

Evidence
Patent Law
Law and Economics
Global Cybercrime
Decedents' Estates (Wills)
Election Law
Entertainment Law
Secure Transactions

I wouldn't have wanted to graduate without having taken Evidence and Patent Law, but I could have taken them both during the second year. Decedents Estates is useful to me because it's on the bar, but I otherwise don't know that I would have missed it. Additionally, I could have found time for it second year if my heart had been set on it. Secure Transactions is an aberration for me, so let's ignore it.

The other classes are taken because they're interesting for one reason or another, but I probably will be no better off professionally for having taken them then I would have been without having done so. If I were trying to cram law school into a shorter period, I would say that someone like me with an interest in intellectual property could would be perfectly graduate-able with the following classes:

1. Civil Procedure
2. Contracts
3. Torts
4. Legal Writing and Research
5. Constitutional Law I
6. Constitutional Law II
7. Criminal Procedure
8. Criminal Law
9. Property
10. Copyright
11. Corporations
12. Professional Responsibility
13. Trademark and Unfair Competition Law
14. Evidence
15. Patent Law

It would be no problem to fit that course schedule into two years. You miss out on some fun stuff (Law of Cyberspace) but you'd probably be fine in the real world.

Global Cybercrime! That's the best name for a class ever!!!

I'm kind of intrigued by secure transactions. It sounds like something out of CS, not law. Explain.

Prepare to be really, really bored.

I believe the full title of the course is Commercial Law: Secured Transactions and Payment Systems. It basically deals with the rules surrounding loans or advances that are "secured" by collateral of some sort. The reasons for me being in the class are murky. My forthcoming grade is, correspondingly, murky.

well, you gotta have something bland to counter the awesomeness that is GLOBAL CYBERCRIME.

It sounds like RD is actually learning to COMMIT global cybercrime. In order to build the giant laser array on the moon that will help him take over the world!

I'm disappointed that secure transactions is just plain ol' collateral. At least all the tools who go to law school primarily to make money are suffering through that class.

i think pre- "Orwellian" was just called "fucked up."