At Oregon Law, we believe people with legal training can make the world a better place. This education is transformational, and can help you achieve success wherever your passion takes you.
We are resourceful, focused, passionate, enthusiastic, and friendly. And we call this lawPOSITIVE.
Based on the oral arguments, the government attorney had no idea what the 'science' was or how to create a legal rule around the science. Namely the line of questions around 1: how far from a stream should the EPA be able to regulate and 2: how is a non-lawyer / non-scientist supposed to get this information. The justices interpreted that answers provided as the government does not know.
It was not a wetland. IT had no permanent water contact with a navigable water way. This was private land. The EPA does not deprive one of their liberty, their property, and more importantly their due process. We have a constitutional republic not an Oligarchical Administrative state. It is the government of the people, for the people, and by the people. According to these people every time you take a piss, every time rain runs off of your roof onto your lawn and makes it to the water table you are in violation of CWA. Remember it was scientists that brought you covid and then all the ensuing mitigation. These are the exact kinds of tyrants that the founding fathers warned us about. These are the experts that will save you from yourself. Do these people look like or sound like people that you want to trust with your property and liberty. How about we take a vote as to what to do with their personal property? I assure you they will then acknowledge the Constitution of this republic and want all the rights afforded to the individual.
this is incredibly insightful and kinda terrifying. I heard of this case from my environmental policy class but they didn’t even get close to conveying how significant of an impact this decision had on the CWA aside from “some wetlands are not protected anymore”
Congratulations should your desire be fighting quit claim jumping equity elder abusing Title Deed Thieves NICER ancestor client elder grantor grandparents are gifting information experience and pragmatism. Should you choose administration a Law and accept forgery proof interdiction Living Administration. You’ll distinguish yourself among your arbiter validation certification administration monitoring Peers holding families together. You’ll acquire histories most relevant legal niches to stop greedy relatives and dysmorphic advisors advocates mentors and more who steal our homes with beauty documents that steal our homes and puts more Boomers on the street with the Broken Estate Plan. You’ll elevate your skills and revenue defending peacekeeping inheritances and legacy wealth transfer administrations.
Hope this means clothing companies (made in China) too, as we're all ON THE SAME EARTH. Oh, WARS, missiles, chemical fires, burning rubber. OR is this just for the "common people"?
Thanks @University of Oregon School of Law for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action. 1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*. 2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally. 3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally. 4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional. 5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed. 6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair. 7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed. 8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences. 9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough. 10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race. *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
The Commons is a private apartment complex. A mass Torte is applicable until the insurance companies present an undisclosed award for damages and malpractice. Every resident and victim should be offered their own lawyer. The mail scanning violates my right to be secure in my papers. -"Khloe" CHRISTOPHER SETH HUNTER UNIT 203
I remember Ethan asking me in the waiting area if it would be okay for he and Abby to acknowledge me during this speech (2:30), and I was stunned. I felt like I hadn't done anything special to deserve such an honor since I was near the bottom of the class, but here I was, being acknowledged by the class representatives to the SBA. It meant a lot to me because here I was comparing myself to my classmates and thinking that I hadn't accomplished anything but they were praising me just for finishing law school. I feel that they saw something in me that I didn't see in myself. Thank you Abby and Ethan, even 3 years later.
She was my judge when I was in foster care. I use to say and believe everything they said in the video until 2011 when she became the judge in my cps case and she had noticed that cps was in the wrong and that the courts have been in the wrong and she agreed as did all in the court room agreed she would be the judge she then scheduled in the day of our next court hearing and when that day came she was no longer the judge it was a different one when I had sent her letters emails and phone calls and even seen her in person asking why was she no longer the judge and what made her walk away from the case the only thing I was told by her secretary and still have been told to this day she has nothing to say since then I have lost all hope I'll believe in all credibility to who she really is I used to consider her my hero but now she's nothing more than a villain and a major let down and disappointment.
Great video. I attended when the law school was in the old building. It was an important time in my life. I found everything I was looking for and more. A quality education first and foremost. Nearly every professor I had was outstanding and memorable. I also made friends that I stay in contact today. I attribute my success in law in part because of the terrific support I got from my friends. The education I received served me well in my successful legal career. Thanks U of O Law School.
I wish I had sent you, the Class of 2020, a video message also, but I didn't, so here I am hoping you see this. I'm not an alumna, but I feel like one. I started work at the UO Law, as Faculty Support, in the year 2000 and retired in 2010 (kinda). I can't seem to stay away. In fact, I'm still working for the UO Law, but from home. Okay, so this is not about me. It's about you, the Class of 2020. I am so proud of you. I have enjoyed meeting several of you throughout the past 3 years. I have no doubt you will succeed. YOU CAN DO THIS. Go Ducks! Go Class of 2020! Congratulations!
