Sorry for being late to the party, I was busy studying for Commercial Transactions (another reason to dislike Elizabeth Warren).

I think it depends on the classes. Top tier schools focus on grooming the next generation of legal scholars and intellectuals. For them, a 3L year of learning abstract legal theory is probably helpful.

For the rest of us, I think 3L year should be an externship experience tied with skills classes in a chosen field.  For instance, I am taking Becoming a Communications Lawyer, which is taught by Associate Professors  who are also partners in large law firms.  He have to draft mock comments to be filed with the FCC and do a mock Ex Parte.  I find this class to be immensely more helpful than, say, Commercial Transactions, where I learn black letter law that I will maybe use 1% of after the bar.

I also took Conflicts of Laws, which is heavy in legal theory and judicial jujitsu. I loved it. But I do not think it is instrumental in being a practicing attorney. 

I think you should be able to take the bar after two years, and reserve the LL.M. program for legal scholars. 

However much makes me enough money so I can hunt on my own land and buy a fishing boat. It could be $200,000 a year or it could be a $1Million. It's quality of life that makes you rich. 

I think this is another example of liberal victimization. Hasboro is not shaping gender norms. Gender norms are shaping Hasboro.  If it was worth their money to advertise to boys they certainly would; the competitive toy market would demand it.  On the flip side, Mattel finds it more profitable to market Creepy Crawlers, which makes plastic bugs, to boys - imagine that.  

Full Disclosure: After Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, my sister's Easy-Bake oven was my second favorite toy. Today cooking is one of my favorite hobbies (although, still not sure if its the process of cooking or just a means to a glorious end). 

What defines a social conservative and what defines a libertarian?  It is entirely possible to be a libertarian and support all of the social conservative positions, except two: (1) it is the proper role of government to use its coercive force to shape social mores and (2) the government actually has the ability to shape social mores.  

Does social conservatism have to do with government action, which I believe is the common view, or is a social conservative someone who simply believes in the principles of prudence and self-discipline (among other things)?  

I see nothing wrong with shaming, it is a communities way of enforcing morality.  But when you tell me it is the government's job to enforce those morals, I soundly reject that notion.  Am I a social conservative, a libertarian, or a social conservative libertarian? 

"Everything we know about raising children, and everything we can infer from nature, indicates that human offspring are best raised by a husband and wife joined in marriage.  Any other arrangement is second best.  Gay activists are demanding an equivalency that simply doesn't exist."

I support gay marriage and agree with this statement completely.  And it also has nothing to do with love; just the idea of government validating the worthiness of a loving relationship churns my stomach.

 But what I cannot fathom is that every homosexual couple is worse then every heterosexual couple at raising children.  By focusing on just ONE aspect, their gender, you exclude many stable environments for children to be raised.  Marriage IS about raising children in stable environments, not love or anything else.  That is precisely why you SHOULD support gay marriage. 

It depends on what you scoff at.  If you scoff at the idea of secession in principle, I think you are sorely mistaken, and are turning your back to the principles that founded this great nation.  

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." - Declaration of Independence

If you scoff at the idea of secession in this instance, I think you have a point.  I don't think the Feds have gone far enough to desecrate our natural rights. We still have Due Process, we still have representation before taxation, and, for the large part, rule of law.  So yes, the reaction is ridiculous.  But the principle is not. 

Your right! We should have had a deeply religious candidate that was pro-life, supports overturning Roe v. Wade, and in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man-one women.....wait.

I am not suggesting to the contrary.  Which is precisely why if you live in a swing state, you should vote for Romney.  But if your vote has no chance whatsoever of bringing Romney any electoral votes, why not try to use it for something. 

"FAR better would be the Tea Party course. Unlike libertarians they weren't around for all these years while attracting pretty much no one to their side."   
In fact, studies have shown that the Tea Party is made up of roughly half libertarians, and half social conservatives. 

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/libertarian-roots-tea-party

Libertarians should continue to be an active voice in the Tea Party, but they should also use their vote to show the GOP they are not happy with the current state of the party. Again, only if your state's electoral votes are a foregone conclusion.

That is a great article, and as a libertarian I would totally agree with the analysis - if I lived in a swing state.  But I think it ignores the situation most people are in; it is already a foregone conclusion where their state's electoral votes will land.

Based on that premise, I think it would be wiser to vote for whomever you have the most policy positions in common.  For me, that is Gary Johnson. 

If Romney loses a race he surely should have won, the GOP will be looking for the reason why.  Some will say it is because he is not conservative enough, others will say the GOP needs to cater towards libertarian-minded people.  I hope they conclude the latter.  A strong turnout for Gary Johnson will help in that decision.

I certainly agree Romney is the better choice as compared to Obama, but the calculus is different if you know your vote won't help yield him any electoral votes.  

I think you have to weigh it against the alternative, a higher subscription fee.  For me, a student, I would prefer that Ricochet employ targeted advertising to subsidize the cost of my subscription fee.  Otherwise, I would probably not be able to afford it. 

Mainly on foreign policy and civil liberties.  But also their opposition to TARP, ending the Department of Education and HUD, support no federal role on drug issues, support of legalizing industrial hemp, limits on executive power.

I am voting for Gary Johnson - no question.  I am a Maryland voter and all of the electoral votes will go to Obama. If I lived in  a swing state I would vote for Romney.  But I feel my vote will be better served in making a statement to the Republican Party rather than a vote for Romney that will have no chance whatsoever of bringing him any electoral votes.  

While I have no delusions of breaking the two party system, I do hope to show the GOP that they should take Rand Paul type tea party conservatives more seriously. 

In this instance, Cato is saying that the law is "Constitutional but Bad Policy".  To me, Cato seems the be the most ideologically consistent  think-tank.

Nowrashteh makes some good points that SB 1070 may cause some economic  harms from unintended consequences, but this is nothing new.  He fails to address the overall economic environment and whether, as a whole, it is economically better.

 While there must be increased direct enforcement costs, he acknowledges the drastic decrease in immigration. It may be that, in total, it decreases enforcement costs otherwise spent.   Combine that with the reduction in entitlements and public schooling and it may be a net economic benefit.  

I would be 100% in line with the Libertarian policy on immigration if we lived in a state with classical liberal principles.  Unfortunately, this is another area where progressivism  limits freedom.  Paradoxically, it is the state that Progressives created (and the majority of Latinos vote for) that is the reason why Republicans rationally want to limit immigration. 

Definitely a Vizsla, if you plan on letting him/her to get PLENTY of exercise.  They are a medium build, very smart, and very loving breed. They are also good for bird hunting, both water and field, if you are so inclined. 

I will be in 160K in debt after law school, and I couldn't marry someone who DIDN'T take that into consideration. But marriage is different than a relationship and being dumped for that reason alone is quite shallow. Of course, a responsible person wouldn't ask anyone to marry them until they substantially pay down their debt or are on a clear path to doing so. 

But then again, after what the WSJ and other outlets are suggesting, maybe a law degree isn't better financial judgment than being an art teacher...

The Federalist Papers - Jay, Hamilton, and Madison

The Use of Knowledge in Society - Essay by Hayek

Invisible Man - Ralph Ellison (its my favorite, and should teach him to not just be a pawn for the established elite)