Thursday's Three Burning Legal Questions
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: A three-judge appeals panel recently considered a challenge to Maryland's congressional redistricting plan. One appellate judge said the map was "reminiscent of a broken-winged pterodactyl, lying prostrate across the center of the state." Another called it "a Rorschach-like eyesore." This redistricting plan is doomed, right?
Answer: No, it is fine. (WMAL, MD Leads The Nation In Gerrymandering)
2) Question: My two roommates and I are preparing to go to law school. I am hopeful I will do well. One of my roomates is optimistic he will do well, and my other roommate just got the highest possible score on the LSAT exam. Who do you think will do better in law school.
Answer: You will. Keep hope alive. (ABA Journal, Hopeful Law Students Got Better Grades, Study Finds)
3) Question: I was just given a ticket for DWI in New Jersey after failing to walk a straight line, but it was the fault of these stupid high heels I was wearing!! Can I get this overturned?
Answer: Sorry, but drunken drivers can be convicted based on visual evidence in New Jersey. If there is a next time, maybe you should ask to take the high heels off? (New Jersey Law Journal, Woman Convicted of DWI Without Alcotest Loses 'High Heels' Defense)
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)