u/Flashy-Actuator-998

I’m interesting in working in burger law. Has anyone?

In case you don’t know what burger law is, in means working IHC (in house counsel) for one of the Big 5 burger joints (Wendy’s, Burger King, McDonald’s, Sonic, DQ)

Wondering how competitive it is and what the benefits are. What kind of work is it? Word on the grapevine is you get two free flame broiled whoppers year 1 at BK, that doubles after year 2.

Have you ever met a person who was working in a job during or after law school that was so clearly due to who their mom or dad was? Is it petty to dislike these people? It seems like they honestly believe they earned these roles.

Supposedly classes exist wherein peopel study the behavior of the SCOTUS, and how they will rule. How on earth would you do that with these hacks on the court today?

Not sure if its a requirement. live out of state.

Is there any issue with sitting in the lower section of Tiger Stadium but behind the visitor bench to sit at the 50 yard line is extremely expensive and it’s almost double the price when you’re behind the Lsu bench versus on the other side behind the visitor bench. Although I’ve never set in either one of those sections, my experience at Tiger Stadium is that the entire stadium is Lsu and that you wouldn’t feel out of place sitting anywhere in that stadium
am I right?

I love reading federal court cases. It seems like there is a 90% chance that, in some regard, despite a concrete injury, the court will dismiss the case because it can’t force the executive’s hand, can’t provide a remedy, can’t grant the requested relief, the claim isn’t timely, standing is wrong, or, even if there is some genuine wrong, the remedy is unobtainable because the injury isn’t traceable enough, isn’t redressable enough, the case isn’t ripe, it’s moot, it’s too late, etc. It sometimes seems like federal courts are trying to finagle their way out of every claim possible.

I am somewhat familiar with the German system, which appears to be, at least in some respects, better and perhaps more willing to provide remedies. I understand that the federal courts in the United States are trying to maintain separation of powers, avoid becoming general overseers of the executive, and prevent a flood of litigation, but is that really a good excuse when there is an actual legal wrong and concrete injury?

I also find Doe v. Bush funny. There was a case literally trying to prevent the Iraq War from happening, and the court essentially said the dispute wasn’t ripe enough to adjudicate. The First Circuit decided the case on March 13, 2003, and the invasion began less than a week later. If they re filed, it would be then considered moot.

Would you be mad if your law school dean circulated a photo of your face asking for the “violator to be identified” if you held the door open for a friend to enter the law school (ordinarily, you have to badge in).