Leaderboard

There are many things taxed that you don't even know about. The tax code is huge. In law school, because I'm a glutton for punishment, I took both Federal Income Taxation and Taxation of Shareholders and Corporations. Our text was simple - the big, fat IRS tax code. Here is an exemplary list of taxes related to employee benefit, such are health plans: http://benefitslink.com/taxcode/ Justice Roberts cut the Commerce Clause approach off, but had to yield to the tax code. He did so because, unlike most of the other Justices who, now and in the past, put their political beliefs above strict readings of the Constitution and laws, he is honest. The thing is, honesty doesn't play well in the political arena. And, so, for his honesty, he's pilloried by the Right and given too much credit by the Left. People say they don't want Justices who "legislate from the bench." Okay, fine. Justice Roberts, here, did not legislate from the bench. He tackled the law as written and in yielding to its tax provision, essentially kicked it back to the Legislative Branch, Therefore, future Legislators may kill the bill without killing the bill by making laws changing that part of the code - the part Justice Roberts was kind enough to point out. It is now up to the Legislators to do their job and kill it accordingly. In the House, the Republicans have the numbers to do so, but not in the Senate. Nor do they hold the Presidency. It is up to the GOP, then, to put their best candidates forward for Senate and President. If they do so, the bill can be gutted from within. The lazy route to get what you want - The Judicial Branch - has largely been used by Liberals. Here, Conservatives attempted a Judicial end-around legislation they didn't like. They only got some of what they wanted, but not everything. Justice Roberts showed them the legislative chink in the armor. It is up to them to get off their collective asses, quit whining, and put forth electable candidates for Senate and President.

Holy crap! Is the government gonna take away our melodramatic hyperbolic rants, too?!?!

That explains the lack of recruiting presence in Farmer's Branch...

Love to see us land the big guys in the trenches. Now, if we could just land 3 big guys in the other trench, I'd be estatic.

I see Stok on there....

Why isn't there anything when you roll over the Denia neighborhood? I mean, a simple "There be monsters here" sign would be fine.

Amazing to think that the throwing of tortillas at football games was banned under Rick's (a.k.a Ricardo's) watch Congrats Rick :-)

And be in the process of building a new, state of the art, bull fighting arena?

welll if we keep picking these guys up, we're gonna need some taller QB's

The 2012 Football Roster has been updated on Mean Green Sports. Includes the incoming freshmen. http://www.meangreensports.com/SportSelect.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=1800&SPID=562&SPSID=9053

Chad Ford from EPSN has Tony #9 on his big board... http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2013/

Uh, when was that?

Green Mean, that would a much wiser choice than a law school. To my knowledge, and I have not done the extensive research I have done on law schools, is that pharmacy grads have a nice outlook post grad. No matter how you boil it down the school is not needed. I don't see an argument presented to prove otherwise. That stats that have been thrown around show that even UT, UHLC, SMU and BU are having trouble employing some of their grads. Now throw in a TTTT school to the mix? It just makes no sense.

I have to think that there HAS to be more pressing needs for the state than more law schools. There is no true shortage of lawyers holding back the State of Texas. This seems to boil down to NT prestige.. If UT, UH, TTU have schools, NT has to have one!... I don't think opening another school is the best stewardship of state money. You can't tell me that there is a shortage of such magnitude that it would justify such on expense in this economy and in the face of higher ed. cuts. The State has voiced what it wants; research universities, however,UNT is lagging behind in meeting those criteria forfunding which the state is offering, and it seems is focused on spending $$ and political capital on a law school( which is not needed). I bet that the state won't fund it. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?_r=1

I thought he was under the radar?

I think that a book about the history of North Texas would be a great idea. I've suggested it myself. There are a lot of people who could make a very considerable contribution to such a thing. Such as GrayEagle, Green Grenade, Island Eagle, Cooley, Dallas Green, DeepGreen, "LetsGiveaCheer" (the marching band view of it), MoGreen..etc...etc. I know I've forgotten many names, but there are a lot of resources out there if someone wanted to do some interviews. The resources won't be there forever. As an "in the mean time" alternative to a book, I've suggested a History thread that is permanently pinned at the top of the page, and divided by decades, where people can share their most memorable moments of North Texas sports.

Is the first summer semester over? Wonder if he had to do some work on grades. Assumption. No. Info.

How does she feel about long distance.... Hook ups???

Well, this is what I get for leaving the topic alone for a day... As far as employment, I would. Look, as far as employment prospects go, St. Mary's is doing something better than everyone else - making lawyers. That's what law schools do. If people are going for other reasons, great, but it's the job of law schools to make lawyers, not academics or businessmen. Now, it seems like you're equating Big Law jobs with being "good" jobs. If you're interested in spending your career becoming the legal equivalent of a Vice-President of Office Supplies, that's probably true. But if we're talking paying off debts, we know that its a lot harder to pay them off without a job than it is with one. You're also pretty clearly in the pre-1L daze of being happy that you ended up at UH. That's great - family went there, and aside from building a library underground in a hurricane-prone swamp, it's a great place. But don't kid yourself - unless you have personal connections in this market, there's really very little distance between the top and bottom schools. The legal profession is one where its up to you to take advantage of what you're given, not rest on your laurels because you went to the second-best law school south of I-10. Now, is there an over-saturation of lawyers? Not unless you mean that it's hard to find the mythical 160k job anymore. Sure, pay is down and jobs are down, but that's a risk you take in any line of work - just ask travel agents. The fact that kids are paying hundreds of thousands thinking that they can make it back, well - you'll learn this in the first week - caveat emptor. Law school is not about being guaranteed a job. It's about being given an opportunity to enter an exclusive club. Some people get in and just sit there, some become Supreme Court justices, It's up to you to determine which one you'll be. Could not have said it better myself, and heck, I tried. I'll play you're game (while reminding you of my arguments about what a good job is, supra, and also reminding you that there are second-year solos making 100k and second year BigLaw lawyers making 10k). In fact, there's a point I should stress - being in a firm of 250 lawyers is absolutely no guarantee that you're making more than small firm or solo per billable hour. But OK, i'll bite and play on your turf - let's look at lawschooltransparency.com's employment scores: Baylor 68.8% Texas 68.1% St. Mary's 66.7% Southern Methodist 61.4% Texas Tech 60.5% South Texas 59.2% Houston 58% Texas Wesleyan 39.5% Texas Southern 35% So although the order changes a bit, the groupings remain the same as the ABA's study: the three discernible "groups" of schools - 1) BU, UT and StMU, 2) SMU, TTU, SoTX, UH 3) TWU and TSU. In sum, your own sources deny your argument. Now as far as GL2Greatness is concerned, any good argument needs to be broken down a bit... For everyone's reference, you're referring to this line in the Authorization Bill (SB956): "This Act takes effect only if a specific appropriation for the implementation of the Act is provided in a general appropriations act..." Actually, the "fund or die provision" in SB 956, Section 6 was satisfied by a 5 million dollar appropriation in 2009 (the LBB's Supplemental to SB1). Now that it's satisfied, the funding is no longer voted on by the legislature separately, but becomes part of the omnibus system requests presented in the higher education funding bill. Thus, UNTDLS is entitled to "formula funding" under the Education Code 61.003 and will simply be allotted a share of the standard funding amount UNTS gets - a situation which the enrolled bill itself notes. If you want to look it up, it's Section 105.502©(1-2). So the THECB couldn't block this and the other systems won't get involved, you say? Well, that's exactly what happened last time. from The Eagle: "A&M’s last effort to offer a law degree came in the 1990s, when it entered into a partnership with the South Texas College of Law in Houston. ...The Higher Education Coordinating Board blocked that plan, saying it was concerned that the state would eventually end up having to fund the school. But A&M officials also perceived that politics were involved in the decision. Ray Bowen, who was A&M president at the time, said supporters of the University of Houston Law Center opposed the idea." It will happen again. Like UNT, A&M will have to get through an authorization bill and a funding bill in two sessions in order to fund it, unless A&M intends this to be a private law school. They won't under the current budgetary regime. Good thing UNT already did. But most lawyers aren't employed by BigLaw - most are small firm. Those firms very much care whether they hire someone who knows the system and the people in Dallas County over Tarrant Count. Don't think that such trivial regionalisms matter? Go walk into a Tarrant County court with a "I love Democratic judges" shirt from the Dallas Democratic Party. The legal market is bad, but I defy you to find one person who thinks that the situation is nearly as bad in Texas as elsewhere in the nation. Plus, law is unusual in that if you didn't go to one of the "T10" schools, location matters just as much as reputation. Any firm in Texas would have to be crazy to hire a Notre Dame grad over, say, a Houston grad. UNT's medical school will start issuing MDs in the next two years. OK, a lot of "fleeting" misunderstandings in one area, but I'll give it a go. 1) People in 1994 said the same thing - "the profession is crowded and will never get better." Ten years later, we had the strongest market in the history of the profession. Law, like all economies, goes in cycles. Even now, applications to law schools are massively down (well below replacement for a growing country), and baby-boomer lawyers continue to get older. There's you're future "not enough lawyers" headline in the WSJ taking shape now. In fact, the situation in 1994 was much worse than it is now. 2) Legal software has cost some jobs, but they're on the lower end of the scale, and not nearly as disruptive as earlier technologies were. You think electronic discovery has led to lost jobs? Does anyone remember when the copier came out? Or when telephonic hearings limited the need for local counsel? 3) If you're outsourcing legal work, you better check with Ethics. In most cases, letting someone in Punjab (who is not a member of your firm) have access to confidential information and allowing them to draft pleadings is begging for a malpractice campaign. Plus, Indian offshoring cannibalizes work being done by computers now anyway. In short, all that man in Punjab is doing is replacing a HotDocs or Westlaw subscription - not a living, breathing attorney at a desk. 4) THECB then went on to note that adding those extra seats would cause more problems in the long term than it's worth. First, the schools probably don't want to add those seats. Second, more seats means lower quality, usually. Better to have 10 200-student schools than 1 2000 student school. Finally, Texas is in a unique position. Almost none of the new schools send people to Texas to practice, and even if they did these attorneys have to spend years catching up on Texas law, re-taking the bar and then hoping to find a job in a market that vastly prefers local kids. Also, Texans are best served legally by other Texans educated in Texas. Ask a New Mexican about Oil & Gas law, or an Oklahoman about the TCPA, and you can spot the difference immediately. Texas has not opened a new law school since Texas Wesleyan did 20-some-odd years ago, and in that time, Texas has added nearly 10 million people to its population. It's time to get back on track. Good luck, and don't worry. Have you heard about the legal "depression" of the early 90's? No? That's because it was followed by a much bigger boom. Same thing happened in the 60's, 50's, 30's... and it will happen again. Now's the exact time to open a new school. Why? Think markets, and think Apogee. You don't buy high and sell low. Same with any other "investment". The best time to build something is when it's cheap and nobody sees a need for it, because by the time the market rolls around again, you'll be up and running with something which cost a fraction of what it would have cost during the "good years". Now as far as expanding the present schools - that's a non-starter for the reasons I listed above, but two quick points: 1) who says the schools want to expand? At a certain point, the infrastructure required exceeds the available capacity. 2) Larger classes = lower achievement. Just ask our friends at Thomas Cooley. Whew. So in sum, UNT just has to keep its head down and keep going. Our problems in the past came from running away whenever things seemed to be getting difficult. Now's the time to stand up and be counted. Now's the time to Believe in the Mean Green. Or Blue Jaguars.

So is the logic by the SCOTUS that since Congress has the ability to set/levee taxes, even if they're based on bad reasoning, they still have the ability to do it? Does that mean that with control of the House and Senate, Repubilicans wouldn't have to overturn Roe vs Wade, they could simply levee a $50k tax for having an abortion? Then it doesn't come down to the constituional argument of someone's "rights", it only comes down to "Hey, we can pass taxes for anything we want to dictate behavior"? Slippery slope.

Didn't give you a -1, and I did look--it still doesn't show anyone committing in 2008.

I think you are right about the house and senate, but sadly wrong about this hurting Pres. Obama. The man who came up with this premise is running against Pres. Obama, and Pres. Obama will point that out at every turn.

He can't be Latino. He had a Domino's, not a Pizza Patron.

The government already controls every aspect of my life. Patriot Act. Drug Prohibition. Reproductive/Family Planning. Car Inspections. I can't buy beer before noon on Sundays. Car Inspections. Etc.

This should immediately improve the nachos at Apogee. "Peppers ?". Of course

Thanks Mark. That's a very liberal amount of praise for such a conservative guy...........

And shouldn't our rain be staying mainly in the plain?

And serve tapas at the stadium?

And be on the verge of bankruptcy?

My life isn't the same. I'm going to be a bit poorer. Enough to hurt, but not enough to hurt so bad that it'll change how I do a whole bunch of things. I'll just have to find more ways to earn money to cover insurance or taxes, er... penalties, er... fees, er... taxes. I'm a fairly young guy and this kinda screws me. Here I've been taking care of myself on my own dime, and my two options appear to be: 1) Pay out of pocket as I do now AND pay extra in taxes for the privilege of taking care of myself 2) Pay a ridiculous premium for a qualified insurance plan The problem with this tax is that it doesn't provide me with anything. It's simply a gouge.

It's funny how "tax" is such a bad word to some people. I remember having to pay a "tax" for Apogee Stadium to get built...and I'm pretty pleased at the way my "tax" dollars were spent...for the "greater good" of the university. Buzz words are stupid. Maybe I'm just a dirty commie.

Am I only one who didn't realize he was Latino until now? If this is true, why haven't we had more success in recruting the top talent in Mexia?

The more I have become familiar with our long-time fans (and hearing their stories), the more I realize NT's past is not necessarily one of losing; rather, one of incredible teams and athletes coupled with crappy administrative decisions and piss poor timing.

So this is 7 or 8 commits + 2 transfers who might count toward this total. I know we're under the limit, but I think we only have like 12 scholarship senior players this year. I wonder how much under the limit we are and whether or not this will be a class of 20+ players.

Just like I want the money out of politics, I want the fraud out of healthcare. Troll bait but that's how I feel. I'm voting 3rd party. It's weird to think I may vote with a lot of right leaning voters. I don't agree with Gary Johnson on all issues, but I think a valid third party voice deserves to be heard. Traditionally, I vote Green but I'm looking for a voice to make some noise. If you stop the money grab in politics, you stop the corruption. I swore I wouldn't post in this forum today. 3+ hours to go. I almost made it.

Let's revisit this in 10 years, then we can discuss whether it is a "melodramatic hyperbolic rant." Individual freedoms have been disappearing for the last 20 years under both political parties. This is just another step in that direction, although I would call it more of a leap than a step.

Are you sure you're not looking at the class of 2009?

Yes- University of Houston and Texas Southern.

Doesn't Houston have two public law schools?

This taxation could prove to be a Trojan Horse for this administration. Obama is now a blatant liar and a lot of people are going to be pissed. "No one that makes under $250,000 will see a tax increase", repeated thousands of times. Not to mention the POTUS giving reporters verbal lashing when calling this a tax. If it is not a tax, then it is unconstitutional. Since it is a tax he has some explaining to do. I predict the GOP cleans up in the House of Representatives and Senate. This is going to hurt Obama. So will he and Holder's cover up regarding Fast and Furious and the murder of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Holder is a disgrace and I hope he is indicted by the Grand Jury. Executive privilege worked well for Nixon. Almost forgot, Obama will also have to explain why DHS is no longer enforcing immigration law under under the shroud of "discretion", which is said right after the Feds turned their backs completely on Arizona and our nations laws. Sad week.

6'5" is a great frame to build on. I suspect he'll be benching a lot more than 265 lbs by the time he sees the playing field.

Just thought I'd throw that in there. So, yes.... You answered your own question.

The sad thing is Republicans keep nominating judges that end up going over to the liberal block on the court. Stephens and Roberts are both Republican appointees, and both severely disappointed this week with decisions that, arguably, ignore the constitution. Health care is a tax? Please. The ramafications of today's decisions go way beyond health care.

Rivals shows him as 6' & hmmmmmm ESPN sez 5'11'. They also have Schilleci as 5'11. Guess Rivals is using aa taller measuring tape. http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Darvin-Kidsy-137213;_ylt=AoaDcQ_rB_CpS.vA3c7sYvNDPZB4 http://espn.go.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/school/_/id/249/north-texas

Perhapth, but ith difficult when we all have to lithp our etheth.

And requiring the Mean Green Brigade to belt out the sweet, sweet tunes of Enrique Iglesias?

Donde esta las siestas trimestrals?

I start UHLC this fall. UHLC is relatively cheap for law school. However, even with a grant and a nice scholarship I'm still looking at +100k in loans because of tutition, cost of living and interest. So it may be "much much less" debt but it is still nonetheless a heavy burden if you do not land a nice gig. Also, for the record, two new law schools are not opening. TexWes is basically changing it's name and getting more funding. Only one more school is opening, UNT. Yes the legal field goes in cycles, but one of the things you read on the proposed UNT Law website how it is needed NOW that a public school open in DFW. It's actually the opposite. We don't need any new schools now. Alternatively, when we do need more lawyers (which will probably not happen) why can't the established schools expand their class size to meet the demand. I'm sure they would love to open the door and rake in more money. In my earlier post I said I wish they would open the school when the market bounced back- but that could prove difficult to do.

the legal field is hurting because of many more reasons than just a down economy even if the economy was decent to good the legal field was headed for issues regardless.......it is exactly the attitude that you and those that support the unT-dallas law school are expressing that has put the hurt on the legal field it is over crowded and will continue to be......add in legal software (not that great for most things, but useful for some), the offshoring of legal clerking and brief writing to places like India, and the fact that many many law schools have already opened up over the last decade and there are already issues and there will continue to be and even if the economy turns around and things pick up there are PLENTY of law school slots available and plenty of people available to fill them without more schools......the THECB estimated it would cost 1.25 million per year to add 250 law slots in Texas at existing schools VS 55 million in start up and building cost alone for a new law school so Texas could add the same number of graduates from existing law schools for the next 44 years with the cost to start the unT-dallas law school and now that it is looking like it will cost 20 million to 30 million just to renovate the UCD and then another 45 million for the old muny building if they are ever able to move there and the return on investment is even more poor http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1867.PDF?CFID=30136432&CFTOKEN=16473819 building something from scratch just to say there is exist is not always the best idea there has already been 75 million plus wasted on the dallas campus and it has never in a decade come remotely close to the wildly (out right fraudulent) projections that were given for even the first few years and it is well past those years and still WELL under those projections and well under performong and it is actually LOSING enrollment over the last 3 years why repeate the same mistakes with something that cost even more, is not remptely needed, and that will saddle the "graduates" with even greater debt and lesser job prospects

Haven't they already approved our school though? If we get an approval, then we do not get a law school, the BOR should have no choice but to boot Lee Jackson. It would be a COLOSSAL failure of epic proportions for our university. I don't think that will happen though, and we will keep our law school in Dallas.