No, that is not reduntant. This man sues over gay marriage question on bar exam in Massachusetts. He barely failed the bar exam in that state. He was just over two points (270 needed) shy of passing. Why is he suing?
Apparently he refused to answer a question about
addressing the rights of two married lesbians, their children and their property, and claims in the suit that it cost him a passing score.
Excuse me? This is the law of the land in Massachussets, a law that does not exist in the same form in any other state. If he wants to practice law in that state, he needs to understand it.
What, if I believe interest rates charged by banks to be unethical, am I now allowed to refuse to answer questions on a _bar exam_ about the laws of banking and expect to pass? What if I believe religious freedom for fundamentalist Christianists is repugnant, can I refuse to learn about the state rights to religous practice?
Sorry, this suit is absurd.
My advice to this wannabe lawyer: If you really don't want to answer the question, study harder.. your score is mediocre... as it stands even if you answered the question you'd be a lawyer with mediocre law education.
Go back to the books and take responsibility for yourself.
Comments (2)
The sound you here at the moment is me clapping!
I'm sick and tired of every Tom, Dick and Harry suing at the drop of a hat for their own failings instead of accepting the consquences of their own actions (or in this case lack of knowledge).
Well stated!
Comment #21392 on July 6, 2007 8:14 PM |
Like David Yas pointed out, knowing the law is not the same as agreeing with it and the bar exam is designed to test knowledge. I'm sure Dunne realises this and is just suing in order to draw publicity to help him promote his bigoted political beliefs.
Comment #22938 on July 17, 2007 1:24 PM |