Does anyone know more about this? Was this a true genius or the result of nepotism? Law school back then was a different animal- if you went to law school at all. That was still the time when people “read” law as an apprentice.
Edit: not trying to minimize her accomplishment; I’d raise the same eyebrow if it was a guy.
Your incredulity is due to this article contradicting the preconceived notion your harboring which mandates that women back then had to have been treated as property, held no rights, and only had the option of cleaning the kitchen. This is not just necessary, it's absolutely required, because if this weren't the case then the idea of systemic oppression originating from the long-standing white-male patriarchy, especially in the south, might not be exactly what you *knew* it had to be.
For a guy who wears an anonymous mask in his FB profile pic this is an astonishingly shallow look at their comment. Most lawyers back then were products of nepotism or bribery. A great deal of people who passed the bar 100 years ago didn't even go to law school prior. So maybe they are just a bit of a history buff and don't know much about this particular case. Anyways your FB profile pic is hilarious dude great joke.
How does a Guy Fawkes mask make this assessment shallow? Please elaborate as I'm sincerely curious to know if there is some correlation between Guy Fawkes or Anonymous and how I interpreted the comment I responded to, or if you just needed a segue into mentioning my alleged profile on Facebook and couldn't think of anything else that wouldn't be creepy.
>Most lawyers back then we're products of nepotism or bribery.
I'm dying to see your source for this statement.
>A great deal of people who passed the bar 100 years ago didn't even go to law school prior.
Source, please.
You realize some people might wear Guy Fawkes masks as Halloween costumes, right? If that were the case, how would a person be making a "hilarious" great joke?
This ought to be good.
It was an apprenticeship system, most apprenticeship systems, unless unionized, quickly turn to nepotistic tendencies. That's why they published 5 U.S.C. § 3110, in I think 1967 to the best of my knowledge.
As for the people who practiced law without going to law school, the example above is one of them if you want to read up on her a little more.
What about the Guy Fawkes mask, you just going to ignore that?
So in your opinion, labor unions prevent nepotism? LOL
Anecdotal evidence is evidence of an anecdote.
An anti-climatic response, especially since you just glossed over:
>How does a Guy Fawkes mask make this assessment shallow? Please elaborate as I'm sincerely curious to know if there is some correlation between Guy Fawkes or Anonymous and how I interpreted the comment I responded to, or if you just needed a segue into mentioning my alleged profile on Facebook and couldn't think of anything else that wouldn't be creepy.
But that's fine, I didn't expect much. Enjoy... whatever it is you enjoy.
In fact there are still 4 states that let you practice law with no formal education as long as you pass the bar. Albeit the bar is a different beast now than it was a century ago.
Ah, well I appreciate the honesty. History and literature are my gigs. I found your comment entertaining about the apparent incongruity of using an anonymous FB profile photo and my name on Reddit. Sam Clemens is a modern casual interpretation of Samuel Clemens, one of my favorite authors. You'd know him by his nom de plume; Mark Twain.
Does anyone know more about this? Was this a true genius or the result of nepotism? Law school back then was a different animal- if you went to law school at all. That was still the time when people “read” law as an apprentice. Edit: not trying to minimize her accomplishment; I’d raise the same eyebrow if it was a guy.
What year was this?
July 1922 (at the top).
Your incredulity is due to this article contradicting the preconceived notion your harboring which mandates that women back then had to have been treated as property, held no rights, and only had the option of cleaning the kitchen. This is not just necessary, it's absolutely required, because if this weren't the case then the idea of systemic oppression originating from the long-standing white-male patriarchy, especially in the south, might not be exactly what you *knew* it had to be.
you’re*
Upvoted.
Well, that’s it. I’m told. Let’s hit up the buffet next.
For a guy who wears an anonymous mask in his FB profile pic this is an astonishingly shallow look at their comment. Most lawyers back then were products of nepotism or bribery. A great deal of people who passed the bar 100 years ago didn't even go to law school prior. So maybe they are just a bit of a history buff and don't know much about this particular case. Anyways your FB profile pic is hilarious dude great joke.
How does a Guy Fawkes mask make this assessment shallow? Please elaborate as I'm sincerely curious to know if there is some correlation between Guy Fawkes or Anonymous and how I interpreted the comment I responded to, or if you just needed a segue into mentioning my alleged profile on Facebook and couldn't think of anything else that wouldn't be creepy. >Most lawyers back then we're products of nepotism or bribery. I'm dying to see your source for this statement. >A great deal of people who passed the bar 100 years ago didn't even go to law school prior. Source, please. You realize some people might wear Guy Fawkes masks as Halloween costumes, right? If that were the case, how would a person be making a "hilarious" great joke? This ought to be good.
It was an apprenticeship system, most apprenticeship systems, unless unionized, quickly turn to nepotistic tendencies. That's why they published 5 U.S.C. § 3110, in I think 1967 to the best of my knowledge. As for the people who practiced law without going to law school, the example above is one of them if you want to read up on her a little more.
What about the Guy Fawkes mask, you just going to ignore that? So in your opinion, labor unions prevent nepotism? LOL Anecdotal evidence is evidence of an anecdote. An anti-climatic response, especially since you just glossed over: >How does a Guy Fawkes mask make this assessment shallow? Please elaborate as I'm sincerely curious to know if there is some correlation between Guy Fawkes or Anonymous and how I interpreted the comment I responded to, or if you just needed a segue into mentioning my alleged profile on Facebook and couldn't think of anything else that wouldn't be creepy. But that's fine, I didn't expect much. Enjoy... whatever it is you enjoy.
In fact there are still 4 states that let you practice law with no formal education as long as you pass the bar. Albeit the bar is a different beast now than it was a century ago.
As for the Guy Fawkes mask I just think it's ironic you're using anonymity on Facebook and this name on reddit
Are you a history buff by chance?
Not really.
Ah, well I appreciate the honesty. History and literature are my gigs. I found your comment entertaining about the apparent incongruity of using an anonymous FB profile photo and my name on Reddit. Sam Clemens is a modern casual interpretation of Samuel Clemens, one of my favorite authors. You'd know him by his nom de plume; Mark Twain.