This just came across CM/ECF:
Administrative Order 2012-14 In re: Elimination of Attorney Admissions
Examination
Pursuant to Administrative Order 2012-14, the Judges of this Court have
decided to eliminate the requirement that an attorney take our examination in
order to be admitted as a member of this Courts Bar. Although this information
does not apply to current members of our Bar, we are sending this notice in an
attempt to receive as broad dissemination as possible. Effective immediately,
the attorney admissions examination is discontinued. If you know attorneys who
may seek admission to our Bar in the near future, please advise them to monitor
our website for updated admissions procedures that will be posted in the near
future.
Too bad -- I mean there were really important reasons that lawyers had to memorize the questions and answers that were given before the test.
The Supreme Court jousted for an hour Wednesday about whether the First Amendment allows the government to prosecute people for lying about earning military honors, and, if so, what else might be fair game.
Lying about whether your child received a medal? wondered Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Holocaust deniers? asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
People who lie about extramarital affairs? offered Justice Elena Kagan.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor tried out a personal example: “I take offense when someone I’m dating makes a claim that’s not true.”
***
He seemed to have one sure supporter in Justice Antonin Scalia, whose comments were uniformly protective of the government’s interests.
“When Congress passed this legislation, I assume it did so because it thought that the value of the awards that these courageous members of the armed forces were receiving was being demeaned and diminished” by those who falsely claimed them, Scalia said.
And Verrilli had one clear skeptic in Sotomayor.
“I thought the core of the First Amendment was to protect even against offensive speech,” she said. “You can’t really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone’s claiming that they got one.”
But the rest of the court seemed more conflicted. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., for instance, asked Verrilli if the government could criminalize lying about whether one received a high school diploma.