Frequent Citations

Writing An Opinion (Or Four)

For my First Amendment class I have to write a Supreme Court opinion. But it has to address two separate issues, so that's really two opinions. Only I also have to write a dissent for each opinion, so voila--four opinions.

And I have less than 24 hours in which to do it.

I've done (most of) the reading I need to do, including some articles that made my head spin before it exploded. I've even sketched out some of my arguments. But the actual writing? Erm, not so much. Egad, it's going to be a long long night. And day.

And then I get to plunge into studying for Securities, which I rescheduled for Saturday due to my Tax exam today (well, yesterday now--Wednesday). The people who took Securities today came out of there looking ashen and mentioning that their hopes of graduating with honors were now permanently dashed. The omens are not propitious.

So...here I go. Write write write. Starting now! ish.

. . .

It's now about an hour and a half later. I've written . . . some. And I've maybe read a few news items. Possibly, I've taken a quiz and caught up with a blog or two. Yes, I'm nearly as bad as LL, although not having quite such a bad week. Seldom have I been so happy that those days of miserably ill (though adorable) babies are so long behind me.

But now I've decided that even I, self-professed political junkie, am sick of the news. So maybe I'll go back to writing about freedom of speech.

. . .

Several hours later and I'm both hitting a groove and getting pretty darn tired. Sigh. I think I have a pretty comprehensive outline of the opinion(s) done, but it's no more than an outline and a few paragraphs right now. The footnotes have already begun, though. He's going to kill me. Time to go make tea and try to write while it's flowing.

. . .

Oof. It's 5:30 am. I've got some decent stuff down on paper (electronically speaking) but I have a long way to go. I may need to go take a nap. I wish I didn't do my best writing between 1 and 5 am. It really messes up the rest of my schedule.

Socratic Method: The Good, The Extraordinary, & The Pointless

By now, halfway through my 3L year (114 days to graduation!), I've had a lot of different professors. I've had some of the profs whose names are on your textbooks, and some who are still wet behind the ears, and some who are in between, plugging away and hoping to become a Big Name one day. They all have their own styles, but all of them use the Socratic Method. (For my non-law school real people readers: Socratic Method is the professor asking you questions instead of just lecturing for the whole class.)

The Socratic method has been on my mind lately, so it was interesting to read Mel's post about the new prof. Socratic method comes in infinite varieties, and it sounds as though her new prof employs the pointless method.

A prof using the pointless method will ask you details of the case. Not details that might point you in the direction of key knowledge--such as why is the party called a libellant--but pointless details. Who was the judge? How much did the Plaintiff want? What was the name of the cow? For these professors you learn to read cases not for law, not even for argument, but only for the nitpicky little details you're sure to get tripped up on in class. These professors aren't teaching, they're playing gotcha.

Happily, I've had no profs who've used the pointless method in its purest forms, though some have certainly veered into this territory.

Most profs here use some generally good variety of the Socratic method. They might ask you what the dissent's argument was (ho hum), or to distinguish this case from another (slightly better), or to fit a tricky case on a spectrum of doctrine. They'll sometimes ask pretty fact-based questions, but at least ones that are more relevant to the result or the reasoning. On their better days you'll have to think a bit before answering.

Fortunately, at my school most of the profs are in the upper range of the good category. They ask somewhat interesting and somewhat difficult questions, requiring at least a modicum of thought and sometimes quite a bit more. And they are universally extremely kind in their reactions to your answers, most often taking what you say (blather) and magically transforming it into an on-point answer.

But the rare, extremely rare, brilliant professor will use the extraordinary Socratic method. You are never asked for the facts of the case. You are never asked for the reasoning of a case, or a rule of law, or worst of all, how a certain judge would have decided a case. Instead, you're asked a question that makes you close your book, sit back in your chair, and summon up all you've learned and all your insight and--and hope for a dash of divine inspiration. And you have the same reaction no matter who he calls on, because the questions are always both hard and fascinating, taking you to a level of the law that far removed from the procedural posture of the case you just read--and for more important on a practical level. It takes a professor who thinks fast on his feet, who knows the law inside and out, who's confident in his ability to answer anything the students throw at him.

Need Distraction In Class?

Try feeding the world. Great fun--who knew a big vocabulary would be so, er, fulfilling?

GirlChild is entirely to blame for telling me about it.

Part 5 of 7: A Preacher's Rhetoric Sings

As I told you before, I am a political junkie.

I am also a preacher's daughter. I grew up understanding the power of matching words to rhythm, of building an audience up and taking it away with you, of crafting incandescent images and searing sounds that bring the listener to his knees. That rhetoric is a skill and an art form and has not been seen in our politicians in many decades, although Ronald Reagan sometimes came close (he knew how to deliver lines).

But then it was 2004, at the Democratic National Convention, when some backwater politician still seemingly wet behind the ears got up on stage and showed them how it's done. It's not the flash-bang histrionics of certain public figures who get all fired up themselves but fail to move anyone else but the choir. The power of real rhetoric is harnessed and controlled, a measured force building and ebbing and irresistibly raising the hair on your arms and the tears in your eyes. It becomes a thunder, rolling with righteousness.

The rhythm, the cadence, the lilting delivery that becomes a booming drum roll--those are the hallmarks of true rhetoric. Martin Luther King, Jr. was undoubtedly a master of it. (Now he was a baptist minister I would have voted for in a heartbeat. Not for his experience or agenda, but for his character and courage.) And whether or not you're buying what he's selling, Obama does, on his best nights, show us how it's done.

Others agree:

Reenlistment

I have decided to reenlist.

I was toying with being a TA for a quarter, but my prof still needs an RA, it's work I enjoy on a supremely flexible schedule, and I might be able to talk my way into a library carrel. It's all about the carrels. Well, that and being able to immerse myself in research that leads to awkward cocktail party conversation (is there any other kind of cocktail party conversation?). Or maybe it was the thought of grading 20 papers on top of the journal editing that made me pale and back away--some remnant of an instinct for self-preservation may yet survive in me.

I doubt it though. I think I just like being an RA on a distinctly quirky project.

In other news: I may try yet again for a clerkship. Because that shred of instinct for self-preservation is not, apparently, too sizable. And for other reasons, which are my own.

In other other news: Boy was cited by a prominent sports columnist, who happens to be a near relative of a prominent judge. We are all impressed. If you know me, I'll happily send you the link.

The Great Writ At Guantanamo

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard a case tailor-made for a Con Law class. It is just bursting at the seams with all sorts of constitutional questions, ranging from what level of deference should be shown to the President (Is he acting with Congressional authority? Do we have Youngstown here? But what if Congress's authorization is, itself, unconstitutional? Ah, so puzzling!) to the grand-daddy question of them all: can anyone issue a writ of habeas corpus for the prisoners in Guantanamo?*

In other words: can the government throw you in a cell, not tell you why, and never give you a chance to say that you're the wrong person?

In Con Law speak: can the President and Congress between them strip the Supreme Court of its authority to hear common law habeas claims?

Because, you see, the habeas petition--the plea to a judge that you're the wrong person or innocent or whatever--is not just another legal phrase. It is The Central Element of our judicial system.  It is what keeps the government from throwing people (well, citizens anyway--according to Hamdi) into cells and leaving them there until they rot, without having to go through that tiring rigamarole of rounding up evidence, and letting people speak in their own defense, and so on.

So, will the Supreme Court give that up? It remains to be seen. Slate has an appropriately snarky essay on yesterday's arguments.

*Because Cuba not only won't, it can't. Cuba has no jurisdiction over Guantanamo, its courts cannot do a darn thing with any prisoner petitions. The only courts with jurisdiction are US courts. What I find particularly funny about the whole situation, because I have a sick sense of humor, is that the whole gimmick of trying to keep prisoners where the courts can't get at them has been tried before. Lord Clarendon tried it during the reign of Charles II. The English were not amused.

Outline Etiquette

Dear Freaked-Out Law Student:

I understand that the task of outlining a class can seem overwhelming, even if you have attended on a semi-regular basis and have done at least some of the reading. If you haven't attended class, or did but spent your entire time playing computer games instead of taking notes, or have never opened your text book, I can see how you might feel completely lost.

But you might want to reconsider your request for someone else's outline.

Consider finding outlines on the internets or even just using your syllabus and case notes. It's true, anyway, that someone else's outline isn't going to do you that much good, anyway.

That said, if you're going to ask for an outline, at least ask someone you know and not someone who's little more than a complete stranger. It is a tad presumptuous. Or have some kind of reason for why you're special. Or at least throw in a bribe!

Love and hugs,

Citations

Trial By Fire

My good friend and fellow blogger is going through the most horrendous nightmare. As a parent, it's hard to imagine a worse scenario. As a friend, it's terrible to see her and her husband suffer this way.

When I endured major and minor agonies, my mother would tell me they "build character." I think LL & JP have all the character they need. They are showing the most amazing courage and honor, all while worried out of their minds about their son. Although I wish I could do so much more, all I can do is stand by with comfort and my cell phone and, yes, call lawyers.

It is interesting, and not in a good way, but lawyers can be stymied by these delicate situations as much as anyone. We're 3Ls and we know we don't have a clue, but even experienced lawyers don't either unless they work in this particular field. The ones who do work in this field are amazing and I am full of respect for them.

The good news is that we had a conversation with one lawyer who was able to give us lots of information about how the process works, who can do what, and what good next moves might be. And we got the name of a lawyer who makes the agency and the hospital tremble. Now at least some of the uncertainty is gone,  and the phone number of the cavalry is at hand.

I May Even Scrub Bathrooms

I can't tell you why I'm doing everything in my power--including posting--to avoid my Con Law reading.

I like the subject matter. The case book isn't as hopelessly annoying as my Crim book was (but it's red, so there you go). The concepts aren't necessarily difficult to grasp.

It's motivation that seems to be difficult to grasp. It's a huge class full of 2Ls (egad), some of whom seem to know a little too much about Con Law if you ask me. And I'd rather be reading for other classes or doing LR work, of which I have an abundance right now.

Bah. I just have to sit down and do this--and finish it within the next 50 minutes.

Sweet Seminar

My seminar on constitutional interpretation rocks. It's a relatively small class, several of my friends are in it,  and the prof is one of my favorites. Should be good.

But I still have to find that fourth class. It's not going to be Public International Law, that much is certain. I'd go back to Tax first. Today, though, I'll try Con Law I. Apparently it's a good idea to take an actual Con Law course at some point, not just the fun and peripheral constitutional classes.