CON LAW freak out

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
stinger35
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:37 pm

CON LAW freak out

Postby stinger35 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:11 pm

My Con Law teacher sent out the exam specifics today and the exam is supposed to be 70% Policy, mainly that of judicial review. I was hoping someone could give me some guidance on what to study for this. I have chemerinksy and a few other secondary books. Any advice?

My teacher also basically gave the LEEWS seminar throughout the course (I think he must know Wentworth Miller or something) and now I am just thinking that everyone is gonna kick ass. HHHHHHEEEELLLPPPP

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: CON LAW freak out

Postby 270910 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:12 pm

For studying, SCOTUS cases about constitutional issues are pretty good, you could try looking at those.

PSA: You have all the material you need. Learn to use it instead of mindlessly hunting for me.

User avatar
patrickd139
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: CON LAW freak out

Postby patrickd139 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:14 pm

If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: CON LAW freak out

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:38 pm

patrickd139 wrote:If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: CON LAW freak out

Postby vanwinkle » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:39 pm

patrickd139 wrote:Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

Sounds like great advice, but how do you actually do this? I feel like I don't get the different "judicial interpretations" at all.

User avatar
XxSpyKEx
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: CON LAW freak out

Postby XxSpyKEx » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:54 pm

mikeytwoshoes wrote:
patrickd139 wrote:If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

--ImageRemoved--


uhhh.... 4/20 was yesterday d00d.

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: CON LAW freak out

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:36 pm

XxSpyKEx wrote:
mikeytwoshoes wrote:
patrickd139 wrote:If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

--ImageRemoved--


uhhh.... 4/20 was yesterday d00d.

It's always 4:20 somewhere.

User avatar
XxSpyKEx
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: CON LAW freak out

Postby XxSpyKEx » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:40 pm

mikeytwoshoes wrote:
XxSpyKEx wrote:
mikeytwoshoes wrote:
patrickd139 wrote:If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

--ImageRemoved--


uhhh.... 4/20 was yesterday d00d.

It's always 4:20 somewhere.


Now if I only had a massive bag of weed like in the picture... haha.

User avatar
patrickd139
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: CON LAW freak out

Postby patrickd139 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:47 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
patrickd139 wrote:Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

Sounds like great advice, but how do you actually do this? I feel like I don't get the different "judicial interpretations" at all.

If you can answer something the way Scalia would as opposed to how Kennedy would as opposed to how Stevens or Ginsburg would, then you're on the right track. Basically, texturalism v. pragmatism stuff. Also, one could cut across historically (Lochner Era v. Modern Commerce Clause, etc.).

Also, this.
disco_barred wrote:For studying, SCOTUS cases about constitutional issues are pretty good, you could try looking at those.

PSA: You have all the material you need. Learn to use it instead of mindlessly hunting for me.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media and 4 guests