The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook

Postby brickman » Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:22 pm

Edit: So we learn what the professor says is the law and what the arguments the court made in making that law and that is all that counts, right?

So when I'm arguing on the exam that the law plainly read says this but the purpose says another thing, i'm just referring to whatever the hell the professor said it is, right?
Last edited by brickman on Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11719
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook

Postby kalvano » Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:34 pm

Christ, what a rambling and nonsensical post.

If the E&E, the supplement, every book on Earth says the law is "x", and your professor says it's "y", then on the exam the law is "y". Period.

And if your professor thinks the law is "y", then you damn well better know how (s)he got there, too.

nigelfrost
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook

Postby nigelfrost » Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:48 pm

brickman wrote:Are the arguments the counter-weight to the words of the law by which you argue whether or not the novel fact situation must navigate ambiguity?


wtf?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11719
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook

Postby kalvano » Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:34 pm

brickman wrote:So when I'm arguing on the exam that the law plainly read says this but the purpose says another thing, i'm just referring to whatever the hell the professor said it is, right?



I knew I should have quoted that post.


No. Argue both ways. If you interpret the law plainly, then x. If you interpret it according to the purpose, then y. Then, based on what your professor has said, come down on one side or the other and use his or her reasoning to back it up.

nigelfrost
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook

Postby nigelfrost » Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:54 pm

brickman wrote:So when I'm arguing on the exam that the law plainly read says this but the purpose says another thing, i'm just referring to whatever the @#!*% the professor said it is, right?


Step 1: Read assigned pages.
Step 2: Take notes in class based on prof.'s interpretation of readings.
Step 3: Make outline based on class notes.
Step 4: Answer questions based on outline.
Step 5: Receive arbitrary grade based on professor's mood at time of grading.

What the law "is" and what it has as "its purpose" are irrelevant to the sorting experience you're about to go through as a 1L.

kalvano wrote:I knew I should have quoted that post.


Love the avatar. Those books and two weeks at the beach kept me going this month.

User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook

Postby quakeroats » Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:58 pm





Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: stayposi, torilynn and 8 guests