Scotusnerd wrote:I had this problem my first year, but then I figured out how to fix it. I hate when professors burble about the case history, so I put a stop to it as soon as I can. Why? Because they're talking out of their asses and don't really know shit about how the case plays out.
Whenever I get a professor that wants to go off the deep end with procedural history, I start asking them harder questions about the disposition of the case, party cross appeals, and other such nonsense. Oftentimes (especially in the earlier confusing cases) the high courts mess up their procedures pretty badly, so it's fertile ground for calling a professor on their bullshit.
Since the douchebags only bother reading that one case, not the appeals below nor the procedural history after, they don't really know what's actually going on. When I ask these questions, I generally get a mumbling response that sounds vaguely like "well, it seems to be a local state procedural law" I have yet to find one who can answer these questions confidently.
I repeat this process with other cases until they figure out that they need to shut the hell up about procedural history.
Scotusnerd wrote:I ain't flipping out over anything. It just bothers me when professors try to bullshit. The professor in question was known for wanting to reenact the paper chase and had just cold-called a bunch of 3Ls before I started asking the questions. I got thanked for it afterwards. He was trying to be an asshat, so I was a bigger asshat back. And yes you're right in that it's generally an asshole thing to do, but the circumstances warranted it. But hey, if you still want to think I'm an asshole, go for it. OP wanted advice and I shared some experience. If you don't like it, deal with it.
So rather than this actually being some kind of general practice you employ regularly to take those hack profs down a peg, this is something you did once in one class? Cool.