2Little 2Late

(housing, friendships, future exams, all things 2018)

How much are you regretting your extracurricular choices?

Not at all, I can manage my time.
4
4%
I get busy sometimes, but it's not the worst.
14
16%
Every couple of weeks I briefly lose my sanity.
22
25%
I long for the sweet release of death.
28
31%
I am smart and didn't sign up for unnecessary BS
21
24%
 
Total votes: 89

User avatar
tuxedocat
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:41 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby tuxedocat » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:12 pm

GoneSouth wrote:Does anyone else feel like their section is completely mailing it in for exams/have been mailing it in this entire semester? It's such a different vibe than the fall

Is mailing it in better or worse than phoning it in? What about faxing it in? I mean obviously Snapchatting it in would be the worst, but it's hard to prioritize from there.

User avatar
landshoes
is that cool?
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:17 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby landshoes » Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:05 pm

there should be a vote for "don't care"

User avatar
zhenders
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:21 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby zhenders » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:25 am

landshoes wrote:there should be a vote for "don't care"



It's there but just super meta: I read the poll and thought, "fml, I don't even care about clicking one of those."

Porkypots
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:42 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby Porkypots » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:04 pm

im having a contracts meltdown :x /anxiety attack

User avatar
unsweetened
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby unsweetened » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:00 pm

I had a nightmare last night that I as rejected for a job because I didn't have token participation in enough extracurricular activities.
Totally #Lawsome

User avatar
IsThisForReal
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:29 am

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby IsThisForReal » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:28 pm

Porkypots wrote:im having a contractscrim law meltdown :x /anxiety attack

My brain is hyperventilating

User avatar
Dr. Nefario
Posts: 2364
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:07 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby Dr. Nefario » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:42 pm

Porkypots wrote:im having a contracts meltdown :x /anxiety attack


Just in general.

Admin is like "the court says that process is not okay, unless it is"
Property is like "what even am i?"
Crim is like "MPC is the law, but in these places you shouldn't read it"
Con is like "SDP is real law, lol jk no its not, but you should know it"

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby Gray » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:05 pm

Dr. Nefario wrote:
Porkypots wrote:im having a contracts meltdown :x /anxiety attack


Just in general.

Admin is like "the court says that process is not okay, unless it is"
Property is like "what even am i?"
Crim is like "MPC is the law, but in these places you shouldn't read it"
Con is like "SDP is real law, lol jk no its not, but you should know it"

IDK what you mean by either MPC or SDP so that's a great sign

User avatar
Dr. Nefario
Posts: 2364
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:07 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby Dr. Nefario » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:09 pm

Gray wrote:
Dr. Nefario wrote:
Porkypots wrote:im having a contracts meltdown :x /anxiety attack


Just in general.

Admin is like "the court says that process is not okay, unless it is"
Property is like "what even am i?"
Crim is like "MPC is the law, but in these places you shouldn't read it"
Con is like "SDP is real law, lol jk no its not, but you should know it"

IDK what you mean by either MPC or SDP so that's a great sign


According to google:
MPC- Music Production Center
SDP- Session Description Protocol
And in case anyone is taking Admin and curious what the APA is: Acolytes Protection Agency

User avatar
tuxedocat
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:41 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby tuxedocat » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:12 pm

Gray wrote:
Dr. Nefario wrote:
Porkypots wrote:im having a contracts meltdown :x /anxiety attack


Just in general.

Admin is like "the court says that process is not okay, unless it is"
Property is like "what even am i?"
Crim is like "MPC is the law, but in these places you shouldn't read it"
Con is like "SDP is real law, lol jk no its not, but you should know it"

IDK what you mean by either MPC or SDP so that's a great sign

Major Penis Cop
Super Duper Peniscop

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby Gray » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:09 pm

MOAR probable cause

SUPER due process

Indifference
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 3:01 am

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby Indifference » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:15 pm

I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code. :|
This is miserable.

User avatar
Dr. Nefario
Posts: 2364
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:07 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby Dr. Nefario » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:56 am

Dominant Estates
Taking all my land away
Serviant for life

User avatar
zhenders
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:21 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby zhenders » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:54 pm

The Erie Doctrine
The common law is a lie
Except when it's not

User avatar
dabigchina
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby dabigchina » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:35 pm

Indifference wrote:I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code. :|
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.

User avatar
LoganCouture
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby LoganCouture » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:02 pm

god i'm so glad i've been done w conlaw since march that shit was miserable

keep calm and chemerinsky on my friends

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby PeanutsNJam » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:26 pm

dabigchina wrote:
Indifference wrote:I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code. :|
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.


I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?

User avatar
DCfilterDC
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby DCfilterDC » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:59 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
Indifference wrote:I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code. :|
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.


I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?


My con law class spent 1/3 doing anti-canon and most our exam was the issue spotter which was only related to good law. The only time I'd think to bring it up is if your professor thinks the court might reverse back to older precedent and I guess you could point that out. Otherwise anti-canon all goes to the essay/policy question

User avatar
dabigchina
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby dabigchina » Fri Apr 29, 2016 4:19 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
Indifference wrote:I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code. :|
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.


I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?


that's going to 100% depend on your professor. I've heard of people having to analyze comm clause based on if they were in 1800, 1935, and now.

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5682
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby BVest » Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:38 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?


Depends on the prof. Mine only wanted current law on essays, but exam was also 50% MC, and some of the overruled stuff popped up there (not by surprise, he told us it would.)

User avatar
w00kash
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:22 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby w00kash » Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:07 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
Indifference wrote:I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code. :|
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.


I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?


Yeah I'm lost as to what to do with exxon and PG&E. He specifically said not to listen to his opinion but he was pretty adamant about the majority getting those 2 wrong. I don't think anyone knew what the hell the point of like half the cases was in that class.

User avatar
dabigchina
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby dabigchina » Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:54 am

w00kash wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:
Yeah I'm lost as to what to do with exxon and PG&E. He specifically said not to listen to his opinion but he was pretty adamant about the majority getting those 2 wrong. I don't think anyone knew what the hell the point of like half the cases was in that class.

We didn't even read those so...whoosh

User avatar
MurdockLLP
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 10:32 am

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby MurdockLLP » Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:41 am

dabigchina wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
Indifference wrote:I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code. :|
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.


I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?


that's going to 100% depend on your professor. I've heard of people having to analyze comm clause based on if they were in 1800, 1935, and now.


I've seen this on some of my professor's practice exam.

There are actually 4 eras. Pre-1887 (Gibbons v. Ogden), 1887-1937, 1937-1995, 1995-Present. These eras also make sense with the way the Court handled many other economic issues (Taxing/Spending, Necessary and Proper, Lochner Era, Dormant Commerce Clause, etc.)

User avatar
Dr. Nefario
Posts: 2364
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:07 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby Dr. Nefario » Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:43 am

DCfilterDC wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
Indifference wrote:I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code. :|
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.


I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?


My con law class spent 1/3 doing anti-canon and most our exam was the issue spotter which was only related to good law. The only time I'd think to bring it up is if your professor thinks the court might reverse back to older precedent and I guess you could point that out. Otherwise anti-canon all goes to the essay/policy question


my con law class basically made it through NFIB, heightened scrutiny, and substantive due process.

User avatar
zhenders
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:21 pm

Re: WE HAVE NO CH1LL

Postby zhenders » Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:32 pm

Brief slain, as of today. A month and a week until summer.

#quartersystemlife




Return to “TLS Class of 2018 Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests