1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[Sapientia]

can anyone tell me Nicastro's importance to the stream of commerce cases? Up until like 20 minutes ago when I found out my class has read it I was planning on just using the 4-4 asahi split..

Pretty much the same thing. Another split, so there's no prevailing stream of commerce rule. The facts were a little different, though. The company in Nicastro actually targeted the US (unlike Asahi). But, the court, using O'Connor's theory, came down that there was no specific jurisdiction based on the stream of commerce theory, becasue the company didn't specifically target New Jersey.

[kapital98]

i like reading scalia's and thomas' opinions as much as i like reading the other justices' opinions.

This. (And in my case, not at all. Seriously, fuck the case method.)

+1

I don't understand how people have favorite justices due to their writing style. To me it's all the same annoying recitation of case facts, meandering thoughts on why this is different or alike, and personal views on the world. I rarely see any difference in their writing styles. The only thing different about their writing styles is that it seems that Scalia likes to make his seem more like crass personal attacks and usually expresses an opinion that is the complete opposite of how pretty much any given case should turn out.

That's pretty much my reasoning. Scalia for personal attacks and contrarian diatribes. Thomas just for the contrarian diatribes.

[LSATmakesMeNeurotic]

i like reading scalia's and thomas' opinions as much as i like reading the other justices' opinions.

This. (And in my case, not at all. Seriously, fuck the case method.)

+1

I don't understand how people have favorite justices due to their writing style. To me it's all the same annoying recitation of case facts, meandering thoughts on why this is different or alike, and personal views on the world. I rarely see any difference in their writing styles. The only thing different about their writing styles is that it seems that Scalia likes to make his seem more like crass personal attacks and usually expresses an opinion that is the complete opposite of how pretty much any given case should turn out.

That's pretty much my reasoning. Scalia for personal attacks and contrarian diatribes. Thomas just for the contrarian diatribes.

Cardozo has a very recognizable writing style. He just writes pretty.

[tedalbany]

This. (And in my case, not at all. Seriously, fuck the case method.)

+1

I don't understand how people have favorite justices due to their writing style. To me it's all the same annoying recitation of case facts, meandering thoughts on why this is different or alike, and personal views on the world. I rarely see any difference in their writing styles. The only thing different about their writing styles is that it seems that Scalia likes to make his seem more like crass personal attacks and usually expresses an opinion that is the complete opposite of how pretty much any given case should turn out.

That's pretty much my reasoning. Scalia for personal attacks and contrarian diatribes. Thomas just for the contrarian diatribes.

Cardozo has a very recognizable writing style. He just writes pretty.

Cardozo makes everything sound like the most pressing legal issue of the century, and a matter of life or death.

[JenDarby]

Except our oral arguments. In front of our LRW professor, a normal professor, and someone else (probably a judge?).

At least it's ungraded, but it's going to be lulzy.

I blacked out those minutes of my life. It doesn't really quite count, imo. You suit up, say some stuff, get interrupted by a ridiculously and unrealistically hot bench, and have to figure out professional ways to say "uhhh the prompt said that issue was outside the scope of the assignment" when they fail to actually brief all the judges properly.

Yea, even the person on my opposing side in oral arguments who spent the entire time describing how the standard in the case was subjective (it was definitely objective and was the basis of our long memo AND brief) didn't do that bad. The judges just kept asking "are you SURE it's not an objective standard...?" She stuck to her guns and definitively told them she was sure, and why...

[LSATmakesMeNeurotic]

Cardozo makes everything sound like the most pressing legal issue of the century, and a matter of life or death.

Exactly. I could be reading about a port o potty dispute between two people and he would make it seem like the most important and interesting topic I've ever read.

[NYC2014]

Scalia's dissent in Romer was a 10/10-would-read-again masterpiece. One of the few judges who seems to give a shit about the Constitution.

[merc280]

sitting here wondering where my entire weekend went. Don't feel like I made much of an attempt to learn con law and there is a chance my grade might reflect that. How much studying can I get done before 1PM tomorrow?

[Sapientia]

Scalia's dissent in Romer was a 10/10-would-read-again masterpiece. One of the few judges who seems to give a shit about the Constitution.

+1 definitely 180

[TheFutureLawyer]

Scalia's dissent in Romer was a 10/10-would-read-again masterpiece. One of the few judges who seems to give a shit about the Constitution.

+1 definitely 180

States can't treat gays like second class citizens. Quick, someone call a wambulance!

[3|ink]

Scalia's dissent in Romer was a 10/10-would-read-again masterpiece. One of the few judges who seems to give a shit about the Constitution.

+1 definitely 180

States can't treat gays like second class citizens. Quick, someone call a wambulance!

You can't hate him for one stupid opinion. He's fairly brilliant.

[TheFutureLawyer]

Scalia's dissent in Romer was a 10/10-would-read-again masterpiece. One of the few judges who seems to give a shit about the Constitution.

+1 definitely 180

States can't treat gays like second class citizens. Quick, someone call a wambulance!

You can't hate him for one stupid opinion. He's fairly brilliant.

Don't hate him, maybe should've made more clear what I meant. Disagree with the bold.

[Flips88]

Scalia's dissent in Romer was a 10/10-would-read-again masterpiece. One of the few judges who seems to give a shit about the Constitution.

+1 definitely 180

States can't treat gays like second class citizens. Quick, someone call a wambulance!

You can't hate him for one stupid opinion. He's fairly brilliant.

His Lawrence v. Texas dissent was also equally awful. Also he's the one that chooses to be a condescending dick in every opinion he ever writes.

[3|ink]

His Lawrence v. Texas dissent was also equally awful. Also he's the one that chooses to be a condescending dick in every opinion he ever writes.

Yeah, but they are entertaining to read. My favorite was his BMW v. Gore dissent.

[Lasers]

i am shocked so many of you know can critique writing styles of judges or can actually differentiate between the justices. i seriously don't know who wrote what and in what way they did.

i don't think i care that much about what i'm reading. i don't know if that's good or bad.

[ilovesf]

i am shocked so many of you know can critique writing styles of judges or can actually differentiate between the justices. i seriously don't know who wrote what and in what way they did.

i don't think i care that much about what i'm reading. i don't know if that's good or bad.

I totally don't give a shit either, I never paid attention. Probably why I'm dreading my conlaw grade.

[bdubs]

Thomas FTW! No one can argue with the fact that Thomas writes the most logically consistent opinions (dissents) of any justice. To boot, they are probably also the more well written opinions, but that is probably because he doesn't have to jump through hoops to sound consistent.

It's really too bad that his consistency and reasoning are ignored to such a degree that he doesn't even participate in oral argument anymore.

[kapital98]

i am shocked so many of you know can critique writing styles of judges or can actually differentiate between the justices. i seriously don't know who wrote what and in what way they did.

i don't think i care that much about what i'm reading. i don't know if that's good or bad.

I totally don't give a shit either, I never paid attention. Probably why I'm dreading my conlaw grade.

You'll both probably get amazing grades.

I pay attention because there are a handful of judges who are either well published or EXTREME dicks. Cardozo and Traynor are both extremely intelligent, persuasive writers, and have changed the field. Scalia and Thomas are both extreme dicks who use their intelligence in order to make simultaneously condescending and disingenuous arguments.

To be fair, Breyer is just as disingenuous as Scalia or Thomas. But he doesn't personally insult the other justices and is, every blue moon, a moderate on the issues. I can't remember reading one case by Scalia or Thomas were I could say they were "moderate."

[MrPapagiorgio]

Like I've said in another thread, both Thomas and Scalia, whether you agree with their jurisprudence or not, have a far greater grasp of the law than 99% of the people on TLS. So yes, mock Scalia for pompous personal attacks on other justices and Thomas for his dissents, but realize that these men are more brilliant than nearly every single one of us.

[dreakol]

Thomas FTW! No one can argue with the fact that Thomas writes the most logically consistent opinions (dissents) of any justice. To boot, they are probably also the more well written opinions, but that is probably because he doesn't have to jump through hoops to sound consistent.

It's really too bad that his consistency and reasoning are ignored to such a degree that he doesn't even participate in oral argument anymore.

[tedalbany]

i am shocked so many of you know can critique writing styles of judges or can actually differentiate between the justices. i seriously don't know who wrote what and in what way they did.

i don't think i care that much about what i'm reading. i don't know if that's good or bad.

I totally don't give a shit either, I never paid attention. Probably why I'm dreading my conlaw grade.

You'll both probably get amazing grades.

Lol don't talk about shit you don't know, both of them IIRC are at the top of their classes. Doing well on exams doesn't come down to spending an inordinate amount of time studying what some pompous asshole rambles about regarding the nature of man and his relation to the law, you do well on exams by learning doctrine, listening to what your professor likes, and learning how to write a good exam with clear and concise analysis.

[ilovesf]

i am shocked so many of you know can critique writing styles of judges or can actually differentiate between the justices. i seriously don't know who wrote what and in what way they did.

i don't think i care that much about what i'm reading. i don't know if that's good or bad.

I totally don't give a shit either, I never paid attention. Probably why I'm dreading my conlaw grade.

You'll both probably get amazing grades.

Lol don't talk about shit you don't know, both of them IIRC are at the top of their classes. Doing well on exams doesn't come down to spending an inordinate amount of time studying what some pompous asshole rambles about regarding the nature of man and his relation to the law, you do well on exams by learning doctrine, listening to what your professor likes, and learning how to write a good exam with clear and concise analysis.

Kap was being nice. The three of us go to the same school and Kap and I are in the same section. Thanks though.

[tedalbany]

Lol don't talk about shit you don't know, both of them IIRC are at the top of their classes. Doing well on exams doesn't come down to spending an inordinate amount of time studying what some pompous asshole rambles about regarding the nature of man and his relation to the law, you do well on exams by learning doctrine, listening to what your professor likes, and learning how to write a good exam with clear and concise analysis.

Lol don't talk about shit you don't know

[Lasers]

i am shocked so many of you know can critique writing styles of judges or can actually differentiate between the justices. i seriously don't know who wrote what and in what way they did.

i don't think i care that much about what i'm reading. i don't know if that's good or bad.

I totally don't give a shit either, I never paid attention. Probably why I'm dreading my conlaw grade.

You'll both probably get amazing grades.

Lol don't talk about shit you don't know, both of them IIRC are at the top of their classes. Doing well on exams doesn't come down to spending an inordinate amount of time studying what some pompous asshole rambles about regarding the nature of man and his relation to the law, you do well on exams by learning doctrine, listening to what your professor likes, and learning how to write a good exam with clear and concise analysis.

[future-self] dude, i'm at median. [/future-self]

[hijodehombre]

sitting here wondering where my entire weekend went. Don't feel like I made much of an attempt to learn con law and there is a chance my grade might reflect that. How much studying can I get done before 1PM tomorrow?

seems like Con Law has been weighing you down pretty good these past few days, i think a couple hours of reviewing broad strokes (Standing, Commerce, Spending, Preemption, Due Process of the 14A, P/I) could do you some good,

good luck tomorrow