Top Law Schools

Don't write exams like this judge writes opinions:

"statements in legislative history cannot be read to convert statutory leeway for judicial development of a rule on particularized exceptions into delegated authority to revise statutory categorization, untethered to any obligation to preserve the coherence of substantive congressional judgments."

Trying to sound smart makes you sound stupid most of the time........

There's an art to writing clearly and succinctly. Your example is the exact opposite. I hate writing like that, regardless of the intended audience. What judge is that?

.

beesknees wrote:I thought that LS is intended to take a sufficiently succinct and coherent writer and teach them how to write like that.

Yeah, that's what my impression was before law school but it's the exact opposite. Professors, especially Legal Writing professors, will have you head if you write that horrifically in the passive voice and string together craptastic words like that.

Oh, and btw, this opinion was written in 1996, not 1853........

.

beesknees wrote:

A'nold wrote:

beesknees wrote:I thought that LS is intended to take a sufficiently succinct and coherent writer and teach them how to write like that.

Yeah, that's what my impression was before law school but it's the exact opposite. Professors, especially Legal Writing professors, will have you head if you write that horrifically in the passive voice and string together craptastic words like that.

Oh, and btw, this opinion was written in 1996, not 1853........

I know, I know. I was kidding. But seriously, the law is renowned as a profession that likes anything but clarity and ease of comprehension. My SO often jokes that they they write like that on purpose because if any legal document were written in a way that the average person could understand it, we wouldn't need so very many lawyers.

Yeah I knew you were joking but I actually kind of thought that speaking that way was sort of encouraged in lawl school.

On the plus side, that judge could make bank writing RC passages for the LSAT.

.

beesknees wrote:

A'nold wrote:
On the plus side, that judge could make bank writing RC passages for the LSAT.

True. Based on one of my RC sections, he may have already begun to explore that avenue.

Lol. Was it as bad as that one "cakewalk" or whatever passage or that Asian quilt one?

.

A'nold wrote:Don't write exams like this judge writes opinions:

"statements in legislative history cannot be read to convert statutory leeway for judicial development of a rule on particularized exceptions into delegated authority to revise statutory categorization, untethered to any obligation to preserve the coherence of substantive congressional judgments."

Trying to sound smart makes you sound stupid most of the time........

Can you translate that sentence from the judge for me? I have read it 3 times, and I still can't figure out what it means.

Andrew the Wolverine wrote:

A'nold wrote:Don't write exams like this judge writes opinions:

"statements in legislative history cannot be read to convert statutory leeway for judicial development of a rule on particularized exceptions into delegated authority to revise statutory categorization, untethered to any obligation to preserve the coherence of substantive congressional judgments."

Trying to sound smart makes you sound stupid most of the time........

Can you translate that sentence from the judge for me? I have read it 3 times, and I still can't figure out what it means.

It sounds as though he's saying, "Just because judges can take a law and determine how to apply it to ambiguous and exceptional situations doesn't mean that they can ignore the legislature's intent in passing that law and do any damn thing they please." But I'm reading it free of context.

bgdddymtty wrote:

Andrew the Wolverine wrote:

A'nold wrote:Don't write exams like this judge writes opinions:

"statements in legislative history cannot be read to convert statutory leeway for judicial development of a rule on particularized exceptions into delegated authority to revise statutory categorization, untethered to any obligation to preserve the coherence of substantive congressional judgments."

Trying to sound smart makes you sound stupid most of the time........

Can you translate that sentence from the judge for me? I have read it 3 times, and I still can't figure out what it means.

It sounds as though he's saying, "Just because judges can take a law and determine how to apply it to ambiguous and exceptional situations doesn't mean that they can ignore the legislature's intent in passing that law and do any damn thing they please." But I'm reading it free of context.

Actually, that's pretty close. The context was that the court was trying to show that the United States Sentencing Commission's Sentencing Guidelines are not authoritative when it comes to interpreting statutory language.

Basically, defendants like to argue that amended language in the Guidelines is authoritative because Congress has approved an amendment to the guidelines through its silence (there is a whole rule about this). The problem is that the Guidelines are a judicial thing and the Legislative Branch is the only branch with the authority to create or amend statutes.

Granted, I've had some wine, but I think I just wrote something somewhat coherent, but maybe not.

Andrew the Wolverine wrote:

A'nold wrote:Don't write exams like this judge writes opinions:

"statements in legislative history cannot be read to convert statutory leeway for judicial development of a rule on particularized exceptions into delegated authority to revise statutory categorization, untethered to any obligation to preserve the coherence of substantive congressional judgments."

Trying to sound smart makes you sound stupid most of the time........

Can you translate that sentence from the judge for me? I have read it 3 times, and I still can't figure out what it means.

Judges must not interpret various statements found in legislative history [factual records that document debates, proposals, etc during deliberation] as having implied permission to revise the fundamental goal of the statute to begin with. Statutes may allow some leeway for judges to develop or carve out certain exceptions, but nothing in the legislative history should be taken to say that Congress has given the judiciary authority to ignore their obligation to follow congressional fact-finding.

Here, the judge is policing activism.

While we may be going to law school at a terrible economic time, at least we're going while the legal community is moving towards writing in plain English and stressing clarity above anything. So we've got that going for us.

Honestly, the BEST preparation an 0L can do is learning how to write clearly, efficiently, and succinctly.

Before law school, I thought law school was about taking something clear & understandable and contorting it into middle english. I thought law school taught how to make clever use of words like "heretofore," "hereinafter," "whereby," etc. However, that is not the case, and if you write like that on any exam or in any legal writing assignment, the professor will eviscerate you.

engineer wrote:Honestly, the BEST preparation an 0L can do is learning how to write clearly, efficiently, and succinctly.

Before law school, I thought law school was about taking something clear & understandable and contorting it into middle english. I thought law school taught how to make clever use of words like "heretofore," "hereinafter," "whereby," etc. However, that is not the case, and if you write like that on any exam or in any legal writing assignment, the professor will eviscerate you.

Yep. That is the ONE things I wish I had done before 1L. I really could have benefitted from reading a style book and writing less passively. As for LRW, I'm getting that under control and doing very well. My first grade scared the crap out of me though, I'm not going to lie.....

I actually had a friend who wrote his contracts exam in a manner very similar to this. Rest assured, it did not go well for them.

Bankhead wrote:I actually had a friend who wrote his contracts exam in a manner very similar to this. Rest assured, it did not go well for them.

Kind of reminds me of one of my family members (who we all love like crazy but still make fun of) that has to try to spout off terminology in his/her field every chance they get. We all just kind of roll our eyes.

Edit: though I will say it is very tempting to own somebody that is always a pompous ass to you and tries to make you feel below them all the time (and in the past) by being all, "well, that depends, viewing the situation through the lens of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the appellate court would likely....." and make them feel retarded.

Not that I ever do that, but I may for this one special person.

A'nold wrote:[Edit: though I will say it is very tempting to own somebody that is always a pompous ass to you and tries to make you feel below them all the time (and in the past) by being all, "well, that depends, viewing the situation through the lens of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the appellate court would likely....." and make them feel retarded.

Not that I ever do that, but I may for this one special person.

I'm Elle Woods. Miss Bonifante's attorney.
And I'm here to discuss the legal situation at hand.
Come again?
Do you understand what subject matter jurisdiction is?
- No. - I didn't think so.
Well, due to habeas corpus...
you and Miss Bonifante had a common law marriage...
which heretofore entitles her...
to what is legally referred to...
as equitable division of the assets.
Come again?
Due to the fact that you've retained this residence...
Miss Bonifante is entitled...
to full canine property ownership...
and will be enforcing said ownership right now.
Tell him, Paulette.
I'm taking the dog, dumbass!

Edit: WTF, SMJ, seriously?

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

A'nold wrote:[Edit: though I will say it is very tempting to own somebody that is always a pompous ass to you and tries to make you feel below them all the time (and in the past) by being all, "well, that depends, viewing the situation through the lens of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the appellate court would likely....." and make them feel retarded.

Not that I ever do that, but I may for this one special person.

I'm Elle Woods. Miss Bonifante's attorney.
And I'm here to discuss the legal situation at hand.
Come again?
Do you understand what subject matter jurisdiction is?
- No. - I didn't think so.
Well, due to habeas corpus...
you and Miss Bonifante had a common law marriage...
which heretofore entitles her...
to what is legally referred to...
as equitable division of the assets.
Come again?
Due to the fact that you've retained this residence...
Miss Bonifante is entitled...
to full canine property ownership...
and will be enforcing said ownership right now.
Tell him, Paulette.
I'm taking the dog, dumbass!

Edit: WTF, SMJ, seriously?

Mens rea.

From my writing instructor on how to write briefs, " Judges don't like to think, use simple ideas and words."

solidsnake wrote:

Andrew the Wolverine wrote:

A'nold wrote:Don't write exams like this judge writes opinions:

"statements in legislative history cannot be read to convert statutory leeway for judicial development of a rule on particularized exceptions into delegated authority to revise statutory categorization, untethered to any obligation to preserve the coherence of substantive congressional judgments."

Trying to sound smart makes you sound stupid most of the time........

Can you translate that sentence from the judge for me? I have read it 3 times, and I still can't figure out what it means.

Judges must not interpret various statements found in legislative history [factual records that document debates, proposals, etc during deliberation] as having implied permission to revise the fundamental goal of the statute to begin with. Statutes may allow some leeway for judges to develop or carve out certain exceptions, but nothing in the legislative history should be taken to say that Congress has given the judiciary authority to ignore their obligation to follow congressional fact-finding.

Here, the judge is policing activism.

well said

You think that's bad? See if you still want to come to law school after reading this concise sentence from Justice Marshall explaining the entrapment defense (which is actually a relatively simple concept):

...the case comes down to this: If a person procures another to arrange with a third person for the latter to consummate, as he supposes, larceny of the goods of such person and such third person in the course of negotiations so sanctioned by such person suggests the plan to be followed, which is agreed upon between the two, each to be an actor in the matter, and subsequently that is sanctioned secretly by such person, the purpose on the part of the latter being to entrap and bring to justice one thought to be disposed to commit the offense of larceny, and such person carries out a part of such plan necessary to its consummation assigned to such other in the agreement aforesaid, such third person not knowing that such person is advised of the impending offense, and at the finality causes one of its employees to, tacitly at least, consent to the taking of the goods, not knowing of the real nature of the transaction, is such third person guilty of the crime of larceny, or does the conduct of such person take from the transaction the element of trespass or nonconsent essential to such crime?

asaunde2 wrote:You think that's bad? See if you still want to come to law school after reading this concise sentence from Justice Marshall explaining the entrapment defense (which is actually a relatively simple concept):

...the case comes down to this: If a person procures another to arrange with a third person for the latter to consummate, as he supposes, larceny of the goods of such person and such third person in the course of negotiations so sanctioned by such person suggests the plan to be followed, which is agreed upon between the two, each to be an actor in the matter, and subsequently that is sanctioned secretly by such person, the purpose on the part of the latter being to entrap and bring to justice one thought to be disposed to commit the offense of larceny, and such person carries out a part of such plan necessary to its consummation assigned to such other in the agreement aforesaid, such third person not knowing that such person is advised of the impending offense, and at the finality causes one of its employees to, tacitly at least, consent to the taking of the goods, not knowing of the real nature of the transaction, is such third person guilty of the crime of larceny, or does the conduct of such person take from the transaction the element of trespass or nonconsent essential to such crime?

Lol, I love how he tries to move it back into an issue in the end by throwing a question mark after crime.

I think you left a period out somewhere.