CON LAW freak out Forum

[stinger35]

My Con Law teacher sent out the exam specifics today and the exam is supposed to be 70% Policy, mainly that of judicial review. I was hoping someone could give me some guidance on what to study for this. I have chemerinksy and a few other secondary books. Any advice?

My teacher also basically gave the LEEWS seminar throughout the course (I think he must know Wentworth Miller or something) and now I am just thinking that everyone is gonna kick ass. HHHHHHEEEELLLPPPP

[270910]

For studying, SCOTUS cases about constitutional issues are pretty good, you could try looking at those.

PSA: You have all the material you need. Learn to use it instead of mindlessly hunting for me.

[patrickd139]

If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

[mikeytwoshoes]

If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

--ImageRemoved--

[vanwinkle]

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

Sounds like great advice, but how do you actually do this? I feel like I don't get the different "judicial interpretations" at all.

[XxSpyKEx]

If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

--ImageRemoved--

uhhh.... 4/20 was yesterday d00d.

[mikeytwoshoes]

If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

--ImageRemoved--

uhhh.... 4/20 was yesterday d00d.

It's always 4:20 somewhere.

[XxSpyKEx]

If it really is policy (which I'm skeptical, ftr) then Getting to Maybe provides a solid overview on writing a policy answer.

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

--ImageRemoved--

uhhh.... 4/20 was yesterday d00d.

It's always 4:20 somewhere.

Now if I only had a massive bag of weed like in the picture... haha.

[patrickd139]

Other than that, spend some time getting the basic judicial tendencies down of the mainstay justices to provide support for why you should go with one judicial interpretation over another, and learn to love Chemerinsky.

Sounds like great advice, but how do you actually do this? I feel like I don't get the different "judicial interpretations" at all.

If you can answer something the way Scalia would as opposed to how Kennedy would as opposed to how Stevens or Ginsburg would, then you're on the right track. Basically, texturalism v. pragmatism stuff. Also, one could cut across historically (Lochner Era v. Modern Commerce Clause, etc.).

Also, this.

For studying, SCOTUS cases about constitutional issues are pretty good, you could try looking at those.

PSA: You have all the material you need. Learn to use it instead of mindlessly hunting for me.