Top Law Schools

booyakasha wrote:bird law

booyakasha wrote:bird law

If there's a law student out there looking for a law review/journal note topic, the dynamics of an NBA superstar free agent contract might be a good one. Between the coordination of individual free agents (Wade, Bosh, and James seemingly collaborating) and the tax and economic considerations, there would be a lot to write about and it would be new ground for sports law scholarship.

Cavalier wrote:Why John McCain is not constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:This is a little dry, but it involves a very real circuit split that will absolutely get SCOTUS review some time in the next few years. Basically, the issue is whether "certificates of non-existence of record," CNRs for short, are testimonial such that their author must be available for cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. CNRs are used in immigration proceedings, for instance to show that a defendant has not obtained permission to re-enter the country. A records custodian checks the relevant database and, after finding no records of permission to re-enter, executes an affidavit indicating as much. The affidavit is then used against the defendant at trial.

The CNR question is a follow-on to the Supreme Court's rulings in Crawford v. Washington and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in recent terms. For a circuit split on the CNR issue, see United States v. Martinez-Rios, No. 08-40809, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2051 (5th Cir. Jan. 28, 2010) (per curiam); United States v. Caraballo, No. 09-10428, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1873 (11th Cir. Jan. 27, 2010); and United States v. Norwood, No. 08-30050, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 3042, at *7-8 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2010). The Court granted, vacated, and remanded a few recent Confrontation Clause cases similar to the above for reconsideration in light of Melendez-Diaz, but the cases mentioned above creating the split all post-date Melendez-Diaz.

tl;dr version: there's a circuit split that has strong arguments on both sides, a decent basis in recent SCOTUS precedent, and an extremely strong likelihood of SCOTUS review in the next few years. No case has yet been granted cert on the issue, basically ensuring that you won't be preempted before your note is done.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:Does battery fully address the problems created by dick kicking? Should the US join Caribbean banana republics in recognizing kicked in the dick as a separate tort.

Cavalier wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:Does battery fully address the problems created by dick kicking? Should the US join Caribbean banana republics in recognizing kicked in the dick as a separate tort.

Sack-tapping might be a better subject to address.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

Cavalier wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:Does battery fully address the problems created by dick kicking? Should the US join Caribbean banana republics in recognizing kicked in the dick as a separate tort.

Sack-tapping might be a better subject to address.

Maybe but appending my tar to the comment would confuse people.