Edit: So we learn what the professor says is the law and what the arguments the court made in making that law and that is all that counts, right?
So when I'm arguing on the exam that the law plainly read says this but the purpose says another thing, i'm just referring to whatever the hell the professor said it is, right?
The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook Forum
- brickman
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am
The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook
Last edited by brickman on Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- kalvano
- Posts: 11951
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am
Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook
Christ, what a rambling and nonsensical post.
If the E&E, the supplement, every book on Earth says the law is "x", and your professor says it's "y", then on the exam the law is "y". Period.
And if your professor thinks the law is "y", then you damn well better know how (s)he got there, too.
If the E&E, the supplement, every book on Earth says the law is "x", and your professor says it's "y", then on the exam the law is "y". Period.
And if your professor thinks the law is "y", then you damn well better know how (s)he got there, too.
-
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:42 pm
Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook
wtf?brickman wrote:Are the arguments the counter-weight to the words of the law by which you argue whether or not the novel fact situation must navigate ambiguity?
- kalvano
- Posts: 11951
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am
Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook
brickman wrote:So when I'm arguing on the exam that the law plainly read says this but the purpose says another thing, i'm just referring to whatever the hell the professor said it is, right?
I knew I should have quoted that post.
No. Argue both ways. If you interpret the law plainly, then x. If you interpret it according to the purpose, then y. Then, based on what your professor has said, come down on one side or the other and use his or her reasoning to back it up.
-
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:42 pm
Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook
Step 1: Read assigned pages.brickman wrote:So when I'm arguing on the exam that the law plainly read says this but the purpose says another thing, i'm just referring to whatever the @#!*% the professor said it is, right?
Step 2: Take notes in class based on prof.'s interpretation of readings.
Step 3: Make outline based on class notes.
Step 4: Answer questions based on outline.
Step 5: Receive arbitrary grade based on professor's mood at time of grading.
What the law "is" and what it has as "its purpose" are irrelevant to the sorting experience you're about to go through as a 1L.
Love the avatar. Those books and two weeks at the beach kept me going this month.kalvano wrote:I knew I should have quoted that post.
- quakeroats
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am
Re: The Professor's version of law and arguments via casebook
Here's what you should eventually be able to write:
Exam: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/dyn ... examID=490
Answers: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/dyn ... examID=491
Exam: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/dyn ... examID=490
Answers: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/dyn ... examID=491
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login