Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Genuine4ps]

Now you think that's terrifying until you realize the bar exam grader could be even more lazy and there's nothing you'll be able to do about it.

I wasn't thinking that, but now you have me scared.

+1

It does kind of suck that the grading is going to be at least somewhat arbitrary. One person could get a really easy grader and another person could get a very hard one.

[puttycake]

Have you guys gotten your first graded essay back yet? What do you guys think of your grader?

I just got mine back, too. I had some of the same issues you did with the grader, but I'm okay with the grading in general. I knew my organization was kinda crazy, and one issue where I knew that I had completely screwed up the law, she called me on it.

There were two places where I talked about issues she said were obviously not needed, but that the model answer discussed (or maybe they were in the lecture. Now I don't remember). But that sort of thing doesn't bother me. If you put something in the real essay that's unnecessary, yeah, you're wasting a little bit of time, but if you hit all of the points you needed and analyzed them, wasting a little bit of time on wrong turns shouldn't hurt you. So long as it's only a little bit of time!

[WonkyPanda]

Got my first graded essay back. I am perplexed by the grader. She gave some good advice and told me my strengths and weaknesses, but she also seems to be using a different issues checklist than the one Themis gave out in the Con Law graded essay review lecture.

For one big issue I spotted she flatly said it is not an issue, yet Themis's review lecture and handout specifically call it out as an issue that should not be missed. For another issue, she said I missed it or otherwise I could've gotten 5 more points, but it is the second major item in my essay and I even had a bolded and underlined title for that issue.

I guess I will rely less on the grader to provide pointers on substantive law and rely on her more to tell me whether my organization and analysis are on track.

Have you guys gotten your first graded essay back yet? What do you guys think of your grader?

Now you think that's terrifying until you realize the bar exam grader could be even more lazy and there's nothing you'll be able to do about it.

And that, friends, is why the MBE is absolutely critical. There's no variable out of your control. You either get it wrong or right.

[Tanicius]

And that, friends, is why the MBE is absolutely critical. There's no variable out of your control. You either get it wrong or right.

Yup. A friend of a friend is a grader for the CA bar essay exam. He said that he reads and has determined a grade for the average essay in under 30 seconds. He goes almost completely by headers.

[Gotti]

Checking in--taking NY & NJ bar, started yesterday (a week late, whoops).

i don't even fill out the handouts. waste of time, imo. i listen to the lectures at 1.5x or 2x speed. i use the long outline as reference.

how do you do this? it's not built into the videos like it is for barbri, is it?

[Kiwi917]

Checking in--taking NY & NJ bar, started yesterday (a week late, whoops).

i don't even fill out the handouts. waste of time, imo. i listen to the lectures at 1.5x or 2x speed. i use the long outline as reference.

how do you do this? it's not built into the videos like it is for barbri, is it?

It is built in, but might only work in certain browsers. I have been able to speed up videos in Firefox and Chrome, but not on the iPad app (but I might just be missing something there - I haven't looked too hard to figure it out). While in the video, press shift and the right arrow.

[Kiwi917]

For those working on California Performance Tests, are you outlining/organizing anything by hand or just typing directly into the answer field? I outlined on-screen for my first attempt, but then I found it a little tough to keep track of things, move sections around, and insert the facts once I got to the file. My laptop screen is small-ish and the usable space within the window is even smaller, so I was constantly scrolling around and it was hard to see the overall picture of my outline. Does anyone know if the bar's software is comparable to the Themis interface in the sense of how much usable typing/viewing space there is, whether you can zoom out, etc.?

[Gotti]

Checking in--taking NY & NJ bar, started yesterday (a week late, whoops).

i don't even fill out the handouts. waste of time, imo. i listen to the lectures at 1.5x or 2x speed. i use the long outline as reference.

how do you do this? it's not built into the videos like it is for barbri, is it?

It is built in, but might only work in certain browsers. I have been able to speed up videos in Firefox and Chrome, but not on the iPad app (but I might just be missing something there - I haven't looked too hard to figure it out). While in the video, press shift and the right arrow.

thanks

[puttycake]

For those working on California Performance Tests, are you outlining/organizing anything by hand or just typing directly into the answer field? I outlined on-screen for my first attempt, but then I found it a little tough to keep track of things, move sections around, and insert the facts once I got to the file. My laptop screen is small-ish and the usable space within the window is even smaller, so I was constantly scrolling around and it was hard to see the overall picture of my outline. Does anyone know if the bar's software is comparable to the Themis interface in the sense of how much usable typing/viewing space there is, whether you can zoom out, etc.?

If it's the same as the Softest we used during law school, it's the same as a Word window or thereabouts. Be sure to use the "pop out" button so you have a whole window to work in.

The only one I've done so far I did basic note-taking on paper then transferred it to the screen. I think this was a mistake for me, as it meant my slow-ass handwriting THEN typing, and because it was handwriting my notes were short and incomplete and I had to go back to the source anyway. But I think this is completely a matter of personal taste and preference.

[Genuine4ps]

Has anyone here found the 14th Amendment lecture by John Jeffries confusing (pg. 10 of the handout)?

I'm having trouble understanding why RFRA is unconstitutional. Jeffries notes that it is unconstitutional as it applied to states and localities. It seems like the Court struck RFRA on 10th Amendment grounds then?

This example also goes on to state (on pg. 11) that Congress could have simply made it a crime for the government to discriminate against religious beliefs. How is this not the same thing as the provisions of RFRA? It seems like both redefine rights through legislation

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Tanicius]

Has anyone here found the 14th Amendment lecture by John Jeffries confusing (pg. 10 of the handout)?

I'm having trouble understanding why RFRA is unconstitutional. Jeffries notes that it is unconstitutional as it applied to states and localities. It seems like the Court struck RFRA on 10th Amendment grounds then?

This example also goes on to state (on pg. 11) that Congress could have simply made it a crime for the government to discriminate against religious beliefs. How is this not the same thing as the provisions of RFRA? It seems like both redefine rights through legislation

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I'm in the same boat with you. Honestly, it appears that the test is a simple study of subsequent events: is Congress enacting this legislation right after a court ruling to the contrary? If so, that appears to the be logic the bar examiners have in mind when they say it's unconstitutional. This cannot be the correct test, but it's how it was taught and apparently tested.

[skippy1]

Just got an email to download handouts for each subject. Does anyone know the usefulness of these handouts? Say I were to focus on only the material in the handout, is that sufficient to pass? Thanks!

[Gotti]

Has anyone here found the 14th Amendment lecture by John Jeffries confusing (pg. 10 of the handout)?

I'm having trouble understanding why RFRA is unconstitutional. Jeffries notes that it is unconstitutional as it applied to states and localities. It seems like the Court struck RFRA on 10th Amendment grounds then?

This example also goes on to state (on pg. 11) that Congress could have simply made it a crime for the government to discriminate against religious beliefs. How is this not the same thing as the provisions of RFRA? It seems like both redefine rights through legislation

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I'm in the same boat with you. Honestly, it appears that the test is a simple study of subsequent events: is Congress enacting this legislation right after a court ruling to the contrary? If so, that appears to the be logic the bar examiners have in mind when they say it's unconstitutional. This cannot be the correct test, but it's how it was taught and apparently tested.

This is how I understood it. So when he says that Congress could've made it a crime for a government to discriminate against religious beliefs, he's saying that Congress can do this because governmental discrimination against religious beliefs is something that the Court has already deemed unconstitutional already (because it violates the 1st amendment).

But RFRA was designed to make NEUTRAL laws (laws that didn't necessarily discriminate against religion) inapplicable to people who, because of their religions, didn't like them. The fact that Congress enacted RFRA after the Court specifically said that religious accommodation is not okay for neutral laws.

Does that make more sense?

[Genuine4ps]

Has anyone here found the 14th Amendment lecture by John Jeffries confusing (pg. 10 of the handout)?

I'm having trouble understanding why RFRA is unconstitutional. Jeffries notes that it is unconstitutional as it applied to states and localities. It seems like the Court struck RFRA on 10th Amendment grounds then?

This example also goes on to state (on pg. 11) that Congress could have simply made it a crime for the government to discriminate against religious beliefs. How is this not the same thing as the provisions of RFRA? It seems like both redefine rights through legislation

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I'm in the same boat with you. Honestly, it appears that the test is a simple study of subsequent events: is Congress enacting this legislation right after a court ruling to the contrary? If so, that appears to the be logic the bar examiners have in mind when they say it's unconstitutional. This cannot be the correct test, but it's how it was taught and apparently tested.

This is how I understood it. So when he says that Congress could've made it a crime for a government to discriminate against religious beliefs, he's saying that Congress can do this because governmental discrimination against religious beliefs is something that the Court has already deemed unconstitutional already (because it violates the 1st amendment).

But RFRA was designed to make NEUTRAL laws (laws that didn't necessarily discriminate against religion) inapplicable to people who, because of their religions, didn't like them. The fact that Congress enacted RFRA after the Court specifically said that religious accommodation is not okay for neutral laws.

Does that make more sense?

So it does seem like this turns on the 10th Amendment. It appears that the Court was concerned about Congress broadening the scope of the 1st Amendment and applying it (the broadened version) to states and localities, but it was fine with broadening its scope for the federal government.

I don't know. Jeffries explanation is frustrating. Thinking about sending this question to Themis.

[SilverE2]

Man...these essays are beating me up. Having only open book exams in law school is kinda kicking my ass right now.

[Tanicius]

Man...these essays are beating me up. Having only open book exams in law school is kinda kicking my ass right now.

Yeah. Just getting the rule down to 2-3 sentences is what kills me. I start typing up the rule, using precise language, and before I know it I'm looking at a rule that is almost as long as the essay answer is supposed to be. I then look at the model answer and they answered the rule statement in a clean two sentences.

It also just sucks when you don't know which jurisdictional rule controls. "Well, I think this rule is the majority, but I'm just not sure... here goes nothing!" Or "Well, I think the test they use for this is narrowly tailored to a significant interest. It sounds round but I think that's it. Here goes!" Your 50-50 guess unfortunately decides the entirety of the rest of the essay...

Or, like I said a page or two back, it really matters above all else that you even properly understand which subject matter is being tested. I answered an entire essay thinking I was mistakenly given a Torts question instead of a ConLaw question. That would probably get as close to a zero as is possible for the examiners to give.

[puttycake]

I watch the contracts lectures. I understand the contracts lectures. I turn off the contracts lectures. I don't understand contracts.

I think I have a mental block with contracts. It's like my brain starts going "Yeah, yeah, whatever you say... Look! A dust mote! Gosh, that's interesting!"

[Tanicius]

I watch the contracts lectures. I understand the contracts lectures. I turn off the contracts lectures. I don't understand contracts.

I think I have a mental block with contracts. It's like my brain starts going "Yeah, yeah, whatever you say... Look! A dust mote! Gosh, that's interesting!"

Haha. I always find contract laws incredibly intuitive when I learn about them. But yeah, I tend to immediately forget the rules.

Try to learn more interactively. One thing I've found that helped me with Torts was to try to fill out the handout before reading the relevant part of the outline or listening to the lecture. You might be surprised to find that in economic incentive-driven areas of law like K's and Torts, you will actually more often get the answer right than wrong when attempting to predict what the majority rule is.

[SilverE2]

Man...these essays are beating me up. Having only open book exams in law school is kinda kicking my ass right now.

Yeah. Just getting the rule down to 2-3 sentences is what kills me. I start typing up the rule, using precise language, and before I know it I'm looking at a rule that is almost as long as the essay answer is supposed to be. I then look at the model answer and they answered the rule statement in a clean two sentences.

It also just sucks when you don't know which jurisdictional rule controls. "Well, I think this rule is the majority, but I'm just not sure... here goes nothing!" Or "Well, I think the test they use for this is narrowly tailored to a significant interest. It sounds round but I think that's it. Here goes!" Your 50-50 guess unfortunately decides the entirety of the rest of the essay...

Or, like I said a page or two back, it really matters above all else that you even properly understand which subject matter is being tested. I answered an entire essay thinking I was mistakenly given a Torts question instead of a ConLaw question. That would probably get as close to a zero as is possible for the examiners to give.

Haha I was more referring to memory problems in my case. I make an outline, make flashcards, review them, and then still draw a blank when going to write an essay. I resorted to doing the last one open book, because it felt more productive than writing down nothing and going straight to the model answer.

[MinEMorris]

Regarding the 14th amendment stuff, I think he's referring to City of Boerne v. Flores when he's talking about the RFRA stuff. As far as I understand, the reason what Congress did was unconstitutional was that they tried to do it pursuant to section 5 of the 14th amendment, which says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

So basically, what Flores taught us was that the "power to enforce" doesn't include the power to interpret. Congress decided that the 1st amendment/14th amendment meant something other than what the Court was saying, and Congress tried to "enforce" that interpretation by passing RFRA. It wasn't constitutional because the "enforce" language of section 5 doesn't give Congress the right to interpret the constitution--that's the Court's job. The Court gets to interpret the amendments, and, at best, Congress gets to enforce the Court's interpretations. In this sense, you can see Flores as just being a reaffirmation of Madison v. Marbury.

The reason RFRA can still work against the federal government is that it can just be seen as an amendment to all of their statutes, giving religious exemptions. If Congress decides it wants to put a carveout in a law (or all laws) it has the power to pass, that's fine.

But that's based on my conlaw class, not Jeffries. Hopefully that might still help, though.

[puttycake]

Haha. I always find contract laws incredibly intuitive when I learn about them. But yeah, I tend to immediately forget the rules.

Try to learn more interactively. One thing I've found that helped me with Torts was to try to fill out the handout before reading the relevant part of the outline or listening to the lecture. You might be surprised to find that in economic incentive-driven areas of law like K's and Torts, you will actually more often get the answer right than wrong when attempting to predict what the majority rule is.

Oh, I do that too. I sure do. And then someone asks me a question out of order and I'm a drooling idiot.

[Genuine4ps]

Regarding the 14th amendment stuff, I think he's referring to City of Boerne v. Flores when he's talking about the RFRA stuff. As far as I understand, the reason what Congress did was unconstitutional was that they tried to do it pursuant to section 5 of the 14th amendment, which says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

So basically, what Flores taught us was that the "power to enforce" doesn't include the power to interpret. Congress decided that the 1st amendment/14th amendment meant something other than what the Court was saying, and Congress tried to "enforce" that interpretation by passing RFRA. It wasn't constitutional because the "enforce" language of section 5 doesn't give Congress the right to interpret the constitution--that's the Court's job. The Court gets to interpret the amendments, and, at best, Congress gets to enforce the Court's interpretations. In this sense, you can see Flores as just being a reaffirmation of Madison v. Marbury.

The reason RFRA can still work against the federal government is that it can just be seen as an amendment to all of their statutes, giving religious exemptions. If Congress decides it wants to put a carveout in a law (or all laws) it has the power to pass, that's fine.

But that's based on my conlaw class, not Jeffries. Hopefully that might still help, though.

This actually seems like a pretty good explanation of it. Thank you.

[Lasers]

Man...these essays are beating me up. Having only open book exams in law school is kinda kicking my ass right now.

seriously. memorizing this garbage is such a waste of time.

[Genuine4ps]

Getting real close to joining the screw-the-comprehensive-outline crowd. Not seeing the point in reading it when I'm only going to study and outline from the handouts, and there is no way in hell I'll remember the minutia from the comprehensive outline.

[Lasers]

honestly, the most useful thing are the essay worksheets. those rule statements are all you need for the essays, imo.