. Forum

[tuxedocat]

Does anyone else feel like their section is completely mailing it in for exams/have been mailing it in this entire semester? It's such a different vibe than the fall

Is mailing it in better or worse than phoning it in? What about faxing it in? I mean obviously Snapchatting it in would be the worst, but it's hard to prioritize from there.

[landshoes]

there should be a vote for "don't care"

[zhenders]

there should be a vote for "don't care"

It's there but just super meta: I read the poll and thought, "fml, I don't even care about clicking one of those."

[Porkypots]

im having a contracts meltdown /anxiety attack

[unsweetened]

I had a nightmare last night that I as rejected for a job because I didn't have token participation in enough extracurricular activities.
Totally #Lawsome

[IsThisForReal]

im having a contractscrim law meltdown /anxiety attack

My brain is hyperventilating

[Dr. Nefario]

im having a contracts meltdown /anxiety attack

Just in general.

Admin is like "the court says that process is not okay, unless it is"
Property is like "what even am i?"
Crim is like "MPC is the law, but in these places you shouldn't read it"
Con is like "SDP is real law, lol jk no its not, but you should know it"

[Gray]

.

[Dr. Nefario]

im having a contracts meltdown /anxiety attack

Just in general.

Admin is like "the court says that process is not okay, unless it is"
Property is like "what even am i?"
Crim is like "MPC is the law, but in these places you shouldn't read it"
Con is like "SDP is real law, lol jk no its not, but you should know it"

IDK what you mean by either MPC or SDP so that's a great sign

According to google:
MPC- Music Production Center
SDP- Session Description Protocol
And in case anyone is taking Admin and curious what the APA is: Acolytes Protection Agency

[tuxedocat]

im having a contracts meltdown /anxiety attack

Just in general.

Admin is like "the court says that process is not okay, unless it is"
Property is like "what even am i?"
Crim is like "MPC is the law, but in these places you shouldn't read it"
Con is like "SDP is real law, lol jk no its not, but you should know it"

IDK what you mean by either MPC or SDP so that's a great sign

Major Penis Cop
Super Duper Peniscop

[Gray]

.

[Indifference]

I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code.
This is miserable.

[Dr. Nefario]

Dominant Estates
Taking all my land away
Serviant for life

[zhenders]

The Erie Doctrine
The common law is a lie
Except when it's not

[dabigchina]

I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code.
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.

[LoganCouture]

god i'm so glad i've been done w conlaw since march that shit was miserable

keep calm and chemerinsky on my friends

[PeanutsNJam]

I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code.
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.

I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?

[GreenEggs]

I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code.
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.

I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?

My con law class spent 1/3 doing anti-canon and most our exam was the issue spotter which was only related to good law. The only time I'd think to bring it up is if your professor thinks the court might reverse back to older precedent and I guess you could point that out. Otherwise anti-canon all goes to the essay/policy question

[dabigchina]

I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code.
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.

I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?

that's going to 100% depend on your professor. I've heard of people having to analyze comm clause based on if they were in 1800, 1935, and now.

[BVest]

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?

Depends on the prof. Mine only wanted current law on essays, but exam was also 50% MC, and some of the overruled stuff popped up there (not by surprise, he told us it would.)

[w00kash]

I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code.
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.

I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?

Yeah I'm lost as to what to do with exxon and PG&E. He specifically said not to listen to his opinion but he was pretty adamant about the majority getting those 2 wrong. I don't think anyone knew what the hell the point of like half the cases was in that class.

[dabigchina]

Yeah I'm lost as to what to do with exxon and PG&E. He specifically said not to listen to his opinion but he was pretty adamant about the majority getting those 2 wrong. I don't think anyone knew what the hell the point of like half the cases was in that class.

We didn't even read those so...whoosh

[MurdockLLP]

I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code.
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.

I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?

that's going to 100% depend on your professor. I've heard of people having to analyze comm clause based on if they were in 1800, 1935, and now.

I've seen this on some of my professor's practice exam.

There are actually 4 eras. Pre-1887 (Gibbons v. Ogden), 1887-1937, 1937-1995, 1995-Present. These eras also make sense with the way the Court handled many other economic issues (Taxing/Spending, Necessary and Proper, Lochner Era, Dormant Commerce Clause, etc.)

[Dr. Nefario]

I'd be on board for simplifying the fucking constitution before we go after the tax code.
This is miserable.

the tax code is easy because there are actual rules and doctrines that you can follow.

Con Law basically hinges on what Kennedy had for breakfast on that particular day.

I can't remember a single unanimous decision I read in con law. Maybe a squib case. But even for 8-1 decisions my professor is like "well I think the lone dissent was right" so idk wtf to do with that on an exam.

Also can anybody tell me whether it's useful or not at all to analyze the Commerce Clause in the context of the three eras? My prof did say he doesn't want us to use arguments from overruled cases, but we spent a significant amount of time going through overruled cases, so......?????????? You also have cases that were technically overruled but the Court seems to be swinging back to that school of thought so is it really overruled? Can I use it on my exam?

My con law class spent 1/3 doing anti-canon and most our exam was the issue spotter which was only related to good law. The only time I'd think to bring it up is if your professor thinks the court might reverse back to older precedent and I guess you could point that out. Otherwise anti-canon all goes to the essay/policy question

my con law class basically made it through NFIB, heightened scrutiny, and substantive due process.

[zhenders]

Brief slain, as of today. A month and a week until summer.

#quartersystemlife