Skip to comments.
FReeper jmstein7 made Law Review! Needs input!
9-19-03
| jmstein7
Posted on 09/19/2003 1:26:14 PM PDT by jmstein7
Dear FReeper friends,
I'm writing to let you know that I just found out that I (retroactively) made Law Review at my school (#10 of 308 in my class).
I want to thank all the FReeper law experts who gave me advice and help last year when I was a 1L. I plan to pay you all back by taking our fight to Law Review.
Anyway, I am looking for a topic for my "note", and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions. I was thinking about writing something about election law (Bush v. Gore, Lautenberg, 9th Circuit recall decision, etc.) and the recent intrusion of the judiciary into the political branches of government.
Any help/hints/advice?
Thank you all!
TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: announcements; congrats; constitution; elections; government; news; ny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
To: TheAngryClam
OMG! That's funny!
41
posted on
09/19/2003 2:23:36 PM PDT
by
jmstein7
To: jmstein7
Yeah it is.
Here's a gem from him. Remember the case from the UK about ultra-hazardous activities incurring strict liability, and the man-made lake that spilled through some coal mines and destroyed a neighbor's property (I'm not about to go look up the name, I hated that class)?
This was the dialog he reported:
Prof: "How would you rule on that case?"
HRC: "I would rule for the miners, of course." [Prof.'s comment to the class as he was telling this story: "Now, keep in mind that there were no miners involved in the case, only two landowners."]
Prof: "And why is that?"
HRC: "Because I'll ALWAYS take the side of the workers!"
The best part of this little story is all the communists in the "public interest" program that were in my section were angry at HRC for "selling out" and becoming a Clinton.
Now, this professor is a total commie as well, but he is a nice guy, at least. I liked him, as long as I ignored things he did like sign the "law professors to impeach Bush" letters and the like.
For an example of what he's about, check out this article of his: "A Critique of Torts" 37 UCLA L.Rev. 785 (1990), which is expanded in the book "The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique" - the whole thing is pretty, well, Californian.
42
posted on
09/19/2003 2:31:20 PM PDT
by
TheAngryClam
(A proud member of the McClintock Militia)
To: jmstein7
Anyway, I am looking for a topic for my "note", and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions. I was thinking about writing something about election law (Bush v. Gore, Lautenberg, 9th Circuit recall decision, etc.) and the recent intrusion of the judiciary into the political branches of government. You will have to have to forgive me as I not sure as to what a note is in this context
I'm assuming its a paper on a historical point of law Im not so sure how current it needs to be but if you want to get in intrusion of the judiciary into the political branches of government..
Let me suggest you start with this link
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm
I'ts Lincoln's Cooper Union Address of 1860
Its a classic slam on judiciary activism and intrusion into the political branches of government and strong support of original intent of the law
43
posted on
09/19/2003 2:33:07 PM PDT
by
tophat9000
(The price for Tom to drop is ....Parsky goes ....let Tom have the CA party purse strings)
To: TheAngryClam
Is that Rylands v. Fletcher (with the escaping water)?
44
posted on
09/19/2003 2:36:06 PM PDT
by
jmstein7
To: jmstein7
Sounds right. Like I said, I'm not going to bother to look, and it's just as funny without the actual case in the background.
Make sure to go read his article when you need some entertainment.
45
posted on
09/19/2003 2:38:27 PM PDT
by
TheAngryClam
(A proud member of the McClintock Militia)
To: TheAngryClam
I shall!
46
posted on
09/19/2003 2:39:37 PM PDT
by
jmstein7
To: jmstein7
Who you gonna sue first? :)
47
posted on
09/19/2003 2:41:39 PM PDT
by
dennisw
(G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
To: jmstein7
Congrats. How about an article on all of the federal statutes (criminal and otherwise) violated by the Clinton Administration in 8 years. Oh yeah, the article can be no more than 50 pages with footnotes. Nevermind. ;^)
48
posted on
09/19/2003 2:45:31 PM PDT
by
eureka!
(Rats and Presstitutes lie--they have to in order to survive.....)
To: jmstein7
Congratulations!
I wrote on (my grades were pretty abysmal til 3rd year).
The one thing you simply MUST do is slip in an off-the-wall footnote. At least in Georgia there is a happy tradition of judges and law review note writers slipping in something to see if anybody notices. The judges' weird footnotes generally get noticed (the most recent was the "Georgia Gators" footnote on the 1st page of a Court of Appeals opinion - EVERYBODY noticed that one, at least all the UGA and Florida fans). The law review ones never do. (I cited the old Amos & Andy radio show. Nobody noticed. In twenty years, nobody's said a word!)
49
posted on
09/19/2003 2:46:41 PM PDT
by
AnAmericanMother
(. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
To: TheAngryClam
Another Lexis fan here.
I figured it might be me, since I was one of the first people on the first remote terminal in Atlanta back in 1980 (at the District Court). But I can't stand WestLaw and don't understand why people use it.
50
posted on
09/19/2003 2:49:00 PM PDT
by
AnAmericanMother
(. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
To: jmstein7
You want a real challenge?
Write about anti-smoking laws based on fraudulent health claims.
Taxes aimed at a specific group (smokers)
Equal protection (AIDS is strongly and unquestionably documented as a real and exorbitantly expensive lifestyle).
51
posted on
09/19/2003 2:52:20 PM PDT
by
Publius6961
(californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
Comment #52 Removed by Moderator
To: jmstein7
My son is a 3L on the NYU Law Review. Unfortunately he shares neither my interests nor political philosophy, so I never discussed with him the subject of a Note.
Here in Arizona we have a huge influx of illegal immigrants. My law practice involves representing housing providers. Fair Housing laws (federal and state) prohibit discrimination in housing on account of national origin and race. Advocates for the "disadvantaged" take the position that requiring proof of citizrnship or lawful immigration status by people wanting to rent (like employers lawfully requiring it for employment) violates fair housing laws.
Most housing providers fearing fair housing complaints do not require this. There is no clear law whether such a practice really is lawful. Enforcement authorities do not take a position. Such a requirement could both inhibit illegal immigration and help reduce opportunities for terrorists to settle in.
A study whether this practice is lawful or whether fair housing laws should be amended to specifically allow it would be helpful. Very limited in scope but then with the space available in a Note, you cannot bite off more than you can chew.
53
posted on
09/19/2003 3:42:09 PM PDT
by
dilpo
To: jmstein7; firebrand; ConservativeLawyer; LJLucido; ScaliaFan; contact; martin_fierro; ...
`
54
posted on
09/19/2003 4:49:30 PM PDT
by
Coleus
(Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.)
To: jmstein7
Congratulations on your wonderful achievement, jmstein7!
55
posted on
09/19/2003 5:18:44 PM PDT
by
solzhenitsyn
("Live Not By Lies")
To: All
Thanks! :)
56
posted on
09/19/2003 5:27:26 PM PDT
by
jmstein7
To: jmstein7
Congrats jmstein7.
Seems the pretzel logic used by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would be wonderful to tackle, especially citing how three judges completely misinterpreted the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore. In THAT case, the high court ruled against continuing Florida's recount because the state lacked a consistent and verifiable method for recounting the ballots. There was never any mention as to method of voting or making claim that punch cards were more error prone.
57
posted on
09/19/2003 8:49:58 PM PDT
by
StarFan
To: jmstein7
Congrats, jm. You're earned it. :0)
To: jmstein7
I know what I'd like to see...the Constitutionality of Illegal Immigrations Laws.
I had a trusted friend from Chicago tell me that her cousin owned a Texaco franchise. Ten years later, a green card Arab opened a Texaco franchise right across the street from him and promptly put him out of business, as he had the better location, one that was not zoned for business.
While trying to fight, he discovered that immigrants get a boost up. They get no/low interest business loans with all zoning waved and subsidies while they're establishing themselves in that business.
Is this true? I havn't been able to confirm or deny.
To: jmstein7
If you want to write on something commonly discussed, but give it a unique spin, how about a justice-by-justice analysis of the 10th Amendment? It's THE federalist amendment, and Rehnquist and others have used it as an excuse--see if there's a pattern in recent cases by those citing it that other lawyers might consider in deciding whether to bring cases before the Supremes.
I used to live across from a law review, and walk BY the law review, and have friends on law review. :)
60
posted on
09/20/2003 12:03:03 AM PDT
by
LibertarianInExile
(The scariest nine words in the English Language: We're from the government. We're here to help you.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson