The Hypo will be on hiatus this week, and we haul our sorry carcasses through exams. We’ll be back in full force on May 7th after we’ve driven a stake through the heart of Contracts, and the hangover has worn off. A few thoughts for you to consider in our absence:
• Is there anything stranger than when Stevens is joined by Roberts and Kennedy in supporting a law requiring photo ID for voting?
• The ABA requires that evening courses be “materially similar” to those of day courses. Our Property mid-term in December was 2 hours long and our final is 4 hours long. Full time students are only subjected to a 4 hour exam for the same number of credits. Is a 50% increase in exam time “materially similar”?
• Does the purchase of Wm. J. Wrigley Co. by Mars Foods portend the arrival of M&M flavored chewing gum? If not, why?
Excelsior!
T-minus 7 days until our first exam. Torts. I have the requisite intent of making it my b&%ch. The question is whether that intent will be transferred to a C or lower. Ugh.
Actually, during breaks from outlining and when I’m not working, I’ve been thinking more about what I want to do with the law. Not so much: “work at a law firm” or “get up on the Hill” or “make my current job even cooler”. But rather: what area of the law am I really interested in?
I’ll tell you one thing, it’d be a lot easier to answer this question if I would just quit my job like some who shall remain nameless, but who, nonetheless should be waterboarded and then beaten with my torts casebook. But seeing as I have 50(ish) fewer hours per week than my unemployed colleagues to ponder the future (and, oh yeah, study), I’ve returned to a question that helps me get past gut feelings and hone in on the choices at hand: what am I good at?
Continue reading ‘Choosing What You’re Good At’
Justice Scalia’s recently did his best Kimbo Slice impression on Justice Stevens in his concurence in Baze v. Rees, applying a torrent of blows that takes the entire myth of civility on the High Court and chucks it out the window. As a follow-up to our previous discussion regarding the effect of judges on the development of law and social policy, friend of the Hypo and CUA alumni Mojo challenged my manhood by asking me to defend Stevens from Scalia. (He was encouraged by the Sherpa who loves a good brawl). This school yard fight took place in the comments of another post, and I’ve relocated the proceedings here. Continue reading ‘Scalia’s Got a Steel Chair!’
After a long day of grinding away on our Torts outline, Team Hypo decided to go out for a little R&R last night. Master of Ceremonies Sally Proust selected a new wine bar – Vinoteca – located on U Street. D.C. has experienced a proliferation of wine bars as of late, and Sally and Pakistani Princess have made it their mission in life to try them all. I consider their opinion dispositive, and thus feel confident when I say that Vinoteca was utter rubbish. Continue reading ‘Getting Served: Vinoteca’
Being an evening law student (assuming you have a full time job) in a constant balancing act. I like to say that I’ve got three points of performance; my job, my marriage, and school. So between not getting fired, keeping Goody Bombay from killing me, and not failing Property, I’ve got my work cut out for me. This also leaves precious little time for fun, which means you have to make the most of it.
That’s why we’ve decided to roll out the new Fight the Hypo Food Column:Getting Served. Aspirant gastronomes Sally Proust and Pakistani Princess will be regular contributors, as they are young, hip women about town. The Sherpa and I will pitch in from time to time to give the older, un-hip, suburban guy impression of things. Overall, our goal is to help you, the law student on the go, maximize your fun time.
Our rating system is as follows:
1 Tortfeasor – Poor. You’ve got a cause of action against the restaurant for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
2 Tortfeasors – Good. Will sustain you through Property, but not well.
3 Tortfeasors – Excellent. Enough to make offer the wait staff free legal advice.
4 Tortfeasors – A transformative experience. You have a cause of action against the restaurant for acts of deliciousness and intentional infliction of bliss.
So enjoy dinner, and then get back to your Torts outline. Because the other guy is right on your heels.
While looking through Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Pocket Edition today, I found the best page in the history of dictionaries. Page 545 containes definitions for “polyandry”, “polygamy”, “polygraph”, “polygyny” (similary to bigamy), “Ponzi Scheme”, “pork-barrel legislation”, and “pornography.”
You could not put together a more hillarious combination of words if you tried.
Need a break from outlining?
Head on over to PrawfsBlog and vote on the Most Screwed Victim in Caselaw History.
I voted for Peevyhouse. Who did you vote for?
