Law School Discussion

I am interning at a law firm that practices mostly real estate law (i.e. settlement, bankruptcy, foreclosure). Some of the job is rather routine (i.e. most foreclosure complaints are never litigated because--in fact--the homeowner did not pay and getting a judgment is quite easy)--but the job also has its interesting aspects. Dealing with mortgages, easements, etc. can get quite complex, and legal research is always involved. Moreover, some travel is involved--i get to go to sheriff sales once a month, lol. In terms of hours, it doesn't seem as bad as some of the BIG LAW hours you hear about on here. No doubt the attorney's are busy, but are offices are closed on the weekends and usually everyone is gone by around 5 or 6. Some attorney's do some of their work at home, but its not 70+ hours a week. I'd say give it a shot.

Don't get the Evidence E&E. The rules of evidence are pretty intricate, and the E&E gives them shallow treatment. Moreover, it does not do a good job differentiating various parts of a given rule. I found the information in it helpful for maybe 10% of the class. My evidence professor last semester had us purchase the following: "COURTROOM EVIDENCE HANDBOOK: 2008-2009 Student Edition" by Steven Goode & Olin Guy Wellborn III. This softcover book was extremely helpful as I made my way through the course. The book has a section devoted to each rule, it starts out with an explanation of a given rules "scope & purpose", and it also provides excerpts from case law applying the rule. I'd go with that instead. Besides, your school's library likely has a copy of the Evidence E&E if you want to occasionally refer to it.

How do you think the justices on SCOTUS would react if something like this actually happened?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqlGoxfAkuU

The BS really starts at minute 3:08.

People have different opinions on the utility of hornbooks/outlines/supplements. Personally I have found them useful in certain courses because they have been written with the beginning law student in mind. That is to say, most of the opinions you'll read in a your case book were written by judges for lawyers (and their clients, of course). Therefore, there is an assumption of a certain amount of background legal knowledge with regard to the area of law your reading about. Many cases will not neatly spell out or provide some black letter legal rule for you--and your left to your own devices and your professor's ability to teach to decipher any material you struggle with. For many students, this is fine. I've found that by reading supplemental material prior to the actual cases (i.e. being an active reader) it provides you with some basic and insightful background information that allows you understand/comprehend/and apply the case book material better. Granted this take up more of your study time--so part of it depends on your study habits and how devoted you are to actually learning the material.

As an aside, many law students recommend--and I agree--that Glannon's "Examples and Explanations" (E&E) for 1st year Civil Procedure is highly useful. Once your on campus you likely see many of your fellow classmates picking it up.

I disagree with most every opinion Scalia writes, but even though those opinions/dissents support some pretty absurd outcomes he definitely has the intellectual prowess to make me think twice (more like three or four times) about my opinion on a certain case.

It's difficult to take your thread seriously with a comment like that. Just what "absurd outcomes" are you referring to? Your opinion is an example of how people tend to throw words around too casually without thinking about their meaning. According to you, most opinions or dissents written by Scalia are absurd--commonly defined as "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false." I'm failing to understand how a Supreme Court justice that compels you think "three or four times" about your own opinion on a given issue at the same time writes "absurd" opinions/dissents.

Keep a few things in mind: (1) If Scalia is writing a majority opinion, there's at least 4 other justices who agreed with his supposed absurdity. Why all the hate for one justice?; (2) As you go through law school, you'll realize that the bulk of SCOTUS's jurisprudence is not "hot-button" social issues, but fairly mundane, federal statutory problems that people can reasonably disagree on--without it becoming a wedge issue. True, a "conservative" or "liberal" sub-text/ideology may drive some of these opinions, but the consequences of their outcome are simply not as important to the larger American society; (3) You have to admit that Scalia does write some of the most colorful and intellectually rigorous opinions on the bench--something that has consistently frustrated liberals in their attempts to frame anyone of a conservative bent as uneducated & unenlightened; (4) Among those who actually pay attention to the Court's jurisprudence, those who blindly "hate" Scalia come across as the uneducated and unenlightened ones. Hating Scalia is a bandwagon issue for lay people. If Scalia really makes you second guess your opinions--don't be afraid to agree with them despite the fact that it may not square with your liberal script; (5) Many non-lawyer "intellectuals" don't like Scalia because he is unapologetic--he argues against certain "progressive" ideologies --and he does so forcefully and better than they ever could (i.e. a big F-U to the so-called liberal elite). When they can't match brains, they resort to brawn.

By the way, some opinions that Scalia has either joined in, or has authored that you'd likely agree with include: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 and Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397. Have a look.