FReeper jmstein7 made Law Review! Needs input!

9-19-03 | jmstein7

[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!

[jmstein7]

OMG! That's funny!

[TheAngryClam]

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.

[tophat9000]

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 I’m 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

It’s a classic slam on judiciary activism and intrusion into the political branches of government and strong support of original intent of the law

[jmstein7]

Is that Rylands v. Fletcher (with the escaping water)?

[TheAngryClam]

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.

[jmstein7]

I shall!

[dennisw]

Who you gonna sue first? :)

[eureka!]

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. ;^)

[AnAmericanMother]

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!)

[AnAmericanMother]

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.

[Publius6961]

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).

[dilpo]

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.

[Coleus]

`

[solzhenitsyn]

Congratulations on your wonderful achievement, jmstein7!

[jmstein7]

Thanks! :)

[StarFan]

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.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Congrats, jm. You're earned it. :0)

[ETERNAL WARMING]

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.

[LibertarianInExile]

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. :)