Thursday, February 26, 2004
I'm taking a great class this semester - a Supreme Court Seminar ...
A major portion of the class consists of our making oral arguments (shades of 1L Moot Court competition) before the class (acting as the Judges on the Supreme Court) in current cases that are on the Court's docket.
My buddy and I went against each other the other day - was fun. The case that we argued was U.S. v. Flores-Montano, an interesting petition by the Bush administration requesting the Court's blessing to conduct vehicle fuel tank searches without reasonable suspicion at the country's borders. Coming into the assignment with absolutely no background in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it was quite interesting to flesh out the arguments.
The case was actually argued in reality yesterday. I'm hoping that the Oyez project will put the oral argument up on its site soon. If your interested it can be found here:
Oyez: United States v. Flores-Montano
A major portion of the class consists of our making oral arguments (shades of 1L Moot Court competition) before the class (acting as the Judges on the Supreme Court) in current cases that are on the Court's docket.
My buddy and I went against each other the other day - was fun. The case that we argued was U.S. v. Flores-Montano, an interesting petition by the Bush administration requesting the Court's blessing to conduct vehicle fuel tank searches without reasonable suspicion at the country's borders. Coming into the assignment with absolutely no background in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it was quite interesting to flesh out the arguments.
The case was actually argued in reality yesterday. I'm hoping that the Oyez project will put the oral argument up on its site soon. If your interested it can be found here:
Oyez: United States v. Flores-Montano
Monday, February 23, 2004
oh, and in the FYI department, I made the board of law review ...
if you're wondering what that means, don't worry about it (all it really means is that I'll be incredibly busy for the next year)
if you know what that means, I accept your condolences
if you're wondering what that means, don't worry about it (all it really means is that I'll be incredibly busy for the next year)
if you know what that means, I accept your condolences
not sure how I feel about this, but
I AM RULE 11!
You were designed to make sure that attorneys in
federal cases make reasonable inquiries into
fact or law before submitting pleadings,
motions, or other papers. You were a real
hardass in 1983, when you snuffed out all legal
creativity from federal proceedings and
embarassed well-meaning but overzealous
attorneys. You loosened up a bit in 1993, when
you began allowing plaintiffs to make
allegations in their complaints that are likely
to have evidenciary support after discovery,
and when you allowed a 21 day period for the
erring attorney to withdraw the errant motion.
Sure, you keep everything running on the up and
up, but it's clear that things would be a lot
more fun without you around.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
thanks to sua sponte for the connection
I AM RULE 11!
You were designed to make sure that attorneys in
federal cases make reasonable inquiries into
fact or law before submitting pleadings,
motions, or other papers. You were a real
hardass in 1983, when you snuffed out all legal
creativity from federal proceedings and
embarassed well-meaning but overzealous
attorneys. You loosened up a bit in 1993, when
you began allowing plaintiffs to make
allegations in their complaints that are likely
to have evidenciary support after discovery,
and when you allowed a 21 day period for the
erring attorney to withdraw the errant motion.
Sure, you keep everything running on the up and
up, but it's clear that things would be a lot
more fun without you around.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
thanks to sua sponte for the connection
