and the award for "best use of a pass/fail" goes to...
I just referenced both the Village People and strippers in an exam.
I'm fairly certain that this is an unparalleled level of awesomeness.......I suppose it's good to leave law school on a high note.
Labels: con law
chickens are made to be fried
Maybe I'm just a prude, but there's something mildly disconcerting about listening to my somewhat-elderly First Amendment professor discuss the obscenity-related cases. Especially when he comes out with stuff like this:
"It's normal sexual behavior if someone uses a feather......it's kinky if someone uses the whole chicken."
Labels: classes, con law
he's just not that into you
Typically, I take the Justice Scalia approach to dating: if he's interested, he'll say so explicitly. You can't loosely construct a conversation to reach the conclusion that the sparks you're feeling are felt by that other person. But every now and then, I start to let my guard down and allow the "looks" and the flirtatious remarks to overpower my logical approach to the situation. So when you feel a certain chemistry (for lack of a better term) with a person, and you're not sure which side of the "friends" line that chemistry falls on...do you follow your heart, which is telling you that you're not completely crazy, and that there's at least something there worth pursuing - and that you should just let him know that you want to get to know him better?Or do you just say screw it, he's not worth all the time you've spent thinking about your personal dilemma, place this one squarely in the "friends" column, and either (a) force yourself to ignore the attraction, or (b) just avoid being anywhere near him altogether? Labels: con law, dudes, madison
super-fabulous con law study time
The best part of studying has to be the part where you go through your class notes and read all the ridiculousness that you put there. A few exerpts:"Art. I §9 lists several things that the Cubs cannot do." - Three guesses as to what was occupying the other half of my computer screen that day, and the first two don't count."The court is made up of a bunch of old fogeys with colostomy bags and walkers that are really just craving some cottage cheese and reminiscing about Steve Allen." - Now that I think about it, I doubt that the cottage cheese thing is true for every Justice."Philadelphia v. New Jersey - why the fuck Philly gotta (a) make so much trash, and (b) send it all to New Jersey? New Jersey lost, because it *is* America's trash heap." - The court can say whatever it wants - we all know this was the real reason for the outcome.Labels: con law, finals
let's go to the mall
I had to take the car in for some much-overdue maintenance today, so I decided to take my Con Law books (yes, I do actually study) and camp out in a nearby store until Firestone finished. I hiked over to the Barnes & Noble, because it seemed to be a better option than the nearby mall or the Einstein's Bagels, or the Firestone lobby. (Plus, they have snacks and Starbucks.)Now here's what I find to be just a wee bit bizarre:Barnes & Noble advertises that they have available Wi-Fi access (albeit, not free Wi-Fi). Yet, they don't have outlets where one can plug in their laptop when the battery is down to about 15% power.The mall food court, on the other hand, is not exactly a paradise for those with laptops and bags full of study guides. However, outlets are in abundance. My best guess is that this is to plug in the floor buffers at night, and since the B&N cafe is so small, they only need the outlet behind the counter. But still... For anyone that happened to be at West Towne Mall between 2:30 and 4:30, I was the one with the laptop and pile of books in the Food Court. Yeah. Studying. At the mall. And you know what? I felt way more comfortable studying there than I do in the stuffy stress bubble that is the law library. Maybe it's the smell of good old American consumerism, or maybe it's being surrounded by delicious trans fats, but I was surprisingly content - and productive - this afternoon.Labels: con law, finals
a holly jolly exam time
Thanks to the girl sitting next to me in Con Law, I just learned that our exam is at 1:30 in the afternoon, rather than the standard 8:30 in the morning. Honestly, I don't know how I feel about that.I know most people who read this blog would guess that I would be psyched for such a late start time - that means that I can sleep until 11:00am and not be late for my exam (unlike the time I did that in undergrad and was awakened by a phone call from my professor asking me if I intended to take the exam that was currently being proctored). But the more I think about it, that extra 5 hours gives me 5 more hours to panic, stress-eat, vomit, panic some more, and get hit by a bicyclist on the way to school. What do you think - is the 1:30 exam a good thing that allows you to be rested, well-fed and sufficiently caffeinated, thus allowing you to perform at your peak? Or is waiting around to take a 1:30 exam just another form of torture sanctioned by the (clears throat) lovely folks in charge of the law school?Labels: con law, finals, questions
