Friends, Nebraskans, Countrymen...Finals means War!

To Sir Todd and Sir Kelly/Jell-o,

As I get prepared to lock myself in my office for two weeks staring at outlines and worrying about my future as an attorney, I thought I would take this time to wish all of you best of luck on your finals.. And a Merry Christmas thereafter...

God bless.


And Kelly, try not to set the curve to high in Evidence ok? Please? Just miss a couple for me...Alright? You could have so much fun by being an absolute genius on portions of the exam and then on, like, two questions make up outlandish answers like "Section 666 Subsection Purple of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that the Defendant present otherwise inadmissible evidence in the form of a writing made with a Sharpe Magic Marker on the Outside of a newly ripe yellow chaquita banana; otherwise it will not be considered and he will be deemed to have waived any confrontation clause privileges" -- I double dog dare you...

Just kidding...

Seriously though...Good luck to both of you and Remember that each final you take is one less instance of when you can be assured that someone is reading your legal writing :)

Much Love,
Jon

A Meaningless Observation?

In Torts we talk a lot about money. In Contracts we talked more about what is fair.

Nerdy Time

Sometimes a slippery slope argument is the most rational argument.

I remember being chastized for going against a lawsuit alleging that a ten commandment display in a public square violated the constitution by saying that the better and more broad claim would be against our nations Coinage and national Motto..."In God We Trust"...

I was told that would not happen and my slippery slope argument failed to address the question properly...

Well...here ya go undergraduate debate person who accused me of an "outlandish" hypothetical....

Class today did get me wondering and I'd like to continue the discussion here if I may.

"If marriage and sodemy are protected under the fourteenth amendment, why not Pologomy?"

Why not Beastiality? Why not Incest? Further, with genetic engineering, would I be disallowed from creating a genetic copy of my wife and than marrying her when she turns 18 after raising her as my daughter?

(Of course this is all purely hypothetical)

Don't we have to draw the line somewhere? And shouldn't the people's power of the polls be the correct place to draw the line?

Just wondering...Please get Nerdy on this stuff...

Who Says Tax Lawyers Are Boring?

The following excerpt is from Federal Income Taxation by Schmalbeck and Zelenak, © 2004 Aspen Publishers, Inc. page 584:

[T]he Supreme Court decided that a newspaper could depreciate its customer list upon a factual showing that the list had an ascertainable useful life (because customers on the list would die, move away, complete the training of their puppy, or otherwise drop their subscriptions, in a statistically predictable manner).

Heh. They “complete the training of their puppy,” and so don’t need a newspaper subscription anymore.

Be it enacted . . .

Relevant

Nerdy Time - In the spirit of the McLaughlin group (PBS or SNL anyone?)

Question:

"Is Justice Scalia merely a reincarnation of Justice Harlan? Why or why not?"

Sub question: "Is it better to burn out or fade away?" (i.e. O'Connor v. Rehnquist (R.I.P.))

Sub-Sub Question - "What (really) is the compelling state interest in regulating advertising by optometrists/opticians?" See Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461 (upholding, inter alia, as constitutional a statute that made it unlawful "to solicit the sale of...frames, mountings...or any other optical appliances.").


DISCUSS!!

Trivial Trivia: Abe Lincoln appointed 5 Justices during his time in office. Taft got to appoint 6. Roosevelt got to appoint 10. Poor Carter didn't get to appoint any. :(