i woke up at 8:25am Wednesday morning damned tired.
i have a notice on my phone set up to go off at 10:10pm that tells me “Go To Sleep, Stupid!!!” but every time 10:10pm rolls around i am always doing something else.
by the time i get around to getting ready for bed and go through all the steps that entails it is 11:00, 11:30, 11:45pm and then, because i am old i have to get up and pee five or six different times before i finally fall asleep.
so, if i'm lucky i can get eight hours of sleep a night, though normally i come in under that.
so, i woke up damned tired Wednesday morning, thought for a second about going back to sleep and giving up on Law School entirely, then got out of bed and reluctantly started my day.
i ate a banana, brushed my teeth, had a shit, got dressed and kissed my girls goodbye.
i got on the TITScycle and, utilizing the choke, got it to start up pretty much right away [see yesterday's post.]
i got to Law School around 9:30am, went to my locker and got my Thermos and filled it full of ice water and some Nature Valley bars to snack on throughout the day, then reported to my first class.

at 9:40, in Constitutional Law we continued to talk about the Dormant Commerce Clause.
it was all pretty redundant because a lot of my classmates don't seem to get it.
i feel like it's all pretty easy to get which means that either i am smart, or i am so stupid i don't know it.
we'll see!
then we moved on to the related topic of Federal Preemption, which is where if the Federal government has legislated on a subject, it is superior to any laws the States may have passed.
that preemption may be explicit, Congress can say “and this law beats your laws...” or it can be implied.
then you have to ask, 'did Congress mean to legislate on the entire area of this subject, or is there any room left over for the States to have their say.'
makes sense to me.

at the end of class our Professor passed out our midterm assignments.
holy shit, how are we at midterms already?
the midterms aren't due for another several weeks, she's just giving us a lot of time to work on them but, come on, lady, already! can't we ease into this shit a bit?
the midterm asks us to write a memo on a choice of subjects.
i opted to go with the President's authority to extend DACA by executive order should Congress fail to act though, i don't have the slightest idea where to begin because we've only really been talking about the Commerce Clause and won't get to Presidential Powers for at least another week, maybe two.
for our midterm we can work in groups of up to three if we want, or by ourselves.
the exam won't be harder if we choose to work in groups, it would be the same amount of work either way.
of course, then, it would be easier to get into a group, to cut the amount of work i would have to do by a third, but odds are, i'm not going to do that.
if somebody asks to be in a group with me i would welcome it but because i'm a standoffish loner cunt i'm not gonna go out and join anybody else.
so, more work for me because of my poor socialization.

after Constitutional Law i went down to the library in the basement and spent an hour working on stuff.
a Ginger Loser First Year who is in my Civil Procedure class came and sat down at the same table i was at and struck up a conversation with me.
the guy has talked to me before, he always gives me the impression that he is forcing himself to make conversation, that he doesn't have any idea how to talk to people but he is willing to learn.
i like him, though talking to him can be a bit much.
we made whispering chit-chat about what kind of law we each want to practice, the first conversation anybody has with somebody they first meet in Law School, then we started talking about the Papacy of all things.
the Ginger Loser First Year was born and raised some kind of Southern Protestant religion but he's been getting more and more into Catholicism for some ridiculous reason.
this is a problem for his wife because, like a lot of other Southern Protestants, she thinks Catholicism is all a big cult predicated on blood magic and child sacrifice, which seems to be about right.
we talked about recent Popes about John Paul II and whatshisname, Ratzinger, the Hitler Youth, about the current Pope, Francis and how everybody seems to like him, and about John XXIII and Vatican II.
none of which is within my area of expertise, but it's nice to talk to somebody about whatever.
then, when i asked the Ginger Loser First Year what he was having for lunch [two peanut butter and jelly sandwiches] out of nowhere he offered me his fruit cup.
i was tempted, i like peaches in sugar-water as much as anybody, but after a minute or so i told the kid “i can't take your lunch...” and gave it back.
nice kid, though.

after an hour of whispered conversation and trying to work on whatever i was working on, i went up to the second floor to wait for my next class to start.
and to check to lunchroom to see if there was any free food to score.
sometimes there will be a catered presentation for some club or another during lunch and when there is food leftover, they will leave it in the lunchroom for the scavengers to pick over.
i like to be at the head of that gold rush.
i didn't find any food but in the Conference Room next to the lunchroom i found that they were having some kind of Student Club fair.
i went in there because different clubs were offering fun-size candy bars and i walked around, filling my pockets.
a buddy of mine asked if i wanted to join the Women Law Student's Association.
i joked “i don't think i qualify...” and when she told me earnestly that “no, you do, our vice-president is a man...” i had to tell her “yeah, i just don't want to...”
similarly, when another buddy of mine in the Hispanic Law Students Association asked me if i wanted to sign up to help do some pro bono volunteer work for kids affected by DACA, i had to just wander away muttering “yeah, maybe, lemmie think about it...”
motherfucker, i just came in here for the candy.

i did end up signing up for the American Constitution Society, which is a liberal counterweight to the Federalist Society.
i'm really not a joiner by nature but i figure being a member of a club looks good on your resume?
i don't know.
later, back home, i had to pay $10 on the American Constitution Society's website to sign up for their national membership.
it might just be that i've bought myself $10 worth of junk e-mails cluttering up my spam folder and i don't know how i feel about being on a list.

at 1:30, in Civil Procedure we started talking about Federal Questions.
basically, there are two was to get a case into Federal Court, the first is through Diversity Jurisdiction, that is, the parties involved in the suit have residency in two different states and the amount in controversy is greater then $75,000.
the other way is Federal Question, that is, when whatever is to be litigated about deals with a Federal matter.
but it's not as easy as a issue just abutting something the Federal government regulates or has legislated on.
it used to be, the standard used to be “if Federal Law forms an ingredient of the lawsuit” it qualifies under the Federal Question, but then they changed it to where now Congress has to explicitly grant people the right to sue on whatever subject.
why would they do that? i don't know.

at 3:10, in Legislation and Regulation we talked about words and how we should interpret they way they are used.
we talked about one case, Smith v. United States that dealt with a statute in the Federal criminal code that required a thirty-year sentencing enhancement for anybody who used a firearm in a drug deal.
but, what does it mean to use a firearm?
this idiot Smith crossed state lines to barter his Mac-10 for a bunch of cocaine and ended up dealing with undercover law enforcement.
he tried to argue that he wasn't using the Mac-10 in the way the statute contemplated but in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that barter fell within the scope of using a firearm.
which is pretty lame.
Scalia, who is a pretty big textualist, who abides by what the text of any given law says and doesn't give a whit about the intent of Congress when they wrote the law or what their purpose might have been, dissented to say “naw, this is fucking retarded...”
which might seem hypocritical, which might seem like Scalia's deeply-rooted judicial philosophy takes a back seat whenever an issue comes up that he actually cares about like gun rights, but i can see a consistency there.
even textualists acknowledge the Absurdity Doctrine, and sending some idiot to prison for thirty additional years on top of whatever other base drug trafficking sentence is pretty damned close to being absurd.
though, i think most prison sentences in most situations are absurd, so what do i know?

//[ab irato ad astra]

October 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 161718192021