Mixed bag today:
It was 10 minutes before the end of class in Real Estate Law, but the professor must have seen the blank looks on our faces:
Professor E: “Hm. I think I’ve wreaked enough havoc for today.”
Professor V found a quote on one Justice’s expectations of the law:
If there is one thing that the people are entitled to expect from their lawmakers, it is rules of law that will enable individuals to tell whether they are married and, if so, to whom.” Justice Frankfurter, dissenting, in Estin v. Estin. 334,US 541 552 (1948).
And I appreciated Justice Harlan’s comment on Due Process in the Conlaw reading:
“The Due Process Clause stands, in my opinion, on its own bottom.” Concurring in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479
The law in that case involved a ban on contraceptives for married couples. Even Justice Stewart’s dissent acknowledges how crappy the law is: “I think this is an uncommonly silly law.”
2 Comments
butterflyfish1
September 24, 2009 at 5:24 amOh, just recently I was trying to remember the ‘uncommonly silly law’ quote — I could have sworn it was the William (?) Optical case. Now I know it was from Griswold. Thanks Dennis!
Also, real estate law was about the most helpful class I took for bar prep. The law or mortgages was all over the damn place, but I didn’t spend much (any) time on it in bar prep. (Had all that crim pro to learn). I relied on the class & it stood me well.
Jansen
September 24, 2009 at 6:16 amOoo I will keep that in mind. Real Estate seems really slow because it covers a lot of the ground that property did, but I’m afraid to tune out lest I miss some huge nuances (same with Conflicts v. CivPro)