Law Review

I assumed that the comment of the week this week would come from the news that Justice Roberts turned into Severus Snape and saved Obamacare.

There have been some hilarious things said about the Obamacare decision, and Buzzfeed captured the 25 funniest tweets. I even got off a couple of nice one liners. Popehat is running a whole competition for the most outrageous rage reaction from the Obamacare decision.

But the comments on Above the Law were kind of… tame. I mean, there was a lot of making fun of CNN and the usual number of people who are still butthurt that Obama is the president, but there wasn’t a lot of insight, and very little was funny. The comment with the most likes was BL1Y’s:

Why is Obama waging a war on poor people with this incredibly regressive tax?

That’s pretty good. But the general dearth of good comments in the thread made me look elsewhere for the Comment of the Week this week….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Comment of the Week: Your SCOTUS Comments Weren’t In The Right Format”

Ah, the Bluebook. Some people love it, but even more people despise it. If you ask my colleague Elie Mystal about the Bluebook, he’ll tell you that it’s the only book in the world he’d actually consider burning in public. Even federal judges hate the Bluebook. In fact, when we held a poll about whether use of the Bluebook should be abolished, 51% of our readers agreed that it should be banished.

All that being said, is it any wonder that a student from a law school in Virginia is raging against the law review’s upcoming Bluebook exam? Several law students have written to us about this student’s “guerilla campaign” against the school’s annual exercise in “academic hazing,” and they have even provided us with copies of this kid’s manifesto. (Yeah, he’s got one.)

Who is this revolutionary, and why does he think the school’s Bluebook exam needs to go?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Law Student Revolts Against Law Review’s Bluebook Exam”

Choosing the next editor of the law review.

It so happens that we are right in the middle of election season for law review boards. At top law schools around the country, 2Ls who want to be Supreme Court clerks — or Supreme Court justices, or even presidents — are finding out if they’ll be able to include “Editor in Chief: Law Review” on their résumés for the rest of their lives. At less prestigious schools, 2Ls are hoping that a place on the editorial board of their school’s law review will help them get a job upon graduation.

(And people who are not on law review have another week or two to get hammered and enjoy the fledgling spring before they need to hunker down and cram for finals.)

The people involved in law review elections take the popularity contest selection process very seriously. At many places, the debates over whom to pick last well into the night, and the election takes many ballots before a winner is declared. The process at many places is so ritualistic, it’s a wonder that newly minted editors-in-chief don’t adopt new names when they win, just like the Popes. Can’t you see it now: Homosextius I of the Harvard Law Review?

Of course, if there are winners, there have to be losers. And some losers don’t take their losing lying down. Thanks to the magic of forwarded emails, we are able to bring you one such story of law-review-losing bitterness…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “2L Bitter Over Law Review Snub Illustrates Why He Wasn’t EIC Material”