Saturday, July 08, 2006


I have a tendency to dismiss issues which are often call "non-issue issues". I have written on this before, but it still happens. I dismiss in my head, what I am supposed to dismiss on paper. Out of habit, I refuse to discuss issues which are not raised by the facts. The most recent test I took, a con law test, had the issue of abstention in the model answer. The problem was, there was absolutely NO mention of any facts which would give rise to that.

I went throught the test and spotted the issues, and then wrote, almost whimsically, the abbreviation "misc." at the bottom, and wrote "commerce clause" and "taking". Even though my instinct was, again, to dismiss them out of habit, because they seemed so vaguely related, if at all. The bar exam wants you to talk about a bunch of stuff that really isn't even there. It's almost as though "well, if someone mentions a state, you better mention the doctrine of abstention!". In fact, there was an issue of abstention in the facts. Very carefully hidden, but nonetheless I agree that it was there. And lo and behold, also the commerce clause and takings!

To my anger, I had written "equal protection" in my initial fact list, and then failed to transfer it to the outline. And I skated right past vagueness and overbreadth, two easily spotted issues.

The lesson here? If the thought appears, no matter how ridiculous, right it fucking down and if you have time, give it a go. You only have another three months of your life to least...


Post a Comment

<< Home