Ever wondered what the current US Supreme Court Justices think about legal writing? Want some tips from some of the brightest legal minds of our time? Check out this link, and watch interviews with the current justices and listen to their thoughts on legal writing. Very cool.

This morning I read an interesting article in the Washington Post entitled “When the Rules Run Up Against Faith.”  Essentially, the article was about an excellent female high school cross country and track runner, who was a practicing Muslim and was thus forbidden from showing skin except for her hands and face.  Thus, at track meets, she was wearing a unitard that covered her arms and legs, and was equipped with hood to cover everything but her face, which she wore under her team’s uniform.

Everything was fine for the past three years, in which she raced in that uniform at many track meets.  However, at a recent meet, and one that was very important to her, a meet director told her that her uniform was unacceptable and she was disqualified.   Essentially, his argument was that technically, her uniform violated the rules (his argument is wishy-washy to begin with), so she has to be disqualified.

Assuming that the meet director was entirely correct when he said that her uniform violated the rules, he is still wrong in disqualifying her, because he is ignoring the entire purpose behind the rules.  As far as I can see, there are three purposes behind the rules: (1) to prevent an unfair advantage; (2) to make team uniforms the same to differentiate one team from another; and (3) to prevent athletes from wearing something obscene.

Last night was the end of my first semester of law school.  For the next two and a half weeks, I don’t have class, which is absolutely fantastic.  I can really use a break right now.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m really enjoying law school.  My torts class in particular was undoubtably the most invigorating class I’ve ever taken.  I actually really looked forward to going to class every day, and lectures really put me on the edge of my seat (partially out of fear of being called on).

However, the challenge of law school is like something I have never experienced before.  It’s not necessarily because it is “impossible,” or “too much work.”  Certainly, it’s too much work.  However, the part that really made law school difficult was the fact that it’s so difficult to ever be sure of yourself.   First, you’re unsure of yourself because your grade is entirely determined by how well you do relative to the rest of the class.  Thus, when everyone talks about how much they’ve been studying, it can be disconcerting.

Illya Somin, over at The Volokh Conspiracy brings up a fascinating question: Is it ethical to benefit from policies you oppose?

Which of these cases are defensible and which are not? There is no easy answer, but let me suggest a helpful way of thinking about the problem.

Some policies are wrong in an absolute sense: every individual instance of the practice they promote is an evil. Even if no one else owned slaves, Thomas Jefferson’s owning some was a grave evil. In cases of this kind, it is indeed wrong to take advantage of practices that you oppose. Even if Jefferson lacked the political leverage necessary to get slavery abolished throughout the country, his failure to free his own slaves was a serious injustice in and of itself.

Some actions, however, are only wrong because of their aggregate effects. An individual instance of deducting state income taxes or burning oil does little if any harm. It is only the aggregate impact of these practices that does damage. Thus, no good would be achieved by my deciding to forego my income tax deduction. Only an across-the-board policy change would do any real good. The same goes for Al Gore and his contributions to the greenhouse effect. OK, maybe this is my way to get myself off the moral hook (even at the cost of doing the same for Al Gore). But I think that the argument is sound, even if self-serving.

Link:

Now I’m handed a clipboard. On it is consent to basically give my wife an abortion and kill our future child. And it is all on me, my decision, mine alone. Something I never thought I’d ever face, ever have to deal with. Made worse by being a decision of either kill the baby or potentially watch both my wife and the baby die.

Yipes.  Obviously, this is not the norm when it comes to abortions, but just something to think about.