Good Intentions

That’s what Prof. CivPro said after he ominously intoned my name during class today. And I was kinda shocked, because he did, indeed, pronounce that correctly.

Anyway, it wasn’t too too bad. He switched midstream from interrogating someone else, so that threw me off some. And, of course, I answered “I don’t know” a good number of times, but I feel it was justified, because I legitimately didn’t know. I mixed it up a few times with an “I’m not sure,” which is also legitimate, because I was not.

What irked me a little is when I tried to quote the Supreme Court from the decision, and he cut me off, saying he did not want me to quote the court, he wanted “an argument.” Well, sir, my argument is what the Supreme Court argued, so I would be remiss if I didn’t quote them.

And then, of course, not 5 minutes later, someone said EXACTLY what the court said–and by extension what I was trying to say–and he told that person they were right. Bah.

I understand why professors feel the need to cut us lowly students off: power, ego, trying to control the conversation, sake of brevity. But at the same time, AT LEAST let me get my answer to your question out before you interrupt or shoot me down! I’m not as dumb as I look–and that’s pretty dumb, sure. But I’m really not! I had an answer, you just cut me off too soon. Sigh.

Torts is canceled today, hence why I’m blogging and not in class. Waiting for LRW. Want to go home. So tired.

Final debate is tonight. Let’s see whose minds are changed after it.

My prediction? Nobody’s.

Well, I got called on not once, but twice, in Contracts and in Torts.

In Contracts, I had no idea it was coming. The cold calls are…well, cold. And random. So theoretically I could be chosen tomorrow. Eesh. Luckily, my prof isn’t a dick. High five for that.

Torts, I pretty much knew it was coming. Prof hadn’t called on our row at all up to this point, and I sit on the end, so he started with me. Oh joy. Actually, it was amusing. He had me pull up Wikipedia and look up when FDR was inaugurated and when television became widespred in America. Why, you might ask? Well, Prof Torts was making fun of Joe Biden. The locquacious senator mentioned to some interviewer that FDR made a speech in 1929 that was broadcast on TV to help assauge fears about the stock market crash in that year and the looming Great Depression.

The problems with this are as follows:

1. FDR was inaugurated in March of 1933
2. Television wasn’t widespread in America until the 50s.
3. The stock market crash was in 1929

So it seems like FDR couldn’t actually get on TV to talk about the crash unless he had oh, say a time-traveling phone booth, and brought a TV back to 1929, kicked Hoover out of office, and then inaugurated himself with magical FDR powers.

But we all know he just had polio, not magical powers.

Anyway, it was amusing. The whole point of that exercise was to talk about causation in fact, which is to say that the defendant’s action has to be causally linked to the plaintiff’s damage. Simple enough.

If I get called on in Civil Procedure tomorrow, I know that God hates me.

On another note, I’m trying to gear up to start my outlines. Dear law school readers, how do you feel about outlines, either commercial or self-created? Hate ‘em, love ‘em, indifferent? Let me know by clicking that lovely “Comment” link.