I keep hearing people talk about how nice our spring days
are. I do a mental double-take each time because, due to the end of the semester
and the outside temperatures, it feels like summer to me.
The semester isn’t completely over, but nearly so. I took my
two finals last week, which leaves me with one writing assignment and about 20
hours of research to finish. It feels good to be almost done.
My finals were fine. The Religion Clauses test was the most
laid back final I’ve taken in law school. It was only two and a half hours and
it was a subject I enjoy. My Employment Law test was similarly worry-free; it consisted
mostly of short answer questions rather than essays and the time passed
quickly. I couldn’t work myself into much effort to prepare for either one. I
made a short outline for Religion Clauses and I took my Employment Law notes
for a 5½ mile walk around the neighborhood; but besides that, my mind was just
done studying.
Or maybe I’m just not as stressed about finals as I was
before. I’ve finally realized that even if I don’t feel I did well on a final,
the likelihood of actually failing is pretty slim. Maybe my mind has realized it’s
just not worth the worry.
So why did I worry so much before? Maybe it’s just the
nature of law school. Someone described it to me this way: law school makes you
feel small. It makes you feel like you can’t make a difference and you aren’t
big enough to succeed, let alone thrive. It makes you feel like you aren’t living
up to expectations. Law school is rough on self-confidence.
But maybe it’s okay to feel small for while. It brings to mind
Elder Hugh B. Brown’s story of the currant bush (a nice summary of which was
given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson). Maybe feeling small is the Gardner’s
way of letting me know I’m still a work in progress. There are still things to
prune and branches to grow. The fruit will come later; for now, I just need to
keep being a currant bush.
Tidbits:
- One of the foundational cases for the Supreme Court religion clauses doctrine is Wisconsin v. Yoder, commonly abbreviated to Yoder. As we were discussing the development of Supreme Court doctrine in class one day, my professor accidentally suggested that for certain cases, we should “look to Yoda.”
- Calling on the force for constitutional interpretation isn’t necessarily a bad idea. One opinion I read summarized some of the religion clauses doctrine this way: it’s constitutional, except when it’s not.
- Some of the confusion is because the Supreme Court refuses to be bound by a single analysis in such a sensitive area. One common analysis they use, the Lemon test, is apparently a zombie. Though the justices don’t really like it, they can’t seem to help applying the test on occasion. It keeps cropping up like “some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried” (Justice Scalia, concurring in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 398 (1993)). See? It’s a zombie.
- In Employment Law, we talked about the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which (due to the ease with which employees can take advantage of it) has been called the “Friday and Monday Leave Act.”
- We also talked about a case that is in my professor’s “you can’t make this stuff up” category: it was a case of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) willfully violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. Not a good idea.
- Then there was the trade secrets act case. To sue regarding a trade secret, an employer has to take reasonable measures to protect the information from disclosure. Apparently in one case, the judge came into court and told the employer he had just Googled the so-called secret information. That case didn’t last very long.
The goslings are out. |
No comments:
Post a Comment