The night I wrote that last post, I slept 2 hours. The only reason I slept at all was because I made a judgment that I needed the lucidity that even 2 hours of sleep would give me for class. I made a trade-off between being well-prepared and being able to think fast in class. I still wasn't finished with my reading though.
But, as I said, whew. ;) I got through the first week of law school. I finally actually have a slight inkling of the direction I need to go in and the things I need to learn and focus on. This small sense I have finally gained was not easily forthcoming. Of course, the first case we had to read was from 1891, one I'm sure the lawyers out there are very familiar with: Vosburg v. Putney.
Let me just say that, it is evil and sadistic to make this the first case a law student reads. It works, it achieves their objective, but it's heinous. Why? I'll tell you why.
Basically, I had no conception of what judges do, what common law is, what a tort is, what role precedent plays, how often judges err, how they come to decisions, etc. I get this case, and it plays havoc with my mind on all of the above points. At the end of it all, I found myself wondering whether the case had any value at all other than to confuse law students.
The biggest question in my mind was whether this case set any important precedent, because the judge's reasoning was incorrect. Now, I think I realize that it did set an important precedent, because the judge's reasoning was not incorrect — it was just his application of that reasoning to the facts of the situation that was incorrect, thereby leading to an incorrect decision (I think).
But no one is telling me whether it's still open to interpretation or not. No one is telling me whether this case is considered a good decision or not... We're just supposed to think about it and make up our own minds, which is maddening because I know I'm probably going to be wrong.
At least now I know what they're trying to get us to do, which is to think about all these issues in depth. The trouble is, there is so much to read, I don't think I'll have sufficient time to just sit and ponder everything. It's like a crash course in Go or something. Very interesting, but insane.
I would like to post something organized about my courses and what we're doing, but it's too much to get all that together. This blog will have to be a mishmash of impressions rather than a beautifully-put together set of articles. But that's okay. Any assumpsit on my part regarding the content of my blog is not a legally enforceable contract due to the lack of signifcant consideration by readers. :)
Never underestimate the power of sheer panic and exhaustion on the quality of your writing. It comes alive with manic energy.
Gambatte!
Hmmm. ;) Yeah, I guess so.... hehe.
I fluctuate between thinking it's pointless to have a blog because everything I write must be boring, to thinking it's a really fun project and I think I'm doing reasonably well at it...
All I know right now is that it's really hard to blog when you're learning a ton of information and you can't figure out how to explain any of it without writing a book... I'm working on it though.
Posted by: Trevor Hill at September 1, 2003 01:32 AM
Have you changed you mind on Vosburg yet? Our torts teacher gave us a fascinating look at it in conjunction with a couple other cases.
BTW, what torts book are you using?
Paul
Wash. U in St. Louis, SOL
Posted by: Paul Banks at September 22, 2003 10:11 PM
Posted by: M Stevens at August 29, 2003 09:23 PM