"All I was going to do was talk. It wasn't for sex. I am 93, you know."

That's not an onion on his belt...

Nino would be awful in a SCOTUS fantasy league. Having Tony Kennedy on your team, however, would be like having Tiger Woods on a Fantasy Golf Team.

I have actually seen "scalping" at the Supreme Court. It was all pre-arranged though, more like the people lobbyist pay to stand in line for them outside congressional hearings that was kinda famous some time ago. The guy rolled up and somehow knew who he was looking for and handed over $200 for two spots in line. I was stunned and forgot to ask where to sign up for that job.

God DAMN America!!

I waited in line for nearly half a day before the Hamdan arguments, only to not get in by about 5 people because of assholes that paid others to stand in line for them.

No jury would have convicted me.

Do a post on drug use in law school/biglaw. Volokh had a post on Adderall use today, and the comments indicate drug use is pervasive in school and at work.

I'm more interested in hearing about non-prescription drug use (a la the Volokh comment about an '06 GULC grad who "missed huge chunks of class time" b/c of frequent trips to rehab for heroin; comments about coke use in biglaw; etc.).

Re: the Prawfsblawg defense of commercial outlines

Any advice to a future 1L on books or outlines for a very basic introductory understanding of standard 1L topics like civil procedures or torts?

(And lest you think this sounds too "gunner"-ish, I'm really motivated more by wanting to be as silent in class as possible and not make an ass of myself - it just seems like a good idea to have a basic understanding of the topic of a class before entering it)

7:51: "I'm really motivated more by wanting to be as silent in class as possible and not make an ass of myself"

Don't be bullied by the "anti-gunner" mafia. Ask intelligent questions when you have them and participate in class discussion. Just don't ask questions in order to hear yourself speak or to impress anyone (remember: grades are anonymous). People who just want to get through law school without learning anything would have you believe that talking in class is being a "gunner." They're wrong and they suck. Profs want you to participate, and you and everyone else will learn more. Just don't dominate.
Oh, and don't EVER answer a rhetorical question (only gunners do that).

Commercial outlines defeat the primary purpose of making outlines. They are almost uniformly a bad idea.

Hornbooks can be valuable in the more arcane and difficult subjects. They are generally of no use whatsoever if your professor teaches out of his own book.

Ignore anti-gunners. Very few of them will do well, and there is nothing cool about whacking your earning potential by $50K/year or more. Participate only when forced to or in classes where participation is part of the grade (I still can't believe the number of people who do not do this).

If I had it to do over again, I would not have bought the ConLaw casebook and just gotten emanuel's. Everyone has to teach the same cases and all you need to know are the rules. The Court is ridiculously results-oriented in decisions anyway, so studying the analysis is a waste of time.