A Moment for Self-indulgence
I got my official rejection letter from CLR today. It was sad, but I was expecting it given the rumors that have bandied about these august blog posts (ooh, a pun!). I found the letter to be nice; they explained the large volume of submissions, the other ways in the future we, the rejectees, might join, and they closed with Sincerely Yours. And then they didn't sign it.
I figure they had 150 letters to send. I once sent a letter to every incoming freshman in my capacity as student president. I signed my name on each one and wrote their names on the top of each. But hey, they're busy so I won't begrudge them. Much.
I wrote my note on what I perceived to be the ratcheting effect of the cruel and unusual punishment clause - namely, that with every decision that something is cruel and unusual, the set of punishments is irreversibly restricted. I then argued that the failure to admonish the lower court set a precedent for lower courts to find things cruel and unusual and force the SC to reverse them, instead of consistently ruling for the state and letting the SC make the cruel and unusual finding. Basically, this will increase the number of cases the SC will have to hear, and hence create more opportunities to restrict the set.
Ok, so maybe it was a little wonky and hard to explain. Looking at it now, I wonder if it even makes any sense. I think it does, but maybe I should never have used the word "set."
Well, so it goes. I shall have to find other worthy causes for what faculties I possess. Best wishes to all who made it (admittedly, I will be laughing at you next week while I vacation and you likely cite check), and solidarity to those who did not.
I figure they had 150 letters to send. I once sent a letter to every incoming freshman in my capacity as student president. I signed my name on each one and wrote their names on the top of each. But hey, they're busy so I won't begrudge them. Much.
I wrote my note on what I perceived to be the ratcheting effect of the cruel and unusual punishment clause - namely, that with every decision that something is cruel and unusual, the set of punishments is irreversibly restricted. I then argued that the failure to admonish the lower court set a precedent for lower courts to find things cruel and unusual and force the SC to reverse them, instead of consistently ruling for the state and letting the SC make the cruel and unusual finding. Basically, this will increase the number of cases the SC will have to hear, and hence create more opportunities to restrict the set.
Ok, so maybe it was a little wonky and hard to explain. Looking at it now, I wonder if it even makes any sense. I think it does, but maybe I should never have used the word "set."
Well, so it goes. I shall have to find other worthy causes for what faculties I possess. Best wishes to all who made it (admittedly, I will be laughing at you next week while I vacation and you likely cite check), and solidarity to those who did not.
Labels: CLR
posted by Tom Fletcher at 6:40 PM
10 Comments:
It's always painful to be rejected. And the pain is only intensified in law school. Unfortunately, it's worst when that rejection involves personal effort and intellectual expenditure.
But I hope no one tears themself apart about it. Admittedly, when your friends seem to do better at OCIP, or are talking about CLR amongst themselves, or getting off in groups at the 5th floor of Simon, it may occasionally sting a little.
Sting a little is all it should do. Nothing more. You can still join a specialty journal (like BJIL), still get a great job, and still be happy with your overall performance in law school.
CLR would be nice. But there are other law school sucesses that, in the aggregate, are just as nice, if not nicer.
You're a big man Fletch. In more ways than one-that's right ladies.
Ok, it is now officially two Nuts and Boalties who are CLR rejects.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Disco Stu would like to acknowledge that he is also in the ranks of Boalties who will not be spending 10hrs/week over the next year doing CLR work. Though he believes that his note arguing that the only statistic that truly mattered in the Roper case was the number of states for and against the juvenile death penalty was a strong piece of writing, he does not begrudge those members of CLR who happened not to think so. Personally, Disco Stu chalks up his rejection to his terrible editing skills.
He would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those readers of Nuts and Boalts who happened to be accepted by CLR -- it's a tremendous achievement and one that you should be proud of.
For the rest of us, Disco Stu has heard rumors of a CLR rejection party to be held the weekend before classes start. Invitees only though, naturally.
P.S. Kudos to the Boalt staff for the new Boalt website. Disco Stu thinks the old one had been up since Al Gore invented the internet and the new one looks sharp!
I like the sound of a party...
do we have to have our rejection letter to go to this party? I already composted mine.
not making CLR is sometimes a huge blessing in disguise. law review are full of ego-politics, even at (especially at?) places like boalt, where sometimes, our own quest for intellectual richness is stymied.
and although it sucks when your friends make it and you don't, you can always take the mature approach with them like, oh, blah blah law review again... wait, does that mean you've regained your virginity? (See http://wingsandvodka.comblog/law_review/index.html)
Although Mike is like my personal idol, I'm not too fond of citing to anyone at a Big 12 school...espeically a Big 12 school whose football coach is Mack Brown.
I like composting, but I plan to hold onto my letter. I have all the rejection letters that made a difference. For some reason, I don't keep the acceptance letters, though.
Post a Comment
<< Home