Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Straight From The Horse's Mouth: Spring 2008

This is the professors quotes thread for this spring.

Labels:

16 Comments:

Blogger Patrick said...

Professor Quotes, Spring 2008


Advanced Legal Research, B*b B*rring

BB: “How can you have ‘a myth of the common law’ when you have thousands of opinions written by knuckleheads, all published in West’s Digest? Open it up – you do not have the law, you have stupidity. And how can you have a prefect common law if you give precedential value to stupid decisions?”

BB: [to a student who had never seen a research service advertised] “You have never seen their advertising because they do not want someone like you buying their product”

BB: “My grandmother had huge portions of the bible memorized, so while she was unable to engage in intellectual discussion, she had a lot to say.”

BB: “Lexis and Westlaw reps at conventions look like members of a cult – they all wear their blue or red shirts with khakis, and walk around looking . . . happy.”

BB: “Oh this statute is cute. It’s only a paragraph long, and it goes back to a time when you used to bother to actually declare war on people.”

BB: [to KVH] "Retirement? What are you talking about? You are going to be the library director for the entire practice life of every single person in this room!"

KVH: “Whenever you find yourself thinking what seems to be a creative or original legal thought, you should know that you are in big, big trouble.”

BB: "When I told my boss in New York I wanted to go be a professor, he said: ‘You want to be a teacher? *I* am a teacher . . . at PLI. I teach in places like Aspen, the ski resort. You want to be the kind of teacher who has to rub your butt against a chalkboard?’ And I said, ‘yes.’ But now we don’t have chalkboards, so I won.”

_____________________________________________

Con Law, J*hn Y*o


I don’t know if you watched the Clinton impeachment, but it was great. All those Senators, just sitting there, not talking. It’s probably the only time you will see 100 Senators in a room together without speaking. That silence is golden.

Suppose Schwarzenegger decided he wanted to become California’s Govenator for life. [class laughs] What? You think that’s far fetched?

The judge I clerked for offered a free lunch to any clerk who could identify a standing or subject matter jurisdiction issue not raised by the parties. I was able to take the judge up on this three times—I found two cases, and got two free lunches. I think I just made the third one up!

Who remembers the Iranian hostage conflict? [No hands] All of you were born after 1979? Oh, no. Do you even remember Reagan? No? Contemporary American politics must be very confusing to you then! Okay well, how do I explain the hostage controversy to you . . . . Okay, so there was this country called Iran, and the Iranians were very . . . spiteful . . .

You shouldn’t actually take anything I say on TV as my actual view

Do not be fooled by the shortness of this case. It will not be an easy way to satisfy your requirement to be called on today!

I do not know if [the event] will be taped because it will be Booth, which I would call a “primitive” room. But if it is, then it’s your big chance to get the back of your head on C-SPAN.

Justice Scalia, writing for, well, writing for himself, says . . .

In the war of 1812 we tried to take over Canada. I do not know why – it’s no fun living there. That’s why all the Canadians come here for law school. We even have two on our faculty. Why are they here when they could be teaching at the University of Toronto? Because it’s no fun living in Canada. That’s why.

When in doubt, you can always look to the Constitutional text.

As far as I can tell, the Court is saying something like: “We’re going to put all these factors into our magic due process machine and . . . . see what comes out!”

I’m sorry I’m late – we had a contentious faculty meeting, and I love contentious faculty meetings. We were discussing appointments, so it was obviously very personal. But not as personal as if we had been discussing, say, office size or who gets to be on what floor of Simon Hall.

We’re not having class Monday in honor of my favorite day – President’s Day. On Tuesday I will be awarding a prize to any student who can name every president in order.
Student: Student X can do it right now!
Professor: Really? Well, if you can do it now that’s very strange and I would rather not know why. Let’s wait until Monday.

I should note that we have a reporter from my favorite magazine, Esquire, here today. I have asked that he not quote you or use you by name unless you give him permission. And, of course, if you want to give him anonymous quotes attacking me, you are welcome to do so – everyone else does that, too.

Scalia and Stevens, joining in their decision in Hami . . . They are kind of like the odd couple. I think Scalia is probably the neat guy, and Stevens is probably the messy guy.

[Phone rings in class]:
[Awkward silence as student’s phone rings power-pop song]
Professor: That cannot honestly be your ringtone? You are going to make a psychologist very happy someday.

Miss X is successfully filibustering our discussion of Clinton v. New York.

[Makes horrible face during lecture]: I’m sorry, a cockroach just ran across the podium. It’s not the material.

Unfortunately, the presentation [I moderated] was timed with the Berkeley Marines protest, and the tree-sitters. So my appearance made a “vacation package deal” for the protesters who showed up. They were in the neighborhood, and they figured they would get three for the price of two.

Remember the clothes people wore in the ‘70’? Of course not, none of you were alive. But people, including Rehnquist used to wear loud, flashy ties, and such. Nixon did not approve of all that, so he was always calling him “That clown Rench-burg.” Nixon was a funny, interesting guy. I miss him.

Congress used to enforce their own subpoenas. Have you heard of the Sergeant at Arms? Those of you who participated in student council in high school probably remember the guy who lost for President and Vice President, and they made Sergeant at Arms. Well, in Congress they used to let him go out and grab people who did not obey subpoenas. There used to be a cell in the basement, and they would throw these people in there until it was time for them to testify. They don’t do it that way any more, and I am sure that if you ever saw the Sergeant at Arms you wouldn’t be probably worried because you could surely outrun him. He’s probably, like, a 70 year old deputy sheriff, or something. Not very intimidating, really.

No President has ever tried to pardon himself, or herself as the case soon may be.

Remember when you guys were kids, you learned about who invented the steam engine? No? What do you guys learn about these days? Just who invented the Internet?

In the good old days18th century “intercourse” meant “trade.” I grew up near a town called “Intercourse Pennsylvania. It would be interesting if they called it the “intercourse clause,” instead of the “commerce clause.”

What about activities that affect the economics of interstate commerce, but don’t cross state lines? Suppose you are a connoisseur of that good old fashion Berkeley grown marijuana. And you consume a LOT of it. You and people like you all consume a lot of it. And people drive from miles around to purchase that good Berkeley marijuana, such that the price is driven down, and affects the inter-state market for marijuana. Are your activities then subject to the commerce clause of the Constitution?

If Congress passed a law that said, “no gay couple shall cross state lines,” would that offend the Commerce Clause? And before you answer, I will point out that members of Congress have suggested such legislation. So this hypothetical is based on facts.

You need to be way more cynical. We are talking about Texas. This is the “Texas Forever” state—they think they’re their own country.

First of all today, we should all thank the Governor of New York for showing us that the commence clause, via the Mann Act, is still in effect today

I always thought a bushel was as much of wheat as you can hug" [makes hugging motion]

[Long discussion explaining how people used to grow pot plants in their closets in college.]

Professor: “Did any of you see anything on your tax returns that might be a questionable subject of federal regulation?”
Student: “Well, the deductions encourage you to have children. Though I personally have been resisting the coercion.”
Professor: “Right, it does. And for the record I am with society in discouraging you from having children, too.”

Dole was a case (I will not tell you how old I was then) in which I was *very* interested. Later, I turned 21 and after that the issue of underage drinking became far less important to me.

Student: [regarding state regulation of alcohol] Believe it or not, Jack Daniel’s whiskey is actually made in a dry county.
Professor: Well, that makes sense in terms of worker productivity.

Student [providing analysis of Garcia’s effect on various governmental branches]
Professor: “You are forgetting my favorite branch!”
Student: “Well, the judiciary has the—”
Professor: “That’s not my favorite branch!”
Student: “Oh! The Executive!”
Professor: “Yes!”

Student: “One example might be the Compassionate Use Act in Californi—“
Professor: “What’s that?”
Student: “The, uh, medical marijuana law.”
Professor: “The Compassionate Use Act? That’s what it’s called? Wow. You know, students always seem to know so much more about this statute than I do!”
Student: “Ummm . . . . Yeah.”

Why is it that milk was the great battlefield for the dormant commerce clause?

There was this period of time where Americans were really into trucker culture. None of you were born yet, but people would do things like going out and talking on CB radios and things . . . watching Smokey and the Bandit . . . truckers were exhausted. Luckily, it only lasted two or three years, but I had to live through it!

There is this whole network of truck-things across the country. You know how there are normal-people restaurants? Well, the truckers have places, too. They’re called “Flying J.” And the funny thing is Flying J sells things like DVD players and TV’s which makes you think . . . . it makes you think that in fact they not driving at all.

Professor: “This case says the state of New York set the price of milk at 9 cents. But it does not say how much milk a New Yorker could get for 9 cents. Maybe it was all you can drink, for 9 cents? That would explain why milk sellers challenged the law.”
Student: “It was per quart.”
Professor: “How do you know that? Was it in the case?”
Student: “No. The casebook said the person spent 18 cents on two quarts of milk and a loaf of bread. That equals 9 cents each.”
Professor: “So . . . the loaf of bread was free?”
Student: “No, the loaf of bread was 5 cents.”
Professor: “[puzzled look] Well, this is obviously very confusing to students. We should probably ask Mr. Chop*r to clarify the next edition of the casebook.”


_____________________________________________



Contracts, Er*c T*lley

The good thing about having an office inside the ugliest building on campus is that you do not have to LOOK at the ugliest building on campus.

Student: “I might be making this more complicated than it needs to be, buuuttt—“
Professor [interrupting]: “Yes. You are.”

It may be an anti-trust violation, but we do not care about that in contracts.

One thing this court seems to be impoverished by is a, um, . . . lack of analysis in their opinion.

“So the Plaintiff said, “No, I will not accept your offer. But I will tell you what I will do—I will sue you for 750 thousand dollars” . . . and the lawyers said, “Sounds good!”

Professor [singing]: ‘That magic moment’ where you incur contractual liability.

Student [former contractor]: But the labor and the real estate are different resources – employers do not usually let their worker sit idle, but they frequently let things like warehouse space sit idle.
Professor: You ever work construction?
Student: Um, yeah.
Professor: I always sat idle.
Student: [blank “I-do-not-even-know-how-to-respond-to-that” look]
Professor: But maybe I was less diligent than you
Student: [blank “I-do-not-even-know-how-to-respond-to-that-EITHER” look]

Professor [pointing to the door as students enter]: “Sorry guys. You cannot come in here.”

“He subjects the plaintiff to particularly grody form of penal bond.”

Student: “Professor? Sorry to interrupt, but did you just say this question was ‘not a typical . . .’ or, ‘not atypical . . . ’ of your exams?”
Professor: “I did not say that it wasn’t not necessarily un-atypical”

Professor: [to student] To start this case, we should clear up some terms: What is a “libellant”?
Student: Hang on, uh, let me look it up here . . .
Professor: sure, sure . . . [waits . . . waits . . . waits]
Student: [after long silence] I’m sorry. What was the question again?
Professor: “Libellant.” What does it mean?
Student: Oh, yes, when I first read the case I thought maybe it was referring to “libel” and this was an action for libel or slander, and it made me very confused, since this is Contracts class.
Professor: Yeah! What did you come up with?
Student: Well, I’m, um, actually I did not come up with anything else. I’m still confused.
Professor: Well hey, there are a lot of ambiguities in the law, and in law school one of the things you have to learn is how to deal with that. So you’re actually doing fine.

Student: “Wouldn’t it make more sense to follow the rule from the next case, where the court reasoned that X?”
Professor: “Well, undoubtedly, if these judges in 1902 had taken the time to READ the next case, which was decided 35 years later in 1978, then they would have ruled differently. But they did not have the advantage of reading the casebook like you did.”

Say you promised to donate money to the School of Berkeley Law UC . . . California UC Law . . . Berkeley Calif—what are we called now?

Professor: [random name generator calls on same student for the n’th time this semester]: The random name machine likes you Miss X, what can I say?
Student: Um . . . you could say that it’s not really random?

Student: I consider myself an educated person, but know I’ve been in situations where I’m dealing with a salesperson and I honestly cannot figure out how to say “no.”
Professor: [with a look that says a million words] Right.

Yes, there are some socially productive use of lawyers!

Competitive markets do really well at providing consumers with what consumers think they want. That is a market failure based on the rationality of those actors, and a competitive market will never change that.

Professor: “This is like the famous HLA Hart example: a command to stay off the grass means one thing in a park, and something else in a high school guidance counselor’s office.”
Student: [very loudly in a quiet room] “Heh. Heh-heh.”

Professor: “Anyone here from LA recognize the building in this picture?”
Student: “Yes!”
Student 2: “You’re not from LA!”
Student 1: “I’m from south Orange County. Off the 405!”
Student 2: “That’s, like, a hundred miles. That’s not LA”
Professor: “You are from . . . ‘off the 405’? What does that even mean?”

“You guys look different this week. The eyes glazed over look has given way to the ‘oh shit, it’s almost finals time.’”

[Walking up the isles, arms outstretched, microphone off] “This is me! Unplugged!”

[To undergrad student candidate who came to class to campaign for ASUC] Was the picture in your flyer taken just today? Or do you not have much time these days for laundry? Because I see you are wearing the same shirt as in the picture.

There were a couple of questions left over from yesterday—a lot of them good ones. Um, ALL of them good ones.

Sometimes I get exam answers where people throw out three abrupt and incompatible statements, one of which just happens to be right. That’s like the cafeteria style approach to exam taking – they’re just throwing out everything, and hoping I happen to like creamed corn. These people don’t get any points from me.


_____________________________________________


Property, Er*c B*ber


When you graduate and start talking to real clients, please, please, please do not rely on your notes from my class.

People in general are not very interested in killing whales anymore. In fact, they now do warm and fuzzy things like . . . adopt them.

You probably came into this class with a pretty clear notion of what it is to own land. Good luck with that!

I do not want to turn this into a law and economics class. Property is FAR more interesting than that.

A demurer in California, is the same thing as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). You may be asked that someday, and now you know the answer. Actually, that might be the most beneficial thing you get out of this class.

[Calls on student] Wait, let me bring the microphone out to you. [Walks out into the class] Quick, everyone close your browser while I walk by. [Delivers microphone, walks back to podium] Okay, it’s safe now. You can turn them back on.

On behalf of the court, King’s Bench Division 1945, I personally apologize for this next case.

Professor: In this case, who ends up with this property?
Student: The plaintiff ultimately winds up with the property. But not before an uh, ‘long discussion’ in court.

A discussion of the merits does not seem to help here.

No piece of property is an island. Except for islands.

Professor: “Question: Does the possessor loose because he does not have prior possession, or did he not have prior possession because he lost? Answer: Yes! That’s all we know.”

Let’s answer some of these questions from the book. This may be the first time since high school math since you have actually had to deal with a story problem.

It’s not reversion, it’s escheat. Very close to another word you may think of as you ponder this material.

You may be struggling with the distinction a bit, but the thing is, and I will blow the cover now, the difference between contingent remainders and executory interest is almost entirely meaningless. Hint: I am very unlikely to test you over this.

Student: [asks series of arcane questions]
Professor: Okay, you know what? If I do not know it, you do not need to know it for my exam. Does that make sense?

Professor: Ignore the gestation period --technically, the rule of perpetuities runs 21 years plus 9 months
Student: So, it starts at the moment of conception?
Professor: Technically, yes.
Student: Conception . . . wow.
[long, awkward silence ]
Professor: Anything else you would like to know about conception?

It’s not tax evasion . . . it’s just tax, umm . . . planning.

Why would anyone want to consider co-ownership? Any of you who have ever grown up with siblings, or had a roommate, or may stayed in a hostel, are probably asking yourself this very question right now.

At common law, only the husband could dissolve joint tenancy. You’ll be relieved to hear that all fifty sates have abolished that rule. Or, at least half of you will be relieved to hear that.

You might want to check life expectancies for the people you buy life estates from.

I’m really sorry we spent so long on that question. It wasn’t worth it.

This law is a garden path of nightmares.

When a party signs a mortgage they are not trying to lose the property and ruin their life. And, yyeeeett . . . Two parties might enter a joint tenancy, one party takes out a home improvement loan, then dies (maybe a tragic, firey plane crash), and the second party find themselves living with their mother in law and paying their attorney in installments. It happens.

Professor: Is Mr. X here?
Student: Yes, right here.
Professor: Oh, sorry. The cap threw me off.
Student: Umm . . . I have NEVER not worn this cap.
Professor: [shrugs] You must wear it in the shower, then. Is it a shower cap?

Professor: [Asks Student a question]
Student: Well, going back to the X case—
Professor: [interrupting] you went all the way back to X?
Student: Well, yeah. The casebook said “see x.”
Professor: Wow, good for you. [Turning to class] But for everyone else here . . . you don’t have to do that!! EVER!!
Student: Well, I probably wouldn’t have done it if I hadn’t been on call today.
Professor: That’s thoughtful planning, but still totally unnecessary. Anyway, back to the question.
Student: Wow, now I feel like a nerd.
Professor: That’s okay, you’re in good company.

Okay, we have called on everybody in Group G, and so I am going to go back to some other groups, who I did not get to last time. There was a request to, ah, “deal with this situation quickly.”

Professor: What if the landlord had leased, “To A for the duration of the war.”
Student: Then it the lease would expire at the end of the war.
Professor: Of course, some wars may never end. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty. . . .

Professor: Miss X, go ahead
Student: Oh, yes . . . wait, what was the question?
Professor: That’s a good question – I hadn’t asked the question! Crafty, eh?

Professor: [answers his own question] Is that what you were thinking of?
Student: I, um . . .
Professor: Just say “yes”

Professor: Okay, so the Hannan v. Doush [pronounces it ‘douche’] case—
[Class laughs]
Professor: Hey, I’m not responsible for what’s in the casebook!
[More laughter]
Professor: So . . . in Doush—
[More laughter]
Professor: Let’s just call him “the landlord . . . ”


Professor: Do you agree with this opinion?
Student: Absolutely not! The landlord should be liable for holdovers, not the new tenant!
Professor: So if, say, Wal-Mart were the new tenant and they tried to being their lease, but find the place occupied, you would hold the landlord liable?
Student: , I do not want to give Wal-Mart anything.
Professor: Okay, find. What if we changed the facts to, say, Whole Foods Market?

If this confuses you, just tune out.

Professor [the day after Trivial Bowl]: Would the student trivia team meet me after class? You’re not in trouble, I promise.

Professor: Miss X, what events let to the showdown at the A Family Affair Restaurant?
Student: Well, to—
Professor: Oh, wait, you need your microphone, don’t you?
Student: Oh, not really
Professor: Well, just hang on, because it will make it a lot easier for you and everyone else trying to listen
Student: It will also give me a chance to review the facts before you make me start talking
Professor: I’ll walk toward you slowly.

Professor: What’s her claim, what’s her cause of action?
Student: Ah, what-cha-m’-call-it.
Professor: Close enough. Wrongful eviction.

This is an example of what I call a “shotgun rule.” As in, the law is trying to prevent people from using shotguns to solve their disputes.

The dirty little secret is that, even if you own property, you never have a perfect title. There is always a slim chance that someone can come along and take it away from you.

Buying a home is a lot like dating: You decide you are in the market, so you start looking. You narrow the field of “possibles” down to some that look “likely.” You inspect them carefully. If you like what you see, you attempt to sign an agreement and lock yourself in. And then you have a big commitment on your hands. But it only comes after a long process of information gathering, which is time consuming and very expensive.

Professor: Why would you want to know if a seller of a home is married?
Student: Because the persons spouse might have a property interest that is not in the transfer?
Professor. Indeed. You want to be buying a house, not a lawsuit.


Does the presence of ghost really decrease the value of a property? Think of Halloween! Kids and tours! Hayrides! Lots of money!

‘Mortgages’ is the part of the class where my never having purchased a house serves the lectures poorly. But just wait until we get to nuisance law! I have a wealth of experience for you to draw on!

Does anyone [in this class] want to contest this decision, or criticize the outcome? . . . . Anyone? . . . Anyone at all? . . . Nobody? . . . Alright. Everyone here must be really happy with how the legal system works today!

Hersh Reddy: “It seems like the court truncated the economic analysis here . . . I’m with the dissent, man!”

Just hold that thought for a second, because I want to give you so me words of wisdom before you buy property.

Let’s go to Mr. X, who is dressed really nicely today. I really, honestly, basically did not recognize you. [class laughs]. No, no, that’s a compliment! Really!

Professor: Mr. X, I’ll give you a hint: there are three main issues in this case
Student: Three?
Professor: Well, I saw three. And in the context of this discussion, it might be best to agree with me.
Student: Okay, well, I guess there are three, then.
Professor: I tell you what, just tell me how many issues you saw, and together we will hope they add up to three.
Student: Okay. I’ll make sure they do.

And the Supreme Court’s response? Blah, blah, blah . . . talk to the hand.

Professor: Mr. X? We’ll go on to you
Student: Professor, I’m really sorry, but I read the wrong pages, and as cruel fate would have it, I read case A and B, but not Kelo. So would be glad to tell you about A and B, if you would like.
Professor: Well, that does sound unfortunate. I’ll tell you what: we’ll come back to you in the discussion section, Mr. X, when I’m sure you can pull something out of your butt with which to cover yourself.

4/23/2008 11:28 AM  
Anonymous John said...

Patrick,

Though I'll admit my first comment was rather inelegant, my point was simply that N&Bs (in my opinion, you can delete my comment if you wish) should primarily focus on issues about the Boalt community (in a broad sense) or at those of interest to it. Although you make many excellent posts, you also have a predilection for posts which are simply filler (look at how often you post versus the other bloggers). Also this incredibly petty current post kinda makes my point from the previous comment. Does one little scrap of criticism really bug you that much?

4/23/2008 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait, now, Patrick does post a lot of filler--but the professor quotes thing isn't such an example. I think they're funny and I'm sure students and even alumni like them. Although, Patrick, you should indicate that's what it is in the main post. Otherwise fewer people might add to the list.

4/23/2008 11:56 AM  
Blogger Matt said...

Okay, John, I'll bite.

This blog is written by, well, the people that write it. It is fully within their boundaries as writers of this blog to write whatever the hell they want. You didn't commission this blog for them to provide you content that is purely about Boalt (or rather, that tickles your fancy). Nor are you paying them. Nor are they forcing you to come here. Nor is Boalt paying them.

If you want a blog that has posts solely about Boalt (albeit posts that are much more infrequent and often much less compelling), go read the Berkeley Law Blog. Or start your own blog (but don't advertise it here in the comments of every single N&B post - you could more appropriately request that they announce the Boalt-related unveiling of a new blog and add it to the blogroll).

In the meantime, I'll continue to appreciate Patrick's (and everyone else's) 'filler' content, because it gives me something to do when class devolves into archaic policy discussions on certain individuals' random whims. And I find it interesting and, many times, compelling.

4/23/2008 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody said they're required to fulfill some kind of job requirements. And Patrick gets props all the time for being very good at covering issues about Boalt. John is making the point that in filling the role of "someone who writes for a blog about Boalt," Patrick sometimes missed the mark.

Also he possibly overestimates how interesting the rest of us find the filler posts. Since Matt loves them so much (dubbing them "compelling" twice in a single comment!) and surely a few others do too, they'd probably read a separate blog of Patrick's own on such topics.

Nobody's saying Patrick can't write whatever he wants here. Obviously he can. But other people besides the bloggers enjoy reading Nuts & Boalts and have an interest in it being what it's intended to be--a blog about Boalt. There's nothing wrong with pointing out when it's not what we expect. Or calling off-topic posts what they are.

Probably better to not be insulting, but people are jerks, you know?

4/23/2008 12:31 PM  
Blogger Toney said...

My $.02. I always imagined that N&B was a blog not just about Boalt, but about things that interesting to people at Boalt, which tends to encompass the greater legal world (delving off into "trendy" legal topics like the environment, politics, eminent domain, etc.)

I'll agree that at times I've scratched my head trying to figure out the relevance of some of the topics Patrick has posted, but 98% of the time, he's really hit the nail on the head as far as piquing my (someone immersed in the legal world) interest goes.

It's tough to say where to draw the line here is, but I would gladly sift through the occasional "not-relevant-to-me" post in order to get to the real meat of P's work (such as the "linear" = "random" post, which, though seemingly obvious, was brilliant in execution, and was the first hard evidence I'd seen).

Is it worth bitching about the 2% at the cost of losing the good 98%? Are your percentages different than mine?

In any event, I strongly defend Patrick's choice in posts, and would hope that at the very least, at the chance of losing the posts the "rip the lid off of it" so to speak that you would refrain from publicly criticizing Patrick when a private email would do just fine.

4/23/2008 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your quotes have made my day. How did you type it all verbatim??

4/23/2008 3:36 PM  
Blogger Earl Warren said...

There was another good Yoo quote:

Student: I'm probably the only student at Boalt who would have voted for Nixon in US v. Nixon. [The Watergate case]
Yoo: Wow. Even I wouldn't have voted for Nixon!

4/23/2008 4:17 PM  
Blogger Abony Holmes said...

I hate it when there is a controversy and I have no idea what is going on. My favorite quote from the probably the nicest professors I've ever had:

L*vy: You didn't think you'd get away with not speaking once in my class did you? (Said to me when I showed up to Torts for the second time ever because everyone told me the professor kept calling on me and I wasn't there.)

4/23/2008 5:27 PM  
Anonymous cl said...

Man oh man, leave P alone! Or better yet, buy the guy a drink. I don't see anyone else stepping up to post as frequently as him.

And guess what? If you don't care for some of his posts, well, don't read them! No one has given you an _entitlement_ to N&B.

Jeez. First the BLB absurdity and now this. It all seems very.. juvenille.

4/23/2008 5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Torts Prof: You people act like you've never had sex before!!!

4/23/2008 6:01 PM  
Blogger Armen said...

That's RM. She's the only Torts prof who'd make awkward comments about sex.

4/23/2008 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes indeed.

4/23/2008 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof Fast: So let's say I'm trying to buy cocaine from Arnold Schwarzenegger . . .

4/23/2008 8:41 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

B*ber: I want to start by advising you to print off the readings on the website for the exam, because you will not be able to access electronic documents.
Mr. Reddy: Are we even going to need those for the exam?
B*ber: Mr. Reddy, I'm telling you to print them off for the exam. What do you think?
Ms. Malumphy: It's okay, he's only 33 today. [Note: it is Mr. Reddy's birthday.]
B*ber: Maybe we need to work on our admissions standards.

4/24/2008 11:28 AM  
Blogger Mike M said...

FIRST, N&B is a blog by and for Boalt students, not some humorless institutional forum. Patrick's post was funny, particularly to Boalt students (like me) who were in some of the same classes. I'm not sure I particularly care about whatever topic you think is more important, John.

SECOND, I don't think anyone has a right to complain about the frivolity of Patrick's postings in light of his work on the Telebears scandal, which is clearly the most important thing to come out of N&B in the last two years.

4/24/2008 12:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home