Mixed bag today:

It was 10 minutes before the end of class in Real Estate Law, but the professor must have seen the blank looks on our faces:

Professor E: “Hm. I think I’ve wreaked enough havoc for today.”

Professor V found a quote on one Justice’s expectations of the law:

If there is one thing that the people are entitled to expect from their lawmakers, it is rules of law that will enable individuals to tell whether they are married and, if so, to whom.” Justice Frankfurter, dissenting, in Estin v. Estin. 334,US 541 552 (1948).

And I appreciated Justice Harlan’s comment on Due Process in the Conlaw reading:

“The Due Process Clause stands, in my opinion, on its own bottom.” Concurring in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479

The law in that case involved a ban on contraceptives for married couples. Even Justice Stewart’s dissent acknowledges how crappy the law is: “I think this is an uncommonly silly law.”