Five Students Weigh in on the Daunting Challenge That Is 1L

If my Academic Support Program (ASP) orientation meeting was any indicator, new law students have a lot of questions, especially for rising second and third year law students, about what the first year will be like and what they can do to make it successful.

This summer, I have had the opportunity to work alongside five very bright, hardworking student interns and was able to ask them about their first year experience.  What is great about this group is that they come from a varied set of backgrounds, ages, sociopolitical views, and attend a variety of law schools—one at Franklin Pierce, one at University of Michigan, one at Harvard, and two at Chicago-Kent.  I asked that they share their answers to a number of questions that I recalled were asked in my ASP orientation session.  Those questions and a selection of their answers are below:

Continue ReadingFive Students Weigh in on the Daunting Challenge That Is 1L

Memories of Sensenbrenner Hall (Part 4)

In 1973 and at the age of 24, I walked into Sensenbrenner Hall for the first time, hoping I could transfer from Chicago Kent to Marquette. My husband had been offered a teaching position at Menomonee Falls East High School and I was happy to return to my home state. I met with Dean Bob Boden who could not have been more gracious in telling me that Marquette would be happy to let me enroll as a 2L.  So in the fall of 1973 I began classes with the 2Ls (except that I had to take Professor Aiken’s first year civil procedure year long course…an experience in and of itself).  In part, it was like starting law school all over again.

There was no orientation or introduction to anything at the law school. My first memory of meeting a student occurred when, on that first day, I was standing next to Barbara Berman. As many of you may recall, we lived, sat and interacted in alphabetical order. My last name at the time was also Berman. After Barbara found that out she said, “I hope you are smarter than me so if we get mixed up, I can benefit from it.”  That was the beginning of our life long friendship.

Continue ReadingMemories of Sensenbrenner Hall (Part 4)

Marriage Amendment Was Validly Enacted

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the amendment to Wisconsin’s constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting the recognition of any substantially similar status (Art XIII, sec. 13) was properly enacted. Justice Michael Gableman wrote for a unanimous Court.

The question before the Court was whether the amendment complied with a requirement in the state constitution that voters must be able to vote separately on separate amendments.

Justice Michael Gableman wrote that the legislature may “submit several distinct propositions as one amendment if they relate to the same subject matter and are designed to accomplish one general purpose.” The marriage amendment, in the view of the Court, had one general purpose:

“The first sentence preserves the one man-one woman character of marriage by so limiting marriages entered into or recognized in Wisconsin. The second sentence, by its plain terms, ensures that no legislature, court, or any other government entity can get around the first sentence by creating or recognizing “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage.”

By way of full disclosure, I (along with Michael Dean L’85) filed an amicus brief supporting the state’s position.

Having said that, the decision seems fully consistent with the (admittedly few) prior cases that have addressed the issue and with our constitutional practice. Our state consitution is full of amendments that consist of multiple propositions aimed at accomplishing a general purposes. That a voter may agree with some, but not all, of these propositions has not rendered these amendments improper.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that this was a decision about the procedure by which the amendment was passed. It did not address the consistency or inconsistency of the Amendment with the federal constitution (McConkey lacked standing to bring such a claim) and did not address the proper interpretation of the amendment.

Cross posted at Shark and Shepherd.

Continue ReadingMarriage Amendment Was Validly Enacted