Confidence Interrupted: A Testimonial

"Law school can be empowering, eye-opening, or dream killing... it's sometimes hard to draw the line between the three." - Unknown

CONFIDENCE INTERRUPTED

A Testimonial

Since I've began law school in August 2015, it has been an a wild roller coaster to say the least and very turbulent. My personal life has been relatively uneventful. Aside from small blurbs from home that make me raise an eyebrow, most of the turbulence has come from within. I'm not saying that I am depressed (I'm definitely not that). However, I have taken notice that in many ways my confidence had waned while being in law school. 

Being in the top percentage of people within the academic hierarchy of the country is no easy feat, but at the same time it demands a lot in order for you to stay there. Even being an African American in law school as a first generation college graduate presents an interesting dilemma itself. From being told (and groomed) to be an attorney from a young age, and then internalizing it as your way to "make it out" it has a way to affect your psyche. Due to that internalization, the idea of perfection and excellence eclipse anything that seems mediocre or not up to standard. More strikingly, these same ideas caused me to excel but at a price. 

When I reached the undergraduate level and made my way through successfully, It dawned on me that my insecurities about my intellectual abilities were unfounded. I was able to write well (sometimes to the chagrin to some of my professors). I was able to provide high quality work that was often used as an exemplar for others. Even when the bar was not set high, I made it my business to work hard and go beyond the call of what was requested. That work ethic and ingenuity allowed me to be rewarded handsomely and I graduated towards the top of my class.

(source: U.S. News) 

But when I came to law school, it became quickly apparent that anything that came before was invalidated. It no longer applied. The same writing abilities that I received acclaim for, became my Achilles heel. The logical reasoning skills required to understand cases and their doctrines was alien leaving me to feel inept. Even reading, would extend in sessions upwards of 7-8 hours at a time. Even writing, which was my one true love became the bane of my existence because it became evident that I ended up deficient. 

My first semester I did not do spectacularly well. I looked at my grades and within a moment I said to myself that "I didn't go hard enough." , "I was being mediocre and that it produced mediocre results" and "If I really want this, I have to sacrifice more sleep and energy (and impliedly mental health) to get results." I went from a place of enchantment to a place where reality hit me like an anvil: I was here and I was getting my ass kicked. 

(source: mylawschooldreams.wordpress.com)

They say that second semester would be more rewarding because you can see the progress from your first semester. However, instead of looking at the blessings, I saw the things that didn't improve. Admittedly, my reading times are still high, When I do read everything, I struggle to understand the readings of the logic. I've become so insecure with my writing that rather than correct things, I'd rather axe it and start from scratch. Even worse, I am struggling to find employment because of my performance the first semester. 

I can say that frustration is the feeling that has developed over the course of the last few months. There is frustration because the "light bulb" has not gone off yet. There is frustration because despite my best efforts, my abilities are not improving as much as I would like them to. Worst of all, there is frustration because as much as I've sacrificed already, there has been no "come up". But within the last few weeks something changed...

(Source: Lawschoolninjabooks.com)

My frustrations suddenly began to present itself in a way that it never has, It prompted me to start re-investing in my creative platforms, working out, and even focusing on trying to improve myself. It became apparent that I was attacking the problems that manifested from law school incorrectly. I was focusing on improving performance rather than improving the person performing. When it dawned on me, it sparked a new fire within keep going. This environment that we exist in is artificial. One where insecurities are played on and made to fester to empower others. I've arrived in a place where the feelings of despair and abject mental neglect are common but go unchecked. Why? Because "it's part of the process." 

Looking forward, I'm emphasizing my mental and physical health. I've seen what happens when I let either slip and I don't want to have that happen again. I still get a bit upset about when I'm not focused as I should be or when the readings don't make sense the 2nd time i look at them, but I am trying. I am working. I'm working on not trying compare myself with others, primarily because the system and the curve is already doing that for me. Even though it is the 8th week of classes in the second semester and hard finals prep for me starts next week (I need the extra time), it's high time to get rid of the defeatism and let my confidence come back to it's former glory. 

Ex Parte: Is The Discussion of Race in Law Separate From History

" Anyone who considers the law in a vacuum is operating in true scholarly disservice." 

 Is The Discussion of Race in Law Separate From History

 Ex Parte:

The system of jurisprudence within the United States has had a long history of supporting the every changing social norms of society. As decades ebb and flow along, certain politics, ideas, theories, and doctrines become antiquated. Unlike most disciplines however, The law operates in a manner that requires the person who is reviewing it to take into account the ideas of the day in the determinations of the cases. At the present we exist in a time where social mores are changing. Now Millenials, who the youngest of us were born in 1995, are entering the political and legal fields as the largest voting group and also one to place new burdens and challenges on the justice system as technology and information proliferates at a pace prior unseen. 

But the legal profession moves slowly in comparison to other fields. It also does not move in a uniform fashion. The fashion of law makes it operate in a fashion where time knows law only in performance and not in scholarship. Some of the oldest doctrines that were in place before the Mayflower set sail from the British Isles still exist in the United States. Even more interesting is that some of the doctrines that apply here in the United States, no longer apply in most common law jurisdictions. The history of the law itself is a topic that can be talked about for an extended period which I do not seek to go into with this piece.

To front the discussion, it comes from a discussion had with some of my colleagues who attend law school with me. The colleague posited that "[...] this is not a history or social science class, it is a law class about the law as it now. Historical cases that are no longer binding are relevant for the purposes of law school and the legal profession. Now the Civil Rights Cases of the 19th Century are a little more relevant because they still effect how government discrimination and private discrimination are treated with a distinction legally speaking..." In looking at this question it sparks the issue of whether or not the law should be viewed in a vacuum or be looked at in the context of history.

While the law is an anachronism in itself at times, history has had a way of showing why the legal principle change (or fails to change). The changing of the DSM IV by removing homosexuality as a disease was instrumental and striking down anti-LGBT regulation and laws and eventually led to the support of landmark cases such as Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Historical changes in the sociological scheme have been instrumental in helping with the decision reached in Roe v. Wade (1973). Starting with the sexuality studies of Alfred Kinsey performed in the 1950's it led the way to the the advent of the birth control pill in 1960 and the sexual revolution of the late 1960's and early 1970's.

(Dred Scott, pbs.org)

Race and ethnicity and it's history have also had it's effect on law. The first three landmark cases regarding it in the United States were the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1857) decisions. Less famously, the "Civil Rights Cases" of 1883 also give us the legal basis that has yet to have been overturned. The Dred Scott case led to the promulgation of the 13th and 14th amendments abolishing slavery and granting citizenship rights that were not fully actualized until Brown v. Board (1954) which overturned Plessy and the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

History has had a hand in each decision, and merely looking at the cases in a vacuum separate from the law in regards to racial politics is frightening. While neutrality in the law is an ideal, that is all that it merely is: an ideal. This is why when people make the argument of "the Supreme Court is not a political body and hence, should not be politicized" the argument fails because the means of appointments and promulgation of rules and regulations are all based on the politics that conceive such rules. 

( source: www.brownat50.org)

Similarly, when people are asked to remove the historical context out of cases, they make less sense. How much sense would it make if we removed the historical context of Dred Scott, then we would never understand why this man is claiming he is free, we would never understand the importance of why where the case was bought (Missouri) is so important to the happenings of what is to come. We would never understand the future implications of what is going on. And even better, we would never be able to use the law in a way to make it equitable for everyone because we would never know where the inequities lie. 

It is a scholarly disservice to divorce one from the other and it is also a disservice to state that students in the Law like my shelf should have to divorce myself from having certain feelings. Most people take up their causes in the legal profession to support their beliefs and goals. Whether they want to amass and maintain family wealth by working in the corporate sector or to help effect change by working in the public sector doing litigation work, each person in the law uses the history to frame their own opinions and gain connections to cases that would otherwise just be an onerous reading.

For us to examine race and ethnicity in the legal realm, we must learn that to learn of your past is to empower the changes and the prevention of further inequities. When Justice Thurgood Marhsall read the cases during his tenure at Howard University School of Law from 1930 to 1933, he had to refer to history. It was this history that prompted him to be instrumental in overturning Plessy v. Ferguson in 1954 when he acted as counsel on the Brown v. Board case. Looking at Justice Marshall's ascent to his position in the Supreme Court of the United States was spurred by a career founded by passion that was sparked by the history of injustices which he thought to remedy and became instrumental in doing. In the 32 cases he argued as a lawyer in front of the Supreme Court on civil rights he won 29 of them, spurred on by looking at law and race in tandem with history. 

In short, viewing history in a vacuum to the law is problematic to the idea of social change. If we did not understand history, then the law would not move at the pace that it does today. We would still be making decisions that are not based on scientific merit and simple testimony rather than on ascertained fact or evidence. In relation to race and ethnicity, it is problematic to not look to history because two two results can come from the nonfeasance. The first issue is performing the same acts out of ignorance that limit equitable rules for everyone that allow discrimination to proliferate. The second issue is not setting the stage for the law to be an agent of change in the same manner that protesting for Black Lives Matter does. It is erroneous to believe that law should operate in a vacuum by itself and being black and conscious about the history only empowers one to learn the law and how to work in the system to effectively change the prior miscarriages of justice. 

Convenience of Not Acting: Why Not Appointing is A Miscarriage of Justice

"I may not like what you do, but I know you have a job to do." - Unknown

Convenience of Not Acting

 Why Not Appointing is A Miscarriage of Justice

Carolyn Kaster | AP

Antonin Scalia passed away this past weekend at the age of 79 in Texas after a hunting trip. As he passed away and within mere moments of his passing, the most important part of our three-branch governmental system (which was given power in 1803 by the Marbury v. Madison case that gave rise to the right of judicial review) became incomplete. The absence of an intellectual mind who is controversial and whom many disagreed with is gone. While some are egregiously and heinously joyous over his death (and I use the words heinous and egregious purposefully because it shows that people have no honor for the dead. I did not agree with Scalia at all, but I do not rejoice in his death neither), others are tearful and are left with the taste that the scheme of jurisprudence within the United States is set to change for the first time in nearly a generation. 

 

As quickly as Scalia was shipped to a funeral home in El Paso, was in the same breath that people asked "Who is Obama going to appoint?" ( As a humanist, I believe that just demonstrates that people of the world believe that other humans are disposable and once they die, they are just merely to be replaced by another who can do the same job without much consideration or care... rather than wait until after the funeral, they look for a replacement with immediacy upon the last breath of someone.) As quickly as that was said, partisanship came up and reared it's ugly head with many a Republican stating that the appointment should be delayed for a period extending over 300 days until after the next President is inaugurated. Others have said to let the President immediate appoint. I am here to state that I am in support of the latter, as Scalia would have liked us to abide the Constitution and not expand or detract from it's power. 

One of the more interesting arguments that people make in support of waiting is that the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice during an election year would spell an undue burden on the Presidency. However the United States Presidency is no stranger to judicial incumbency caused by death. There have been at least 10 appointments made during an election year spanning from the November before the election all the way until the date of the inauguration ( 1 , 2 , 3 ). Each time, the justice was appointed amidst great political upheaval and to the spite of many. To me, it sounds rather absurd to prevent the President from acting in accordance to a power that is within the confines of the Constitution merely because of a partisan concern. Any person who is in Congress has a duty to act within the confines of the Constitution (and I will get to this later about how filibustering an appointment is a miscarriage of justice and tantamount to treason and sabotage... yes, I am going there). 

Another point that the opponents of election year appointment is that it does not allow the public to have a meaningful choice and stymies the Democratic process... That is not true. Elisabeth Warren said it the best "Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk. " As a result, Warren makes a statement that any person who is a formalist, textualist, and a strict constructionist would enjoy because " Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President." ( 4 ).  Once again going back to my point about breach, there is a breach of the duty and it seems to be flagrant disregard for the Constitution which the highest law of the land.

Any Senator who is partisan and says "Any nominee for the court will be voted against" is operating in violation of their Congressional duty and is tantamount to Congressional treason. It makes sense to say that because it is operating against the interest of the Justice system and it cripples it from operating the way that it should. By having cases that have already been granted certiorari last month sit on the docket until the next year without proper consideration or call for unnecessary recusals, it leaves the message that "Rather than try to comply with the Constitution, we would rather operate with a handicapped Supreme court that is one or two justices short. It sets a bad precedent and allows an entire party who is stomping their feet and crying about not getting it's way to get what it wants. 

This is unjust also because now, it will lead to a slippery slope. There is a good chance that this will limit federal appointments because of the trickle down mentality of new policies and regulations that get put in place to control the actions of the President. The precedent being set would seem like "If the President's appointment is subject complete deferral until a new term comes, then every year when federal judges make their exit, they could be blocked from new appointments during an election year making the federal court system a mess of incumbencies and vacancies. It does not make sense and it flies in the face of judicial, political, and practical reason. 

As a result, my final statement on the matter is that we must allow the President to act within his Constitution powers. For Senators who wish to impede that, they are violation of their duty to allow him appoint. In not carefully considering any appointment he makes and merely invalidating it because he is a Democrat and is seeking a more liberal justice on the Court and who has the proper vetting, it is almost tantamount to treason by holding up the legal system and handicapping it from the top-down. 

It is my sincerest hope that we honor Scalia and his jurisprudential trend to "say what the law is" and abide by it as it was promulgated in our Constitution. 

.