anotherlongshot (anotherlongshot) wrote,
anotherlongshot
anotherlongshot

My annoying paper.

1. I'm so irritated with the materials I've found for my Comparative Constitutional Law paper. The question basically asks about judicial review and whether it's necessary or needed to protect liberal democratic norms. I found this fucking long article (60 over pages) published in the Yale Law Journal (which explains its length!) that's staunchly anti-judicial review, and I just spent the whole damn afternoon reading it and I haven't even finished it, and it's irritating the living shit out of me. Like, I can't even begin to say. Maybe I'm a dumbass for believing in judicial review and the role of the courts as the protector of, first, the Constitution, and by implication, fundamental rights; but if that makes me a dumbass, so be it. It's better than leaving such important questions to the PEOPLE, the same American public that elected Republicans into office who then appointed conservative judges to the bench who then produced decisions that these anti-judicial review people are using as a basis not to have judicial review. I'm all for democracy, but it assumes rational actors - and I think it goes without saying how fatal and detrimental and patently false this assumption is. And please don't give me that crap about how the American voting public is an enlightened voting public; it is not. There are stupid people everywhere. Stupid people make stupid choices. The courts are here to prevent stupid decisions from coming into force. END OF STORY, SHUT UP, THANK YOU.

2. I can say all this here, but I can't seem to be able to say it in the paper that will be marked. So far I only have a quote from the Federalist and an incomplete sentence consisting of 7 words in my introduction. That's it. And I'm contemplating waking up tomorrow morning at like, 6, to watch Roger play...shit I forgot his first name; something Gicquel. Marc Gicquel? It's his first Indian Wells match and he's definitely going to win, but it's his first match since the Australian Open which was YEARS ago and I miss him and I need to watch Roger, dammit. But then if I wake up at 6, my whole Sunday is fucked 'cause I wouldn't be able to function and I need my Sunday to rush out a paper. DAMMIT. See? This is why I hate American tournaments - RIDICULOUS TIME DIFFERENCE. How irritating.

3. The thing about being pro-judiciary is that Prof. MT is anti-judiciary/judicial review, which means if my argument isn't super well-written and well-thought out, I'm screwed. And seeing as I only properly started on this on like, Thursday night? I AM REALLY SCREWED.

4. Now I wish I'd started like, last week. It's a very interesting topic. But I have no time to read everything and digest everything. Some of the stuff the articles talk about I've never heard of before; like, I didn't know there was a difference between judicial review of rights and judicial review of the structure of government/separation of powers/etc. This is because of the American context though. I'm so irritated with reading about America; half the time they live in a world of their own anyway so why should I care?

5. Okay, I don't actually mean that. I care very much. It's just I'm tired of reading this article and I'm tired of thinking and I want to watch tennis and switch off my brain but I can't, and therefore I'm just ranting and letting off steam.

6. I'm playing the ATP World Tour Draw Challenge Circuit and I'm at a pathetic 10123 out of 15115! I'm really lousy at predicting who'd win a match when I haven't the slightest clue who the players are. The qualifiers in particular - who the fuck are they? And when I was making my picks the stupid draw didn't even write their names down! Of course I'm going to predict that the qualifier would lose, but a few of them has ended up winning. How annoying. I picked Roger as the winner, obviously, but picked Andy Roddick to reach the final HAHAHAHAHAHA. I picked Nalbandian to defeat Nadal - yeah, I wish. I think I'm going to eventually do really poorly for this round. I shall buck up for Miami. I have zero chance of winning a trip to the London tournament at the end of the year, but it'd be nice to get that $1000 spending card for TennisWarehouse.com, considering the amount of money I've given to them recently.

7. I'm damn hungry. I need to finish reading this annoying long article. ARGH. I have another 60-page article to read but at least that one is for judicial review and won't piss me off that much.

Tags: assignments, human rights, law school, roger federer, tennis
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments