Dear Sen. Sessions,

Please shut up. You are a lawyer. You should know better than to toss around "strict scrutiny" like it doesn't have a specific legal meaning. I realize that you are playing to the camera and your constituents back home and non-lawyers everywhere, but using legal terms correctly can be done. See Orrin Hatch's line of questioning.

Thank you.



Dear Sen. Feinstein,

You go girl!

Love, Me

I promise--this is just a brief study break! I took a practice MBE set over lunch and did really well, so the time that I would have had to have spent working out my missed questions is instead being taken up with this.

I was supremely lazy about going to the grocery store over the past week or so, and as a result, I ran out of Cokes on Sunday. I have not had a Coke in 2 days, and I have had pretty massive headaches as a result (thank goodness for Advil!). I am taking this as a sign that, after the bar exam, I will need to seriously detox from the caffeine. However, this is for POST bar exam.

As a BarBri instructor noted, this is not a time to change any part of a routine. His advice: "Even if you are on illegal drugs, go in to rehab the day after the exam!"

Dear Sen. Kyl,

1. When I say something, I IMPLY a hidden meaning. You, hearing, INFER a meaning. I cannot infer something through my speech.

2. Diversity is a good thing. Not just for appearance of legitimacy. But also because so many Supreme Court cases depend on interpreting terms such as "reasonable" or "significant." Determining what is "reasonable" in a context depends on understanding all the circumstances in that particular instance. This is simply not usually possible (though it occasionally has been done), in evaluating a discrimination case (for example) when everyone on the bench is over 75, white, male, and upper-middle class.

Sincerely,
Me