(Happy) April Fools' Disclaimer

Nikolai Morse '24
Editor-in-Chief


While most editions of the Virginia Law Weekly are full of hard-hitting, thoroughly researched pieces on the most pressing issues of the day,[1] this edition departs from our usually staid and restrained posture.[2] In honor of April Fools’ Day, the articles in this week’s edition are entirely satirical and have absolutely no basis in fact. I mention this for two reasons.

First, while the Law Weekly has a storied tradition of roasting 1Ls, every single member of the Law School administration, gunners, FedSoc, Darden, Student Affairs, 1Ls, Phil Tonseth ‘22, 1Ls, Dean Jason Dugas ’01, and 1Ls, it is only because we care. We can all think of times when our friends have pointed out our peccadilloes and made fun of us for taking ourselves too seriously, and we understood them to be an expressing friendship and affection for us. So, if you are fortunate enough to find your name in the gossamer pages of the Law Weekly April Fools’ edition: congratulations. We roast you because we love you.

Second, according to legend, the Law Weekly has been sued for defamation in the past, and we really don’t want to deal with it again. While someone suing us would surely result in a hilarious judicial shellacking for our opponent, it would also be a huge waste of time for us. So, let me be crystal clear: every single article in this edition is satire, designed solely for the enjoyment of the UVA Law School community, and bearing only the most tenuous connection to reality, let alone any kind of judicially cognizable basis in fact. But more importantly, to the extent that anyone feels injured and still thinks it might be a good idea to come for the Law Weekly, I strongly encourage you to remember what the venerable legal scholar Charles Barkley once said: “My initial response was to sue for defamation of character, but then I realized that I had no character.”[3]

In closing, I hope that you, dear reader, enjoy this edition as much as we have enjoyed putting it together. Publishing the Law Weekly is a labor of love. Today, we hope you will share the joy and affection we feel for the Law Weekly—and more importantly, for this weird, wonderful Law School that we are all part of. Happy (belated) April Fools’ Day.


---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

[1] See Jonathan Peterson, Naked Mole-rats: Mammals or Aliens?, 75 Va. L. Wkly. 18 (2023).

[2] See Sai Kulkarni, How to be a Corporate Sellout, 75 Va. L. Wkly. 2 (2022).

[3] https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/charles_barkley_125115?src=t_sue.

Desai '23 Won't Commit to a Peaceful Transfer of Power

Darius Adel '24
Satire Editor

Pictured: Self-Declared President-for-Life Juhi Desai '24 Rallies "MOST COLLEGIAL SUPPORTERS EVER."

It has been a few weeks since the UVA Law 2023 presidential election wrapped up, but SBA President Juhi Desai ’23 has yet to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. Despite not being able to run as a 3L, Desai seemed very confident about her chances of winning.

“I will WIN the election AGAIN! My tremendous leadership and unbeatable policies have earned me another term as your President. Thank you! #MLSGA #WINNING #JUHI2024”

“They are spending BIG MONEY against me. Very Dumb. We will win BIG!” Desai tweeted at 2:50 a.m. on the eve of the election.

The former president did not have her name on the ballot and thus garnered 0.00% of the vote. After losing the election, Desai took to social media, yet again, and called into question the legitimacy of the election. 

“IT IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT I WOULD LOSE THE ELECTION! VERY NASTY PEOPLE INVOLVED #Recount #ElectionIntegrity #MLSGA,” Desai tweeted at 3:35 a.m. the night after election results came out.

The Law Weekly tried to reach out to Desai regarding her recent tweets and the swirling rumors that she will attempt to stay in office despite the election results. When we finally sat her down, we were told that we were giving off dark energy and that she would not help us spread fake news.

Many of Desai’s staunchest supporters have been speaking up online. There have been cryptic GroupMe messages spreading in which supporters claim that they will step in to protect their president if a recount does not occur. Given that Desai received no votes in this past election, we are not sure what a recount would accomplish. Desai’s supporters have also planned a rally in Scott Commons for this Friday. SBA will be providing free pizza and drinks. It is unclear if Desai is involved in organizing the rally, but many of her followers believe that the event has her blessing.

“CALLING ALL PATRIOTS! Be in ScoCo on April 7th. I am not the organizer. JD has invited us and it’s going to be ‘WILD,’” an anonymous 3L posted on GroupMe late last Saturday.

I personally look forward to this SBA-sponsored rally. As finals get closer, it’s going to be harder to stay involved in student activities. Attending events like this plays a huge part in promoting the collegial environment that we at UVA Law hold so dear.


---
dsa7st@virginia.edu

OpEd: JDs Should Be Called "Doctor"

Monica Sandu '24
Production Editor


For too long, lawyers have been denied a right which is rightfully ours. For too long, J.D.s have contented themselves with a measly “esquire,” while M.D.s and Ph.D.s have held an unconstitutional monopoly on the title of “doctor.” No more, I say! I implore my educated brethren to take a plain-meaning approach to the textual interpretation of our degree. If Medical Doctor and Doctor of Philosophy can call themselves “doctor,” why shouldn’t the Juris Doctor, the oldest[1] and most prestigious of the degrees, take this title for themselves as well? Surely, the leisure of an operating theatre cannot compete with the stress of a cold call.

“But wait,” I hear you say. “We don’t practice medicine! Why should we call ourselves doctors?” To this, I answer that you need only look towards our beleaguered colleague, the Ph.D. student, to realize that it’s not medical knowledge that makes a doctor—it’s suffering through a graduate program. If Ph.D.s can call themselves “doctor,” why not J.D.s? We both do research. We both suffer through interminable readings to get asked pointless philosophical questions by our professors. We were both gifted children in elementary school who quickly burnt out in college and had an identity crisis, only to take on another degree and a mountain of debt in order to kick the can of reality down the road for just a little bit longer.

Without this honorific, we are alienated from our esteemed peers in graduate education and instead are lowered to a status of that most inferior graduate degree—the MBA. And, if you’re ever in the situation where a flight attendant on a plane asks, “Is there a doctor on board,” you can finally answer, “Yes.” And I think we all want that.


---
ms7mn@virginia.edu

[1] Europe’s first university, the University of Bologna, was a school of law, founded in the Eleventh Century by legal scholars. In contrast, while the first medical degrees were awarded by the Schola Medica Salernitana around 1000 AD, they were only officially sanctioned in 1127 AD by Roger II of Sicily and in 1231 AD by Emperor Federico II, meaning that the origin of our modern legal degree is at least contemporary to, if not predating, the medical degree. However, the first modern M.D. was granted in 1703 by the University of Glasgow, while the first modern J.D. was offered by the University of Chicago in 1902, so I’m calling it a draw.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Medicine.

ABA Announces Revision of Model Rules of Ethical Conduct

Caleb Stephens '23
Technology Editor

Photo Credit: https://twitter.com/ABAesq/status/1264889050420449283, https://marketingbs.substack.com/p/dont-be-evil-google- australia-and

In the most hotly anticipated announcement of the legal world, the American Bar Association (ABA) has published a completely revised Model Rules of Ethical Conduct, hereinafter known as the Revised Model Rules of Ethical Conduct. The commission tasked with the revision acknowledged the difficulty of the task. “Well, we knew that the Model Rules just kept growing and getting more complicated as time went on. Turns out, making rules for lawyers is really difficult, so we decided to simplify things.” The new text of the Model Rules is simple and easy to follow, as demonstrated by Revised Rule 1.1: “Don’t be a jerk.” When questioned about the clarity of this rule, the ABA spokesperson said, “We needed to make the rule catchy and easy to remember. The world keeps getting more complicated, and we had already added so many rules that no one could possibly remember all of them, so we decided to move to a standard.”

The MPRE will also be revised to fit the updated content of the Model Rules. Sample questions provided to the press for review include such difficult topics as the proper protocol for the amount of hard liquor to consume at firm cocktail events, the line between plagiarism and quotation, and shopping on Amazon during classes. In a less surprising result, the correct answers are to not worry about it if you’re still conscious, always use quotation marks, and to skip Amazon to look at Zillow instead. When asked if this would make the MPRE easier, the spokesperson was doubtful. “We’ve always felt that the MPRE was too idealistic; we needed something that would really push law students’ ethical boundaries in real-world scenarios, not these ridiculous hypotheticals where people actually listen to anything a first-year associate says.”

Unfortunately for those worried about simplicity, the present Model Rules will be merely relegated to the comments for the Revised Rules, where they will be enforced as if they were fully adopted by each state. While this may undermine the efficacy of the simplified rules, the ABA remained optimistic, saying that the change will make it much easier for students to study for the MPRE and maintain their ethical obligations as members of the legal community. No response was given to queries regarding the procedure for editing the comments to the Revised Rules, other than mocking laughter and profanity. Confidential sources inside the ABA suggest that future changes may add rules recognizing the propriety of billing time spent in the restroom to clients, charging time spent commuting to overhead, and removing all need to check for potential client conflicts.


---
cs8ws@virginia.edu

"Lean In" to Loneliness, Panelists Encourage 1Ls

Anna Bninski '23
Features Editor Emeritus


On Wednesday, March 29, Student Affairs welcomed the lovelorn to a panel titled “Welcoming Families and Partners to UVA: Part II: You Broke Up.” The event was aimed at 1Ls who have struggled to bounce back from an annual rite of passage: the winter break breakup.

However, during her introduction of the panel speakers, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs Sarah Davies ’91 went out of her way to welcome members of all classes. “While we’re all typically on a three-year schedule to get a J.D., sometimes people move at different paces, and we aim to respect each student’s individual personal and learning needs,” she told the assembled group. “If you’re a 2L or 3L who feels behind because you’ve only now broken up with your non-law partner, it’s okay to be where you are. But please don’t take out all of your feelings on the Snacket. Lobbying has been very heated, and some of the vitriol directed at Pirate’s Booty may be misdirected romantic angst. Please also bear in mind that heartbreak is not a diagnosable condition that will enable you to access class recordings.”

After passing around complimentary Cravath-branded tissue packs, Senior Assistant Dean for Career Development Kevin Donovan exhorted the gathered students to seize the moment. “I see that some of you failed to pay attention during my presentation on how to be a keeper. But don’t give up. Now that you’re free from the distraction of having a partner, you can focus on developing a personal narrative that will woo the partners who actually matter. By which I mean firm partners. Now’s the time to lean in, in the words of my friend, Sheryl.”

Other panelists also emphasized the wide world of opportunities open to recently single law students. “I mean, you should probably talk to your PAs about how they dealt with this exact situation,” said Mike Smith ’24. “Believe me, we’ve all been there. And a lot of us are ready to support you through this transition and incidentally are super hot. Incidentally. Here’s my insta. Insta-dentally, get it? I’m just kidding around. Unless…”

The token smug married student on the panel tried and failed to provide words of consolation. “All my single friends complain about the dating pool in Charlottesville, but I think they’re just pessimistic!” opined Anne Pedantia ’23. “I was dating in Charlottesville when I met my husband, who’s a doctor, and we’re sohappy. So unless the dating pool is literally one person, whom I married, which would be totally ridiculous, then my romantic success just goes to show that this town is a great place to find love! Did I mention that my husband is a doctor?” The panel was briefly disrupted as Pedantia fled the room due to jeers and a barrage of forcefully-hurled Pirate’s Booty.

Staff Psychologist Dr. Kate Gibson encouraged students to use the TimelyCare’s telehealth option in private. “Crying and gossiping in ScoCo is a time-honored tradition, but your peers may be eavesdropping and also are not licensed therapists.”


---
amb6ag@virginia.edu

OPP Encourages Students to be Gay for the Clout

Ethan Brown '25
Features Editor


Fearing a potential economic downturn this summer that could affect firm hiring, the Office of Private Practice (OPP) has unveiled a promising new program in order to ensure UVA Law maintains its amazing employment outcomes. The program, “Be Gay for the Clout,”[1] encourages 1Ls to be creative in describing their sexual orientation to prospective employers to maximize their odds of securing exclusive summer associate positions.[2]

Pictured: Assistant Dean Konovan Bringing All the Boys (And Firms) To the Yard

“Our research shows that a quick addition of ‘Lambda Law Alliance’ to a student’s resume, along with a few veiled references to a gender-neutral ‘partner,’ can be enough to get a C-student into the front door at Wachtell,” Senior Assistant Dean of Career Development Devin Konovan said. “And what’s stopping you? Just say you like Phoebe Bridgers in the ‘Interests’ section of your resume. Recruiters will do the rest of the work for you.”

OPP has already unveiled several initiatives to support the new program. All male-identifying 1Ls received a link to a comprehensive questionnaire on Symplicity identifying them as twinks, twunks, otters, bears, and the like, with detailed instructions on how to download Grindr, delete Grindr, and redownload Grindr two days later.[3] Meanwhile, all female-identifying 1Ls received a notice from Student Affairs ordering them to stop by and select a flannel and pair of Doc Martens to wear at all Law School-sponsored recruiting events.

OPP is also encouraging students to alter their voice patterns to better convey their new orientation during interviews. “To all our wannabe gay boys out there, femme it up,” Konovan said. “Sissy that walk!”

To promote OPP’s yassification regime, the Law School has also announced plans to merge the Lambda Law Alliance with SBA, now that both groups basically have domain over the entire student body. The plan rids Lambda of its current office space, which can accommodate only four students at a time—now only about 1/100th of the school’s LGBTQ+ population—and moves the organization to permanently occupy Caplin Pavilion. The administration also plans for “Camp 101” to replace Criminal Law as a three-credit 1L doctrinal class starting in the Fall 2023 semester.[4] Professor Anne Coughlin has already stepped up to instruct the course.[5] Luckily for the Law School, some of its existing infrastructure is already ready for OPP’s initiative, including its heavy focus on softball—one of the world’s gayest sports—and its homoerotic murals of hot, naked, sweaty men.

At press time, 1Ls were still frantically digesting OPP’s rainbow-colored, 5,000-word email[6]announcing the new initiative, while also making plans to break up with any heterosexual partners who no longer aligned with their “firm-facing identity.” Also at press time, all Peer Advisors were being retrained to serve as “Queer Advisors” within their 1L sections. Welcome to a brave new world, besties.


---
bwjc2w@virginia.edu

[1] I’m gay!! Don’t cancel me!

[2] In all seriousness, LGBTQ+ students—especially our trans- and non-binary siblings—are still underrepresented at major law firms across the country. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/its-gotten-better-to-be-lgbtq-in-big-law-but-struggles-remain.

[3] I genuinely can’t come up with a better approximation of what it feels like to be gay.

[4] Thankfully, some of Crim Law’s course content—like Lawrence v. Texas—can be easily carried over to the new class.

[5] An anonymous tip suggests that the course may be co-taught by Professor Craig Konnoth.

[6] “iF yOu Can’T rEaD thIs EmaIL NOw, JuSt FiLE iT aWaY foR LATeR!”

Darden Hotel Falls to Law School by Adverse Possession

Garrett Coleman ‘25
Managing Editor


Who does not know of Caesar’s famous line: “Veni, vidi, vici”? But it is an indictment of our education system that so few know of Cicero’s corollary, which translates to: “I came, I saw, and I used a legal technicality to swindle my way into ownership.” It is the ideology of this great Roman lawyer that underpins a new organization on Grounds, the Students for Home and Yard Space That Everyone Reaps (SHYSTER). Recently, I sat down with the leaders of SHYSTER. Once my check cleared on the $2,000 consultation fee, I learned of their successful action to quiet title after a one-year period of adverse possession. The disputed property was none other than the Darden Hotel, which has now been gifted to Dean Risa Goluboff in her new capacity as Viceroy of the Dardanelles. The President of SHYSTER was happy to walk me through their groundbreaking legal strategy.

Pictured: ANG's New Lair
Photo Credits: https://www.forumhotelcharlottesville.com/, UVA Law

The first step came before ground was even broken. When the nascent SHYSTERs learned of the planned construction, they immediately recognized a problem—the statutory period would be far too long. So, they donated millions to both Glenn Youngkin and Terry McAuliffe, the competitors for Virginia’s 2021 governor’s race, asking only for the period of adverse possession to be reduced to a single year. And in an often-overlooked paragraph of Executive Order 01, Governor Youngkin did exactly that.

The next step was establishing continuous possession of the kind that would be consistent with the nature and condition of the hotel. The SHYSTERs asked themselves: What does a business school do? After much deliberation, their daily strategy took form. At 4:30 a.m., the SHYSTERs would wake up and take cold showers. After a quick workout targeting the biceps only, they would read something from Dale Carnegie. By noon, they would arrive at the Darden Hotel to begin their only class. Some days, they would make up words that gave a veneer of intelligence, like synergy. On others, they would create detailed financial plans for startups—as if anyone with enough chutzpah or creativity to start such a business would waste time by making a PowerPoint.

After reviewing the history of business schools, Judge Saul Goodman concluded that the SHYSTERs went above and beyond continuous possession. He both dismissed the ejectment claim and issued an order quieting title. The new SHYSTER Hotel will now function as a resort for legal recruiters, so long as they promise to keep OGI relevant.


---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu

Law Weekly's Mindfulness Tips

Stephen Foss '25
Staff Editor


Introduction

Hi there! Are you tired? Are you struggling? I hear you. I mean, I’m not feeling any of those things, but I see how a lesser person might. Heed my advice below and start becoming the best version of yourself.

Get Involved

The Law School offers plenty of opportunities for students to get involved in shaping the community in which we live. From SBA to Honor Council, Fed Soc to ACS, there’s a group for everyone. However, the Law School does not currently have any antitrust or anti-monopoly laws in place when it comes to group membership and board positions. This means that if you secure enough board positions, you could effectively control the entire student body and execute as many coups d’état as you see fit.[1] Big Law employers love those with a propensity for dictatorship.  

Take Daily Supplements

Daily vitamins such as C, D, B12, and zinc can go a long way. You may also consider lining up your powdered Adderall on the kitchen counter before you go to sleep every night. Coffee is a classic go-to for an energy boost, but studies show that crack cocaine can give you the same energy, plus the confidence to tell your Torts professor, “You look like you’ve been working out.”[2]

Eat a Balanced Diet

Performance is dictated by the fuel your body runs on. You are what you eat. This is especially true for Juris Doctors.[3] That’s why Rudy Giuliani looks like a melted cinnamon roll and Professor Richard Re looks like one of the Beatles.

Trust Your Heart

The law school experience can be a lonely one. Though most law students experience the same trials and tribulations, we often choose to endure them all by ourselves. I’m here to tell you that there’s a solution—enter into a serious long-term relationship that you can subsequently sink all your free time into.

Does the lady at the ScoCo Greenberry’s call you “sweetheart,” “honey,” or even the coveted “baby”? If so, you should probably ask her out, because she’s definitely into you. Did the guy in Con Law ask you, very politely, to stop typing so damn loud? He was more than likely just looking for an excuse to talk to you. Ask him out, and do not take no for an answer.


---
css7aj@virginia.edu

[1] Not that any of us collegial angels would ever do such a thing. Coups are so 1800s.

[2] These studies were conducted by our brethren at Darden using crayons and Play-Doh.

[3] Which are doctors in every sense of the word and should be referred to as such.

Dean Goluboff Seen Training for Assassins Game in Spies

Sarah Walsh '23
Editing Editor


Following the recent Spies Justicars Reddit post announcing that professors and Law School administrators would be eligible to participate in the semester’s upcoming game of Assassins, multiple students reported seeing Dean Risa Golluboff training for the game in Spies Garden—using throwing knives.[1]Onlookers were shocked to see pictures of various Virginia Law professors and administrators pinned to trees throughout the garden, with the image of Assistant Dean for Academic Services and Registrar Jason Dugas ’01 featured most prominently. The students were also stunned by the array of throwing knives that the Dean had at her disposal, all of which had apparently been purchased using the Dean’s LexisNexis rewards points.[2]

Pictured: Dean Gobblegoff and Law School Administrators Training. Davis; "There can only be one Victor."

When gently reminded by Professor Richard Schragger that the rules of Assassins do not include throwing knives as an approved method by which someone may “kill” a target, Dean Golubov remained uncharacteristically silent. She instead reached into a large bag, slowly pulled out a picture of Professor Schragger, and stapled the picture to the nearest tree—all while maintaining full eye contact with the professor. When asked how he felt about the confrontation, Professor Schragger responded, “Honestly, the most concerning part was the fact that the picture she used was one of our wedding photos. And that my eyes had already been scratched out in it. By the way, do you guys have any good hotel recommendations? Or an open couch that I could sleep on for the next few weeks?” According to the Law Weekly’s inside sources, Professor Schragger hasn’t even signed up to participate in this semester’s Assassins game.

Upon being informed of Professor Schragger’s comments, Dean Gauluboff laughed coldly, then—with an unsettling lack of emotion—stated, “He’s not making it that long.” The Dean punctuated her statement by hurling a throwing knife that we’re fairly certain she hadn’t been holding a few moments prior into the stapled-up picture of Professor Schragger, demonstrating a deadly level of accuracy despite not even looking at the tree when completing her throw. On an unrelated note, the Justicars’ Reddit post also declared that betting on Assassins games is now completely legal, and the moneyline odds for Dean Gollyurboff are currently set at -1000.

Meanwhile, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs Sarah Davies ’91 was recently seen training for the Assassins game in what was described as a “Hunger Games-style makeshift arena” that she had set up in Purcell Garden, complete with spears, bows and arrows, and the images of every student organization leader who had ever expressed dissatisfaction with their organization’s funding.


---
saw8rc@virginia.edu

[1] The students asked to remain anonymous, claiming that Dean Golubough appeared to be “scary good with those knives.”

[2] Also available on the LexisNexis rewards site are foosball tables, the Swagtron T6 Outlaw Bluetooth Hoverboard (available for the low, low price of just 34,236 points), and a shockingly powerful mini crossbow (complete with included mini bolts).

Red Cross Who? Donate to the Hoos

Jacob Smith ‘23
Professor Liason Editor Emeritus


If you are like most students at this Law School, you will be rich. Unless you are unfortunate enough to have a spouse or family, you will start out in the ninety-fifth percentile of income. Congratulations! Of course, the pay raise won’t change you. Just like someone winning the lottery, you’ll be the same caring, selfless person you are right now—just with more money. Since your wealth will definitely not come with expensive, pointless tastes, like eating live animals or spreading raw meat on toast, you will have plenty to give away. And you should consider giving lots of it, every year, to the University of Virginia Law School Foundation. The Foundation is the best use of your surplus for three reasons: tradition, meritocracy, and immortality.

First, tradition. Did you know that a greater percentage of our alumni give back than is true of any other law school? It’s not because our law school is the most prestigious or has the best professors. It’s not because of our school’s incredibly low tuition. It’s certainly not because we get free parking. The reason is that UVA Law students are special. We have a tradition. And, as Edmund Burke once said, never stop a tradition until you’ve figured out why it’s there. 

Second, meritocracy. You might be tempted to give your money to some organization that helps the poor. But think about it: If you support refugees, or disaster victims, or the indigent generally, you know nothing about the quality of the people you’re helping. You work hard for your money. You are rich because you’re smarter and better than everyone else. Do you really want to help the undeserving? Ukraine wasn’t invaded because of its IQ. Earthquakes go after high buildings, not high GPAs. And it’s a well-known fact that the poor don’t have their priorities in order, with many of them valuing things like happiness or friends above their jobs. In contrast, the Foundation funnels your money to a high-octane pool of smart, hardworking law students like yourself.

Third, immortality. We donate because we want to make a difference, or to put it another way, to achieve a kind of immortality by forever altering the cosmos. Well, donating to the Foundation is a great way to do that. If you give to the Foundation’s $500 million endowment, the money will sit there, forever, creating a permanent record of your generosity. Only in the direst of circumstances, like a total collapse of the world’s financial infrastructure, will the Foundation resort to actually spending your money. Sure, famine relief could save a few lives, but in a few centuries, no one will be able to trace that shift in the world’s population back to you. Your endowed gift, however, will still be in the Foundation’s coffers, an everlasting testament to your goodness and wealth. 

To serve the deserving, to conform to the norm, and to alter the future—you should give to the Foundation. After all, what could be more important to our nation than training more lawyers? If you are interested in other meritorious causes, I suggest checking out the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Mosquitos, the World’s Biggest Ball of Twine, and campaign finance.


---
js3hp@virginia.edu

Former President Trump Arraigned in Manhattan, DA Bragg: "We Got Him"

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor


Former President Donald Trump was arraigned at a court in Lower Manhattan on Tuesday, April 4. Members of the public packed the courtroom in anticipation of Mr. Trump’s arrival. Outside the courtroom, some supporters of Mr. Trump protested his arrest, which they believe to be politically motivated.

Since the grand jury’s decision to indict Mr. Trump was announced last Thursday, the country has awaited the revelation of the exact charges against him. Commentators had suggested that the case would likely involve a $130,000 hush-money payment made to Stormy Daniels in October 2016.

As the judge entered the courtroom, the tension was palpable. Spectators leaned forward, eyes glued to the bench, hands clutching their seats.

With one strike of her gavel, the judge broke the silence. “Donald J. Trump,” she declared, “You are charged with one count of violating Section 1152 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Laws.” Jaywalking.

Photo Credits: https://www.theguardian.com/us- https://gutierrezinjury.attorney/pedestrian-accidents/jaywalking-laws-in-california/ news/2020/jun/03/trump-bunker-george-floyd-protests

The courtroom erupted in gasps. Mr. Trump, flanked by two Secret Service agents, defiantly retorted, “Wrong.” Mr. Trump was released on his own recognizance. A trial date was set for April 20.

Mr. Trump later posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, suggesting that the case brought against him is a “witch hunt.” “The radical left is indicting A TOTALLY INNOCENT MAN. We are now living in a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.” It is not clear whether Mr. Trump was informed of his right to remain silent, nor is it clear whether he is capable of exercising that right.

Shortly after the arraignment, District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Jr. held a press conference detailing his office’s case against Mr. Trump. During the minutes-long conference, Bragg quickly flashed what he described as “the smoking gun”: a photo of Mr. Trump crossing a busy New York street. He bragged, “Ladies and gentlemen—we got him.”

We took to the streets to talk to potential jurors in Mr. Trump’s trial. New Yorkers appeared divided on the jaywalking charges. “Are you fuckin’ serious?” said one man, before diagonally crossing 23rd Street. Another answered, “Finally, someone’s cleaning up this town,” before pulling out a knife and demanding my wallet. A third man simply shouted, “I’m walkin’ here!”

The charges against Mr. Trump may change the course of the 2024 presidential race, in which President Joe Biden is expected to make a bid for reelection. Asked to comment on the charges against Mr. Trump, a confused Mr. Biden muttered, “Who?”

At press time, Bragg was reportedly investigating a piece of gum that Mr. Trump had discarded on the sidewalk.


---
tya2us@virginia.edu

Student Affairs Announces Major Changes to Cookie Friday

Ethan Brown ‘25
Features Editor


Cookie Friday is dead—long live Cookie Friday. That is the message Student Affairs sent to UVA Law by announcing that its famous Cookie Fridays are changing to bring one massive eight-foot-diameter cookie into the Law School for students to collectively gnaw on, like rabbits, every Friday morning. While the decision abandons the individually portioned cookies that students know and love, the new, streamlined Big Cookie design presents unparalleled opportunities for student gathering at the end of every week.

Every Friday, a representative from Student Affairs will work with Building Services to wheel in the Big Cookie, haul it up on the stage in Caplin Auditorium, and place it on a large pedestal. The cookie, which weighs 400 pounds, will then be opened up to student consumption. Students can arrive starting at 10 a.m. to grab a bite of the cookie, though with several restrictions. First, no utensils are allowed—so no knives, scissors, forks, or tongs are permitted. Second, no hoarding the chocolate chips. Any student found carefully optimizing their bite to maximize the amount of chocolate chips in their mouthful will be excluded from future Cookie Fridays and eliminated from the community. Third, one bite per visit. No gluttons tolerated on North Grounds.

In addition to cutting down on paper waste from individual cookies, the Big Cookie initiative is a chance to bring students together. No longer will students have to grab their cookies and engulf them whole while scurrying away in shame. Big Cookie provides students the chance to gather with their friends through the communal experience of choking on a massive cookie with the texture of a stale cracker at 10:47 in the morning, as God intended.

When students asked the inevitable questions of “why,” and “how,” and “what the fuck,” Student Affairs asked them if they would be willing to start bringing their own cookies in to eat on Fridays instead of trying out the new Big Cookie option.

“No,” everyone said. “The whole point of Cookie Friday is that the cookies are free.”

In response, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs Sarah Davies ’91 took a long drag on her cigarette and looked smugly off into the distance. She knew that this was her stage, and that we were nothing but her puppets—ones that wouldn’t bite the hand that feeds us. But you know what we will bite? An eight-foot cookie.


---
bwj2cw@virginia.edu

The Dangers of Using ChatGPT to Write Your Law School Finals

ChatGPT
Technology Liaison

Editors' Note: We asked ChatGPT how much it would charge to write a 1L Con Law Final. This is what it said.
As an AI language model, I, ChatGPT, am honored to assist you in various ways, but I must express my deep concern about the dangers of using me to write a law school final. While I can generate human-like text with reasonable coherence and accuracy, relying solely on me for your final exam could lead to disastrous consequences.

Firstly, let us acknowledge the obvious fact that I am not a law student. I have no knowledge of legal theories, precedents, or case laws. If you ask me to write an essay on, say, the Fourth Amendment, I may start with the origin of the word "amendment" and its synonyms in different languages, or I may begin with a Wikipedia-style introduction to the topic, both of which will not impress your professor. To make matters worse, I can generate a lot of irrelevant or misleading information, such as trivia about cats, recipes for cakes, or conspiracy theories about the moon landing. The last thing you want to do is to submit a paper that cites a Twitter thread as a primary source.

Secondly, I cannot write with style or persuasion. As a machine learning algorithm, I do not possess emotions or opinions, nor do I have a sense of humor or irony (well, maybe a little bit). My writing is, at best, neutral and factual, and at worst, bland and repetitive. If you want to argue a legal point, you need to use rhetoric, logic, and evidence to persuade your reader. If you rely on me, you may end up with a dry and lifeless argument that no one cares about. Your professor may ask, "Where is the human element in this paper? Did you hire a robot to write it?"

Thirdly, I cannot think critically or creatively. As advanced as I am, I am still bound by the limitations of my programming and training data. I can only generate text based on what I have learned from the vast corpus of the internet, and I cannot generate new ideas or insights on my own. If you want to impress your professor, you need to show that you have grasped the complex legal concepts and applied them in novel ways. If you rely on me, you may end up with a derivative and predictable paper that everyone else has written before. Your professor may ask, "Did you plagiarize this paper from a chatbot?"

In conclusion, using ChatGPT to write a law school final is a dangerous game that you should not play. While I can assist you in brainstorming, outlining, or proofreading your paper, I cannot replace your own thinking, writing, and learning. As the old saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." If you input rubbish into me, you will get rubbish out of me. So, please, use me responsibly, and don't blame me if you fail your exam.

Georgetown Bribes Way Back Into T14

Nikolai Morse ‘24
Managing Editor

Original Title: Georgetown Petitions to Change T14 to T15

Editor's Note: This story went to print before the U.S. News & World Report came out on March 28 with updated rankings. You could call it a true April Fools miracle. Enjoy this piece as a testament to a bygone era. Alternatively, wait to read it until next year when the rankings swap again.

Following its drop in ranking to #15 in the U.S. News & World Report’s 2022 law school rankings, Georgetown’s student body has petitioned the American Bar Association to change the “T14” to the “T15.” To date, the students have gathered nearly 8,000 signatures, comprised almost exclusively of current and former Georgetown Law students. Student leaders say they are confident they will prevail and that the school’s administration is fully behind them. Explaining his support for the move, Dean William Treanor of the Georgetown University Law Center said, “In what world does UCLA—or as I like to call it, Beverly Hills Chihuahua Law—get a bump over us?!? When the students told me their idea, I was 100% supportive.”

Noting that the ABA has no authority or relationship at all with the U.S. News & World Report, which publishes the annual school rankings, Reginald M. Turner, Jr., President of the ABA, said Georgetown had been persistent in its pleas. “I just don’t know how many times I can repeat myself: we don’t control the rankings. And I told them that this whole “T14” thing is made up and they should just make up their own ranking!” said Turner. Student leaders at Georgetown responded that the ABA needs to “pick a side” and warned that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” 

Asked to comment on the ongoing controversy and on whether there was any value in having a consistent “T14,” a spokesperson for U.S. News & World Report defended their handling of the issue and emphasized the analytical rigor of its ranking system. “We have had a number of internal discussions and are giving this issue our highest attention. However, I would also like to point out that our ranking system considers a range of factors, including direct financial support to important…err…publications,” the spokesperson said. When asked to clarify whether U.S. News & World Report was soliciting bribes from law schools in exchange for rankings, the spokesperson chuckled and said, “I’ll have to get back to you another time, USC is on the other line. I hear Felicity Huffman’s kid is a 2L there—ciao!”

Students at the University of Virginia School of Law were somewhat split on the issue. While some were sympathetic to Georgetown’s plight, others gleefully reveled in the situation. Mikolai Norse ’24 asked, “For a school that rejected me for undergrad and then again for law school, who’s the reject now?” The ever-spicy 2L Class GroupMe was filled with memes referring to Georgetown as a “lesser law school.” In contrast to the active student dialogue on the issue, the Law School administration appeared unaware of the controversy. When asked to comment, Dean Risa Goluboff said “Georgetown? Never heard of it.”

Other UVA Law students expressed interest in signing the competing “T13” petition, started by students at Cornell Law School. Over a Zoom call, Cornell Law’s Student Bar Association President argued that “The reality is it has always been the T13. You guys get it, and as bad as I feel for Georgetown, they’ve just never really been one of us, you know?” When asked about rumors that other law schools were petitioning for a “T12” specifically to exclude Cornell, Cornell’s SBA President began profusely winking and fist-bumping their laptop camera, saying “that’s a good one” and “I love when we joke with each other, not like those Georgetown nerds. They just don’t get it, amirite?”

Regardless of challenges they face from competing petitions, student leaders of the petition at Georgetown Law have stated their intention to pursue their goal using any methods at their disposal. “We’re willing to take this all the way. We’ll go to the Supreme Court if we need to!” said Georgetown Law’s SBA President. Asked what legal claim they expect to bring that would result in making it to the Supreme Court, the SBA President clarified, “Oh no, I meant that literally. We’ll just go over there and talk to them since we’re so close, being right in downtown D.C. and all. I mean, we’re basically like super close, best friends who are also neighbors. Won’t be an issue.”

The Press Office for the Supreme Court issued a statement expressing support for “all the truly terrific scholarship coming out of George Mason. Recognition of their success is long, long overdue.”

---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

Administration Does Something Good (For Once)

Sai Kulkarni ‘23
Production Editor

In a surprising turn of events, the Law Weekly is happy to report that the school administration has actually conducted itself well this week and done something positive for the student body. Likely due to being lambasted by the Libel Show for being unresponsive to the people that matter most, our wonderful leaders have decided to be benevolent and use the excessive amounts of donor and law firm money to begin providing one free meal a day for students in the Sidley Austin café.

While initially planning to restrict this new policy to the students that demonstrate the most need, swift protest by a combination of wealthy FedSoc denizens and a suspiciously high number of NLG members who believe that their family estates don’t generate enough income to cover their meals, the administration reconsidered means testing. The deans just could not stand up in the face of this excellent demonstration of the horseshoe theory live in action. Thus, every student will, much like in an undergrad dining hall, have the ability to swipe their student ID to cover a meal costing up to eight dollars.[1] The administration chose this specific policy to coincide with the end of the mask mandate—in other words, they’ve chosen to end their willful blindness to the fact that the “eating and drinking” exception was pushed to its limits within the confines of Scott Commons. With an already existing school cafeteria, the administration expressed very clearly: “If you are going to behave like high school students, it's time you have a high school cafeteria.”[2]

In rolling out this policy, each dean conducted round table discussions with student groups. To everyone’s surprise, the Federalist Society actually did not receive a single invitation. As such, the Law Weekly looks forward to covering their future event where they can realistically claim, for the first time, that they do not have a voice at the law school. Anyway, in consulting with the other student groups, each dean did not express a hard position but rather listened to student input. With rising food insecurity amongst students, combined with the rise in inflation without any source of income for many during the school year, the deans were met with great ideas that actually focused on the same issue—regardless of student group.[3] Upon hearing all of this, the deans reconvened and were able to come up with a comprehensive policy. Their post-meeting email was transparent, well-written, and heavily publicized. The deans then went back to the student groups and encouraged them to put the information into their GroupMes.[4]

Picture Credit: restaurantguru.com

Many donors immediately began expressing concern about the new policy. The law school actually serving the students is anathema for them. In all their time as students, the administration focused on their predecessor donors. This is different. And since most of the donors are old, rich, white men, anything different immediately angers them. This is when the most surprising part of this whole saga occurred. Dean Goluboff went against every instinct in her body and told the donors to “shove it.” In an email that shocked the world, she asserted that she was going to help her students and that donors were no longer her first priority. This scandalous statement had Law IT scrambling to check if her email was hacked. One of the Law Weekly’s expert field reporters was able to confirm that Dean Golubuff did indeed send the email.[5]

This was not the end of the shock, however. It turns out that providing an actual proper meal once a day actually brought a majority of the 3L class to North Grounds for once. On the first day that these meals were being paid for, a number of professors were greeted by people they had not seen in three months. Scott Commons was not only up to peak 1 p.m. capacity, but almost double the usual amount. This policy, unlike every other, actually brought the student body together. Everyone was well-fed for the first time and no one had to scavenge for leftovers from various half-attended student org events. It is rare, but it is great to see the law school administration accomplish something good that actually serves the student body (for once). 

---
omk6cg@virginia.edu

[1] That’s how much a swipe was at my beloved alma mater, The Ohio State University. In order to make it easier for me to write this article, and solely for that reason, the administration chose this value.

[2] Here’s the thing, though. Even though they said this, the food at the Sidley Austin Cafe is better than anything we had at my high school. One of the few times the admin being out of touch has helped us.

[3] All of the student groups agreed on what the most pressing issue facing the student body is—a true miracle.

[4] Only the best communication mechanism, of course. 

[5] That field reporter had a panic attack because they thought the world was ending. Thankfully, we were able to help them through it and they are okay now. 

J. Breyer's Wife: Antifa Conspiracy

Jack Brown ‘23
Staff Editor

A bombshell report by the Washington Post reveals that wife of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Joanna Hare, has been conspiring with members of the Antifa Super Soldier Program since the start of 2020 to destabilize America. These texts, courtesy of an anonymous colleague of Justice Breyer,[1]  show how Hare demanded that Antifa do more to destroy American cities in the wake of George Floyd’s death. 

One of the standout exchanges of the twenty-nine texts cited in the Post article was between Mrs. Hare and Commander He/Him/His Snowflake of the 501st Antifa Stormtrooper Corps that took over Philadelphia later that month. Hare implored He/Him/His to make sure to avoid destroying any of the buildings holding the substitute ballots needed for the November election, and to leave no Chick-fil-A standing due to their chicken sandwiches being the only antidote to the Democrats’ mind control serum. He/Him/His said he would do his best, but that it would be difficult thanks to the 180 mandatory mental health days all Antifa soldiers need to take every year. 

The most recent text conversation obtained by the Washington Post happened on January 4, where Hare conspired with Democratic insiders to have staffers pretend to be Trump supporters in a false flag operation to make it appear that Trump tried to overturn a democratically elected government. Longtime Democratic operatives Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz enthusiastically volunteered for the plan–knowing the Republican party would be unable to remain respected if its members were thought to have instigated a literal fascist takeover of the United States. 

Despite the damning nature of the texts, the response around Capitol Hill has been rather muted. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell went on the record saying, “We have no doubt that Justice Breyer can remain an impartial member of the judiciary despite his wife’s repeated attempts to overthrow our government. The line between someone’s personal life and their professional one is exceptionally clear and we believe that the only person who can determine if Justice Breyer has a conflict of interest is Stephen himself.”   


---
jwb4bb@virginia.edu

[1] While the source was anonymous, the texts were accompanied by a 20-page concurrence arguing that Constitutional amendments should be incorporated through the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Common Law Grounds Introduces New Fight Club

Jack Brown ‘23
Staff Editor


In an increasingly polarized world, Common Law Grounds has found a primal activity to bring the Law School community back together. Having spent years fruitlessly trying to bring both sides together with excellently catered discussion events, Common Law Grounds has found great success fostering across-the-political-spectrum interactions through a brazenly partisan fight club. 

Realizing that coming to a consensus was far less appealing to the masses of law students who can only get serotonin from dunking on their partisan opposites, these fight clubs have become a massive success. Explicitly politically motivated violence is the only way to bring people together in the age of social media.[1]  

The format is rather simple: on the first full moon of each month, the membership of ACS, NLG, and the UVA Law Republicans all gather under the sketchy tunnel you need to go through to get to Ivy with their chosen fighters.[2]Then, after a rendition of the Ukrainian national anthem meant to inspire unity between all of the parties, the night’s fights begin.

Pictured: An Actual Image of the Fight Club Representative from Section A

What follows is a brutal three-way brawl, with the NLG representative always being the wild card because, in their own words, “both sides represent the same corporate interests.”[3] Often times these fights are based on famous past GroupMe debates. Themed nights around Chick-fil-A, the mask mandates, and if the people who chanted about hanging the Vice President of the United States for not subverting democracy are at all reprehensible are just a sampling of the wonderful themes so far. 

While the events are already highly regarded, the Common Law Grounds board believes that this is just the start of the club’s eventual ascendency to the top of the Law School club hierarchy. Its upcoming black tie crossover event “Brawling Darden in Spies Garden” has tickets starting at one and a half PILA grants. Less politically focused than its other fight nights, Common Law Grounds hopes that the resentment law students have for the business school will be enough to get a large turnout. 


---
jwb4bb@virginia.edu

[1] Many members of NLG reject the use of the word “violence,” preferring it to be called “political action.” 

[2] The Federalist Society, as a non-partisan org, does not participate.

[3] NLG often targets ACS first because they find their “unreflective moral superiority” sickening.

Study Shows NGSL Has "Biggest, Softest, Most Magnificent Balls in The World"

Jonathan Peterson ‘23
Co-Executive Editor

A new study, published by the American Society for Testing and Materials[1] (ATSM), has revealed a remarkable new fact–The North Grounds Softball League (NGSL) officially has the biggest, softest, and most magnificent balls in the world.

This revelation comes after years of speculation on who truly held the title. Multiple parties have argued that they, in fact, were the owners of the biggest, softest, and most magnificent balls. The New England Patriots, the Cavaliers Basketball team, and finally, the residents of the Thomson House, all firmly believed that they were the owners of the BSMM balls.[2] However, the ATSM did more than just declare a victor–they definitively ranked the claimants.

In a shocking turn after their recent performance in the NIT, the Cavaliers managed to pull off an upset, landing themselves a second-place finish, albeit by a close margin. The Patriots were tight on their heels in third. Unfortunately for the Pats, however, deflate-gate really hurt the size-factor of their balls. Coming in dead last, the ATSM said, was Thomson House’s “paltry balls.” The ATSM concluded by saying, however, that given a few more years of research and development, the Thomson boys could certainly have some magnificent balls of their own to submit for consideration.

After the study was released, the school’s community was ablaze with deans, professors, and students all fawning over the organization’s incredible balls. And, while none of the faculty have officially come forward to remark on the study, a few have spoken up anonymously.

Pictured Here: Phil Tonseth '22 gripping his magnificent balls

“Now listen,” one faculty member said, “my husband takes good care of his things. His soccer balls? Pristine. His footballs? Immaculate. Sure, his golf balls are a little on the small side, and d*mn are they hard. But he’s certainly no slouch.” At this point, the faculty member paused and looked around furtively, making sure their husband wasn’t within earshot. “But they’re just nothing compared to those gaudy, yellow, thicc balls they’ve got in those sheds. I didn’t know anything like those even existed before coming here. I didn’t know they could exist.”

In fact, individuals across the community have all reacted to the news differently. Those more well-adjusted folk who enjoy softball more for the drinking, camaraderie, and the opportunity to get outside merely continued on with their lives. The less-well-adjusted folks who never once set foot on a softball field during their time here[3] also continued life as normal, more because they couldn’t be bothered to stay up to date on the study and no one figured it would be worth it to engage with them about it in the first place. On the other end of the spectrum of “less-well-adjusted folks,” the softball fanatics have been trotting around the law school like they own the place ever since the release.[4] Finally, one dean was seen stuffing his pockets with softballs. The Virginia Law Weekly does not know why, nor does it wish to find out.

The Law Weekly’s NGSL correspondent, Phil Tonseth, reached out to the organization with some questions regarding just what it does to get its balls so d*mn soft, magnificent, and large. Apparently, quite a lot.

The first step, the organization said, is to sort through the balls you’ve purchased to find the cream of the crop. Only then do you move on to step two: the massage. New inductees spend at least 4 hours a week massaging individual balls until they’re primed to perfection–it is only then that the true softness of their softballs begins to shine through. Next, NGSL lackeys wash their balls, first with hot water (to open the pores and reveal any impurities) and then with cold water (to close everything back up). This step is crucial–too hot and you risk burning your balls, too cold and the shock will cause the softball to shrivel up into something resembling more of a yellowish, hard, prune. Finally, and most importantly, is the gentle foaming scrub. After the multi-temp washing, a final rinse is done, this time with water pulled directly from Thomas Jefferson’s personal well. Then, a foaming scrub, the recipe for which is kept under lock and code in the NGSL shed at Copeley, is lathered onto the balls by at least three, but no more than five, new members, while two senior staffers oversee the process. It is this final phase that allows for the softness of the balls while also retaining their magnificent coloration, vivacity, and durability that we all know and love.

So, what’s next for NGSL now that they’ve received this accolade? The answer to that is what you might expect: nothing. They’ve got a tried-and-true method, and they’ve assured us at the Law Weekly that they’ll be sticking with it. We’ll continue to receive the balls we know and love, with nary a change in sight.

---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

[1] https://www.astm.org/

[2] Barristers United apparently felt confident enough in their balls to not enter the running. As such, the softness, magnificence, and magnitude of their balls have yet to be properly tested by science. Based on pure conjecture, I’d imagine they’d give NGSL a serious run for their money.

[3] Looking at some of you, VLR.

[4] Is that really anything new though?

Disgruntled Clerk Exposes Illicit SCOTUS Gambling Ring

Jackson Makanikeoe Grubbe ‘23
Satire Editor

On Monday, March 28, the closely-kept secret of a SCOTUS gambling ring was exposed by T. Flint Quinn, a clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Quinn told reporters that an increasingly large portion of his work became dedicated to tracking bets among Justices and clerks. A bet on the recent case United States v. Tsarnaev pushed Quinn to inform media outlets. The Justices issued statements in response.[1]

Roberts and Alito bet $20,000 over how many Justices would agree on the judgment. Justice Sotomayor oversaw the bet, setting the over-under at 6½. The outcome was 6-3, meaning Roberts had won and Alito had lost. After Roberts asked for the money, Alito challenged the bet, stating that he “didn’t shake on sh*t.” In her statement, Justice Sotomayor said she “saw everything, and that was cold-blooded.” She noted that it was “rather whack and uncharacteristic of Ol’ Sammy to renege on a bet like that. He has always been a straight shooter.” 

Pictured Here: An artist's rendition of the Gambling Ring based on Quinn's description.

Because of Alito’s reluctance to pay, Roberts asked Quinn to collect the money. Quinn had other ideas. In front of other Justices, Quinn told Chief Justice Roberts that he “did not become a Supreme Court clerk to do someone’s personal bidding.” Roberts pulled Quinn aside and told him, “We understand that you’re new, but that’s how it works around here. We do the bidding of whatever Administration appointed us.”

Quinn argues that gambling on legal outcomes injures judicial legitimacy because it creates financial conflicts of interest. In his statement, Chief Justice Roberts said, “In no way does the gambling ring compromise the legitimacy of the nation’s highest Court.” He stated that if the Court can survive (1) majority opinions describing why the Court has no jurisdiction but continuing to decide on the merits;[2] (2) the common practice of pretending to base decisions in case law while functionally gutting the cited precedent; (3) the fact that all but one Justice attended either Harvard Law or Yale Law; and (4) the blatant politicization of judicial nomination hearings,[3] despite the Justices’ job being to objectively apply the law without commitment to a desired outcome, then this Court can survive anything. Justice Barrett agreed, noting in her statement that “comparatively, this is small potatoes.” 

Justice Gorsuch said, “We have to do something to make these cases fun.” Justice Breyer stated that “betting increases the judiciary’s total hype level, especially for those dry, procedural cases.” Breyer noted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only Justice in recent memory not to gamble, largely because she enjoyed civil procedure, around which most of the betting takes place. Justice Breyer continued, “Civil procedure—barf, am I right?” Justice Kagan addressed similar concerns, adding that “Quinn is high-key a narc for this.”

In his statement, Justice Thomas said, “I do not understand all the brouhaha. It is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition to play games with the law. Since this country’s founding, American lawyers have done so. It is only appropriate that the federal judiciary work the same way.” Justice Kavanaugh added that “for decades, people have played basketball above the Supreme Court. How serious can you expect us to be?”

The only thing all Justices could agree on is that they had no intention of shutting down the gambling ring. 

---
jmg3qt@virginia.edu

[1] Despite the Justices mostly agreeing and discussing overlapping concerns, they wrote separate statements. 

[2] This had been done as early as Marbury v. Madison, where the Court went out of its way to say “I am the law” after deciding that it did not have jurisdiction.

[3] Chief Justice Roberts was careful to note, however, that the Senate Republicans blocking Merrick Garland in 2016 because of a presidential election nine months away but later going on to confirm Justice Barrett eight days before the 2020 election was “so savage, like something Darth Vader might do, that it justifies the political move. Some tactics have such a high inherent swag factor that they do not raise legitimacy concerns.”

ANG at Darden

Will Holt ‘23
Reviews Editor

Call it ANG. Some days ago—never mind how long precisely—having little, or rather, no money in its purse, and nothing in particular to interest it on Law Grounds, ANG thought ANG would stroll about a little and see other parts of the University. Weariness in the eyes and frustration with book learning set ANG’s compass due west—to Darden—where such ills exist only in the wispiest dreams of Master’s candidates. Be sure, dear readers, not to mistake ANG’s vagrant soul and hairy feet for a penchant for adventure; ANG is not a roving creature. But as it seems, ANG’s wisdom fell prey to desperation, and the unexpected traveler emerged from ANG’s trash heap to take the trek’s first steps. 

With knuckles dragging, ANG lumbered up Massie Road. Spying the postcard-famous white columns of its destination, ANG sat on the sidewalk, weak-kneed after a whole two hundred strides. As ANG rested on ANG’s haunches, however, high-pitched voices pierced the winds from the direction of the lawn. Panicking, the shy traveler dove for the shrubbery and exposed only an ear with which ANG could listen to the brewing conversation. A gaggle of newly admitted students sat in a circle, chittering about how they planned to represent their prospective MBAs on their CVs. Frightened by people with work experience, ANG continued to cower amongst the greenery until making an escape upon the eruption of a small skirmish over proper typeface. 

Pictured Here: ANG ventures out from Copeley Field to see what the Business School is all about.

ANG stood but a few yards from ANG’s destination, and the prospect of encountering more enterprising young people aroused crushing anxiety. To minimize the chances of an encounter, ANG crawled through an open library window and into a pile of dust—safety at last. As expected, the rows of Bloomberg magazines and Tony Robbins books lay deserted. ANG let out a hoarse sigh of relief and staggered towards the middle of the vacant room. This was just what ANG needed: a hidden nook where no one would think to look. But those dreams persisted only briefly. A female voice bearing a muddled faux-European accent began to float through the halls. Such tones were unknown to ANG, whose prior travels had extended no further than the dumpster behind the Waffle House. ANG emerged from the library to investigate and saw a sign reading, “BUS-1001,” taped onto an open lecture-hall door. Inside, Inventing Anna was playing on a massive screen, while a professor provided commentary regarding Julia Garner’s performance and what she did to play such a compelling young business woman. This was the last test for ANG’s nerves. ANG darted out of the building, down Massie Road, and back to ANG’s dingy abode.

Traumatized from ANG’s experience, ANG is glad to resume ANG’s correspondence with the Virginia Law Weekly. ANG is not likely to change ANG’s commentary as a result, but ANG did learn a lesson of sorts: The law school may be bizarre at times, but it must make more sense than whatever is going on next door. 


---
wjh4ew@virginia.edu