Last Thursday was the first mock trial competition for my high school students, and they did very well. Out of four teams, we won 3.5 of the trials (we technically lost on one of the two issues in the fourth trial, but we won on the important thing and the judge only awarded the other side attorneys' fees). Not that it matters, since a mock trial is like Whose Line Is It Anyway in that the judge's decision doesn't actually matter at all in terms of scoring. Still, it was great to be in one courtroom and hear the judge (when awarding the win to my kids) say "both sides did very well, but it seems as though the facts in this case were stacked towards the plaintiff (my team)" and then run to the courtroom across the way to hear the judge say (when awarding the win to my kids) "both sides did very well, but the plaintiff really has to PROVE their case and I don't think the facts were there in this packet so, on balance, I believe that the defense (my team) wins." They get to do it one more time tomorrow, and we have been working on advanced techniques and small improvements on the work they had already done. It's good, too, because I'm actually starting to get to the point (for a few of my top students) where I don't know how I would improve on their questions or their delivery all that much.
Over the weekend we had Sara's golden birthday (she turned 24 on the 24th) and she wanted to go to Medieval Times, so that's what we did. We cheered on the white and black knight, who was the first to lose in glorious battle (of course), so then we switched allegiances to the red knight, who seemed to be doing well until he was offed by the blue knight, who no one liked. I was not expecting to enjoy Medieval Times as much as I did, but it was a very well done production.
The crowns were free, but you don't want to know how much Dan's beer cost.
This week has been exciting in DC for more manic weather, including a random snowstorm.
It was practically t-shirt weather later this day.
It has also been exciting in DC because the Supreme Court handed down a decision for a case that I had used to teach my kids about the 4th Amendment (Florida v. Jardines) and managed to come to the one conclusion that has almost nothing to do with what I taught my kids about the 4th Amendment (basically, that the case could be decided based on the idea of trespass as opposed to the idea of privacy). Thanks, Scalia. On the plus side, it had three very well-written opinions. It's a case about a dog sniff that detected a marijuana growing operation in a house, and on the first page Justice Scalia refers to the police officers monitoring the house as a "joint surveillance task force." See, even the Supreme Court can have a sense of humor.
In addition to handing down that case, the Court is hearing two cases that will probably be the most important of the term- Hollingsworth (Prop 8) and Windsor (DOMA). Or, as you may understand from media reports, the Gay Marriage cases. I'm actually going to a post-argument discussion today after Windsor that will feature several of the people who worked on the briefs for both sides. My personal favorite moment from the arguments yesterday was when Justice Scalia asked something like "at what point did banning gay marriage become unconstitutional?" and the lawyer responded "at what point did banning interracial marriage become unconstitutional?" You aren't supposed to ever respond to a Justice's question with another question, but I thought that was well played.
No comments:
Post a Comment