OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF THE STUDENTS OF MELBOURNE LAW SCHOOL

DE MINIMIS
MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2012 Established 1948; Revived 2012 VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3

US Supreme Court Surprise: Roberts upholds Obamacare

On 28 June, in a landmark and surprise ruling that is, literally, of life and death importance to many Americans. The US Supreme Court upheld President Obamas Affordable Care Act of 2010. Paradoxically, if there is a single person to thank for the fact that the US now extends health care to all citizens, it is the Republican-appointed chief justice, John Roberts (who delivered a public lecture at MLS in July 2010). In National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, the other Republican-nominated, conservative justices voted to defeat the Act, while the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted to uphold it. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, in which the law was held to be a valid exercise of Congresss power to tax. He re-framed the debate over health care as a debate over increasing taxes, saying that Congress was increasing taxes on those who choose to go uninsured, as opposed to ordering individuals to engage in commerce, which would be against the Constitution. Ronald Dworkin explains, Our eighteenth-century constitution gives Congress only a limited number of legislative powers set out in an enumerated list; no congressional statute is valid unless it can be defended as the exercise of one of those listed powers. Chief Justice Roberts also wrote that judges possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nations elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. Notwithstanding this claim of judicial neutrality, Dworkin The Global Law Students Association presents and other experts believe that the Supreme Court is, and has long been, politically activist. Moreover (Dworkin again) There is z persuasive internal evidence in the various opinions, and particularly in the joint dissent, that [Roberts] intended to vote with the other conservatives to strike the act down and changed his mind only at the very last minute. The surprise decision by the chief justice has triggered speculation by conservative talking heads as to his mental and physical health. Notorious shock jock Rush Limbaugh bellowed that the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obamas Domestic Arm. Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia announced in a radio interview that he would like to pour a beer over the head of Chief Justice Rober ts. Dworkins reaction is more nuanced, and more worrying. He says that Roberts made a calculated decision to yield to the status quo in order to provide coverage and credibility for the Supreme Court when, in October, they confront the large number of politically charged cases scheduled for hearing.

Writing in The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin agreed; By siding with the liberals, Roberts insulates himself from charges of partisanship for the foreseeable future. This may be worth remembering next year, when the Court, led by the Chief Justice, is likely to strike down both the use of affirmative action in college admissions and the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Will the chief justice loftily declare himself and his colleagues aloof from policy-shaping then? Stay tuned.

Bronwen Ewens

Justice Dyson Heydon AC QC Are Bills of Rights Necessary in Common Law Jurisdictions?
Tuesday 21 August at 1:00 p.m., G08

Monday, August 6, 2012

[VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3]

found on someones newsfeed by Henry Hedinger

STAFF INTERVIEWS: GETTING TO KNOW PAMELA HANRAHAN

By this stage of semester two, Associate Professor Pamela Hanrahan, who teaches Corporations Law as well as Obligations, is known to at least half of the second-year JDs as well as a large number of first-years. She also teaches Financial Services Law in the Melbourne Law Masters. After attending Pamelas classes, students might guess that she is a person of many and diverse interests, and, as De Minimis journalists found, they would be guessing correctly. Pamela cant remember a time when she wasnt interested in the law. Both her parents, as well as a grandfather, were lawyers. Her parents efforts to talk her out of doing a law degree were in vain, and she combined her Arts (Hons) with an LLB when she began at Melbourne University. Her favourite subject was Succession, with Equity and Trusts as general favourites. I always wanted to be a barrister, but I found while doing my articles at Allens that I really enjoyed commercial law, so I stayed at Allens, off and on, for 15 years, she explains. After working in private practice, as a regulator and now as an academic, I cant imagine any other career than the law. But no -ones career follows the exact path they think it will, even if you do stay in the one field. For Pamela, the best thing about the law is that every day, theres something new and interesting to lear n. The more you know, the more you learn, because you start to see the connections between different areas of the law. That is endlessly interesting. If theres a downside, it would be that you have to stay in an office all day and adapt to office culture. An avid skier, Pamela is also a keen traveller and a voracious reader. At home, her vast book collection is sorted alphabetically (for fiction), and by the Dewey Decimal System (for non-fiction). She especially loves crime fiction and recommends Peter Temples books, including The Broken Shore and the Jack Irish series. Other favourites are Ransom by David Malouf, and Patrick OBrians novels. With her passion for books, she would like to establish a Law and Literature Club. She also loves travelling, and the more family members who tag along, the merrier. Pamela and her children have also lived overseas, while she worked at Cambridge, and she notes that this experience binds a family closely, because the kids are away from all their usual friends and activities. Another benefit to her six months at Cambridge was that her son learned to ski in the French Alps though this has not made him an expert on the slopes. If she could change one thing in todays world, Pamela would have free Wi-Fi everywhere, thus eliminating the need for telecommunications companies and their consumer contracts. As her students know, Pamela is a fan of Radio National and its Law Report. Listening to this show helps everything you learn in the law crystallise, till finally you feel like a lawyer. This is why I advise students to tune in. Students shouldnt worry if things take a while to come together. The law is hard, so if they find it difficult, thats normal! Hard does not mean insurmountable, and reading law-related fiction and listening to the Law Report will mean things jell faster. My other advice to students is that they should look after themselves and not forget to have fun these are useful skills in the legal working world as well. Bronwen Ewens and Chris Forder

2012 MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING GUIDEBOOK

GOOD VIBES!
Now taking submissions!

The Law Students Society is seeking pro-tips and tricks for handling the stresses and worries of law school. Contributions can be anything from a Top 10 TV shows to watch during study breaks to recipes for zen-inducing minestrone soup. Email the Editors, Bec and Ali, at lss-education@unimelb.edu.au with expressions of interest. Pieces should be around 500 words.

De Minimis

Monday, August 6, 2012

[VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3]

EXAMPLE COVER LETTER

L IS FOR...
London Olympics Yeah I know, pretty cutting edge a journalistic piece on the Olympics AGAINST THE GRAIN IS MY MIDDLE NAME, WORD. I should also note that I use the word journalistic in an ironic way, and I use the word ironic in an incorrect way, like when people just use it to say someone has done something poorly, like I wear a Herschel backpack, not because Im hipster but because Im being ironic. No, youre just shit.* This week Im fired up about the Olympics. Not because were under performing, not because some guy who Id never heard of a week ago is now letting me down and apparently Im deeply upset about it, and not because Im forced to watch advertisements for Channel 9 shows. Actually, now youve brought that up figurate audience, I will briefly respond to it; thank you for the question. Channel 9 is like the popular kid at school; people watch it and talk about it, but no one likes or respects it. The reason the Olympics is making me angry, is a result of the reportage (yep, law may have taught me words like caveat and insofar, but my undergraduate Arts taught me to put random suffixes on normal people words). Every time we get a silver medal, the journos ask how do you feel? where the tone implies gee you f***ed that up, show the camera how much of a disappointment you are. Australia has developed little man syndrome. Our international influence in more meaningful domains is so tenuous that we think gold medals will patch up our sense of insecurity; the Olympics is to Australia what Pokmon was to my adolescent self (though for the record, I had a sick Pokdex maybe Ill get the new version to play during Remedies). Heres the part where I tie it back to law school. Okay, here goes: This mentality is like law school because winning is equated with happiness, and recognition of achievement is the ruler against which happy-trons are measured. But we need to get some perspective! Even getting into the final at the Olympics is like getting into the JD; it is itself an awesome achievement, and one to be forever proud of. WORD. That wasnt bad, well done me now I am happy. In an effort to save the ratings of The Circle, Charles Hopkins and Andy Chislett will join the hosts; it will now be called The Venn Diagram. * its ironic because I wear a Herschel backpack.

***TIP: Keep Honest*** Dear Chantelle, I wish to apply for a clerkship at your commercial firm, which you will be pleased to know is one of my top 17 preferences. I hope to receive offers from many of your competitors, but I will accept an offer from your mid-to-bottom-tier firm with moderate pleasure should everything else fall through. Upon perusing my resume, you might assume based on my previous work with UNICEF, Victorian Legal Aid, various community legal centres, my local church and the RSPCA that I am interested in doing good in the world and helping others. Please rest assured this is patently untrue. I have had a strong interest in commercial law ever since I inherited 100 Telstra shares from my grandma in 1995. I have subsequently followed their business strategy closely, culminating most recently in my purchasing of a phone from them. My particular passion for equity capital markets developed in excess of 48 hours ago. I think that bringing the equitable notions of fairness and clean hands to capital markets is a great step forward, especially in light of the GFC. I am also well versed in this area of law, having been taught that Equity developed in the Court of Chancery in ten subjects in my JD thus far. My extensive relevant experience in the delicatessen at Coles for three years has taught me to shut off from mind-numbing grunt work, and made me accustomed to frequent menial demands from customers, certainly putting me in good stead for the analogous situation of being assigned tasks by the partners at your esteemed firm. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, John Smith

De Minimis

Monday, August 6, 2012

[VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3]

THIS WEEK IN LEGAL HISTORY

August 6, 2009 German High Court upholds sex education On this day in 2009, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany handed down decision upholding a law requiring mandatory sex education in all public primary schools. The plaintiffs, Baptist parents Willi and Anna Dojan, did not want their children to participate in sex education classes held for grade 4 pupils at their local primary school. Initially, they objected to the content in the textbook to be used during the classes namely, they considered some diagrams partly pornographic and contrary to Christian sexual ethics (i.e. abstaining from sexual intercourse until matrimony) and requested that their children be exempt from the classes. The school denied the request, stating that classes were mandatory for all students regardless of religious backgrounds or beliefs, pursuant to federal law. The Dojans subsequently kept their children at home in protest. They were issued with a fine of 75 euros each for not letting their children attend school. The Dojans joined with other religious parents in the district who refused to send their children to sex education classes, filing a suit of unconstitutionality by infringement of freedom of religion in the Paderborn District Court. The Court held that freedom of religion was not an absolute right, and was restricted by the States right to legislate with respect to education. In particular, it was wholly within the scope of the States mandate to provide educational services with a view to providing children with tools to find help in difficult situations, referring to the classes dealing with sexual assault and abuse. A subsequent appeal by the plaintiffs was also dismissed.

PROCRASTINATION STATION

Following this, the Federal Constitutional Court also rejected an application for leave to appeal. It underlined that the State had every right to pursue its own educational goals as long as it did so in a neutral and tolerant manner. Nonetheless, the parents continued to prevent their children from attending school, which ultimately resulted in an imprisonment sentence of 43 days. In a last ditch attempt, the plaintiffs complained to the European Court of Human Rights in 2011. In Dojan & Others v Germany, the Court unanimously declared the application inadmissible. Annie Zheng

ASK AGONY AUNT

Dear Agony Aunts I started the semester with the best of intentions, even reading ahead with a few of my subjects, and then my boyfriend of three years dumped me, and Im shattered. I dont want to be pathetic, but Im struggling, what can I do? Not another break-up story ___________________________________ Dear Not another break-up You may have had it sweet and lost it, or maybe youre better off. Either way, weve got to fight this battle on several fronts. First, and this is not the order I would personally square things away, but as a mature adult, go see the Wellbeing Coordinator. She can make uni more manageable and sort out what help you need, then lets get down to real business. This is where you have some sort of minor breakdown. The particulars are up to you, but there should probably be tears involved, at least some late nights telling your friends the same tired stories about your ex, and eating 3-4 times the recommended intake of sugar and salt in whatever foods you can. This therapeutic step can actually be repeated for a short period, or as long as theres no harm to your body, friends and grades. Then we approach getting your shit together. Start off slow, begin with just looking like you do. This should involve turning up to classes. Wear clothes that match and dont have stains that give away your new ice cream addiction. Attempt to brush your hair and wear actual shoes. Then build from there, hopefully exercise in some form now that youve re-entered the world. Engage in conversation that doesnt lead back to your ex. This will eventually lead you to the holy grail of actually getting your shit together. From what I can gather, people who have achieved this step take up bike riding, or yoga or something to signal your new enlightenment. Try to avoid lycra, it just mocks those beneath, or indeed behind you. Yours Sincerely Aunt Myrtle

De Minimis