No Fun November: Doctrine or Legal Fiction?

Every time I catch a glance of my Supreme Court Justice's swimsuit calendar, I am reminded that we are now fully entrenched in No Fun November.  We all know what everyone says, but the only thing that matters is the brocedural decision on whether No Fun November is enforceable doctrine or merely legal fiction.  Luckily for us, the Supreme Team granted this issue certiorari.

In re No Fun November
69 Bro. 2d 623 (2011)

CARBROZO, J.  The notion of No Fun November is an oft debated topic in law schools everywhere.  This national law school practice has been brought to our attention for deliberation and clarification.  We shall analyze the issue on its merits, while keeping in mind and attempting to conform with the fundamentals of Civil Brocedure.  The rule at issue would be FRCB 19: Failure to Join a Party.  Is is to be held that the requirements to join parties are to be waived during the month of November?  In this court's opinion, no.

    The indisputible facts are as follows:
          1) The month of November, the eleventh (11th) month of the year, directly precedes
          December, the twelfth (12th) and final month of the year.
          2) The month of December is home to the bane of a law student's existence, finals.
          3) Final exams are usually written analysis of hypothetical cases.
          4) Final exams require some knowledge of the subject and extensive preparation.

Unfortunately, you have to use all the letters in law exams.

     These exams fall outside the scope of the established FRCBs regarding test taking (i.e. Rule 88: Proper "Christmas Tree"-ing & Scantron Etiquette).  Furthermore, the brocedural staple regarding test taking (Rule 88 (b): The answer is C) is not applicable in the least to the issue at hand.  We must stress that actions of outlining and reviewing material are paramount to a law students success when undertaking the endeavor of a law school exam.

     Likewise, a bro is charged by privity of contract to perform to the best of their abilities in law school.  This relationship exists with the law school, whoever is footing the bill for law school, and with the student himself.  Not trying one's best is also in direct conflict with FRCB 283: Go Hard or Go Home.

     However, all bros have a higher duty to themselves and to the bromunnity at large.  It shall be noted that we all stress the importance of preparation and studying when addressing finals, but No Fun November is a drastic call for change in the habits of law school bros.  To strictly enforce such a doctrine would be to clip the wings of a bro's spirit.  In my opinion, undertaking in responsible amounts of raging would do wonders for a bro's morale and relaxation levels during what will be an surely stressful period of examinations.

You shouldn't be.

     Social ramifications of the waiving of the requirement to join parties would be grave.  If a bro were to abstain from normal brocedure for an entire month, the effects would be troubling for the economy and the community as a whole.  Neighborhood liquor stores would be overstocked with crappy beer, leaving no room on shelves for the craft beers with high profit margins.  Fast food and delivery chinese food services would lose a majority of their nocturnal sales.  Bar bouncers would have no one to kick out, making their nights less exciting and their work stories exponentially less interesting.  We can not let the community suffer because of a silly notion that there is no time for work and play.

     These events are not mutually exclusive.  I often will rely on non-legal sources as well for inspiration when considering extremely challenging issues.  The court's belief regarding the issue can be summarized most succinctly by the words of novelist and mentally/emotionally disturbed bro Stephen King's The Shining, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull b[ro]...".

----

BRONNAN, J., dissenting.  One should always put studying before partying.  Those events are clearly mutually exclusive.  You can't study whilst you rage, its physically impossible.  In wake of that fact, I must respectfully dissent with Carbrozo.

Brosner, on the decision: "It is evident that while most legal practice lends itself in support of the notion of strict observance of No Fun November, Carbrozo relies mostly on policy reasons and outside-the-box thinking when coming to a decision on the matter.  He comes to the conclusion that the benefits to society and the duties bros have to the brommunity at large outweigh the bitchmade tactics of staying in and studying seven nights a week.  Naturally, Bronnan felt the urge to insert his two sense and did so by arguing a strictly contrarian point with no real rhyme or reason to support his opinion."