CHOOSE TWO of the four questions below to answer. Do not answer all four questions. Each answer is worth 50% for a total of 100%. There is no minimum or maximum, but I would expect each answer to be in the range of 200-400 words. The final exam is timed, cumulative, and open book. You have two hours (120 minutes) to complete the exam after you begin (DSS accommodations excepted). Students who submitted to me a DSS letter for accommodation (e.g., extended time) will have their accommodations reflected in Blackboard. Completing the exam with other students is strictly prohibited. You must not communicate with another student about the content of the exam until after you have both submitted your answers. Fictional ″character″ names in the questions are completely arbitrary. Make no assumptions about ethnic, racial, or national origins based on character names. However, your answers must make frequent use of the character names while demonstrating command of the assigned material. Cite authors by name as often as possible and whenever you reference their ideas. Citing page numbers is always helpful, but unnecessary, except for direct quotations, which must be followed by page numbers. Students who use verbatim quotations without quotation marks and page citations may fail the exam. Direct quotations of twelve or fewer words, in quotation marks and including page citations, are acceptable but not expected or necessary. Do not cite, quote, paraphrase, or reference any unassigned sources. No credit will be given for references to unassigned sources. QUESTION 1 Raza, Tom, and Irene are arguing about adjudication in common-law cases (i.e., cases in the main areas of private law, including tort, contract, and property, in which the major legal standards and doctrines have been created and refined by judges over centuries). Irene is a follower of Ronald Dworkin. Demonstrate your comprehension of the lectures and assigned excerpts from Dworkin’s “The Model of Rules” and/or Law’s Empire by continuing a dialog that begins as follows: Raza: The judge should just stick to the rules announced and followed by previous courts. If she applies those rules correctly, she’ll always reach the right verdict. Tom: Not always. In some cases, reasonable legal experts could disagree about what verdict the rules require. In other cases, the rules require verdicts that seem unjust. In cases of these two types, the judge should follow her own conscience, even if she has to ignore the law to do so. Irene: You’re both partly right and partly wrong. The law includes principles and policies, not just rules. Here’s what I mean and why it matters . . . [The lines of dialog above aren’t included in your word count. Raza and Tom should pose questions to Irene after Irene explains herself. Irene should reply.] QUESTION 2 Imagine a dialog between Ronald Dworkin and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (author of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger) on the constitutionality of affirmative action practices in public higher education. Constitutional questions arise concerning both admissions processes (the steps that admissions officers follow when evaluating applicants) and institutional rationales (the reasons the institution gives for practicing affirmative action). Consider both processes and rationales. Use the format from Question 1. QUESTION 3 Zach has a three-year-old daughter, Verna, conceived during a one-time sexual encounter. Zach has never met Verna and has no relationship with Verna’s mother. Tragically, Verna’s liver is failing. Verna will die in a few months unless she receives a liver transplant. Zach is a compatible liver donor. In fact, because of Verna’s rare compatibility markers, a donation from Zach is Verna’s only realistic chance for survival. The donation surgery poses only negligible risk and discomfort to Zach. However, no state or federal law requires Zach to donate a liver to anyone, even his biological daughter, if he does not wish to do so. Demonstrate your comprehension of Donald H. Regan’s article by explaining how Regan might use Zach’s case to present his argument for abortion rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
