Justice Holmes' frequently quoted aphorism "a page of history is worth a volume of logic" notwithstanding, it would be awesome if I could use logic and common sense a little more, especially in a closed-packet* context.
I've been warned against "deciding what makes sense and making the common law say that" and I'm trying not to. Also, I have an awesome argument that has to do with the subject of the case at bar that I don't think I can use at all because the common law has a different subject. (I'm being evasive here on purpose as I don't want to do anything that could be construed as an honor code violation. If you're at all curious, ask me about this in 72 hours and I can fill you in after the paper is turned in.)
Not a request for help, I can assure you. Just a rant. I'm sure there are ways to sneak my own logic in, I just haven't figured it out yet. I'm sure I will get there with practice. (Pun ignored.)
*We give you the cases you're using and you're not allowed to use any other ones.
Ps. One of the scarier impacts of law school is that I find myself growing a little bit fond of Justice Scalia because honestly, nobody writes a wiseass dissent like that guy.
Luckily, it's easy to sober oneself up.