By 5 p.m. tommorrow we have to hand in an outline and source list for our law review notes. My most promising idea so far:
A 50-page essay arguing that the Dred Scott decision was in fact a parody, and that, if read with an ear for the sarcasm that was surely intended by Chief Justice Taney, the much maligned decision is in fact a scorching indictment of the institution of slavery and the Constitution itself. A close reading of the text would suggest that a greater use of italics (along with a few sarcastic footnotes, such as "And if you believe that, I've got some Low-Carb Ginger Beer I'd like to sell you") could have more effectively communicated Taney's true feelings in the case, and perhaps saved a bit of trouble on the part of, well, everybody. And though it would not be within the scope of this particular piece, I would suggest that the same irony detector could be used to salvage the likes of Korematsu, Lochner, and Gigli.
I don't know if the editorial board will go for it, but it's worth a try.