Rhythmism.com

Key parts of a controversial immigration crackdown law in Arizona were struck down by a divided Supreme Court today, a 5-3 ruling sure to ripple across the political landscape in a presidential election year
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25...gration-cases/

Thoughts

Why is Jan Brewer declaring victory? The only part that was upheld was the part that you'd expect conservatives to find most onerous.

Roberts prevented a 4-4 decision by joining the majority to strike down the least controversial parts of the law. This gives him enough latitude to write the majority opinion striking down Obamacare, or at least the mandate part of it.

So you think Roberts traded his supreme court decisions in like chips? Damn dude, you're a pretty cynical guy.

Everyone knew which way Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would vote....no surprise there.

Ginsburg and Breyer voting to uphold the most controversial part of the law enabling law enforcement to check one's immigration status...that's a big win for state sovereignty

thats not how it works

no

Court got it right, imo. State can't force you to carry papers (abhorrant concept if you ask me), state can't make seeking work or working illegal conduct, state can't arrest without a warrant, state can ask for papers but can't racial profile (good luck putting that into action AZ!) and court will reserve on other questions re that aspect (sounds no so good for that).

If you ask me this basically put this law on its deathbed, but theres enough of an opening for everyone on all sides to claim victory or defeat. Hooray!

Any rounds of speculation on which conservative radio talk show host Woody is cribbing his opinions from?

one that thinks an opinion that strikes portions of the law on pure federalism reasoning is a 'victory for state sovereignty'



disclaimer time: I haven't read the opinion, I'm basing this on what i've heard about the opinion from a variety of sources

Thank you HoGP.

There are at least 5 other states waiting to implement their own immigration laws...keep it simple and stop picking on catchphrases made by non-lawyers. You know what's meant here.

right, this ruling means trouble for those states as well. they do have some differing language in their statutes, so its not 100% clear that the ruling will apply, but this ruling is extremely suggestive that large portions of those states laws are unconstitutional as well

why HoBP chose corporate law remains a strange and unsolved mystery.

i'm genuinely curious, was it just a product of your placement as a summer associate? some predetermined notion of what you'd be good at? you were born to litigate imo.

I wanted to more effectively leverage my business degree, plus I despise legal research. Digging through the books sucked, and the fact that there was no "stop, you've searched enough" sign to tell you theres no contrary case law out there you need to worry about, or that theres no relevant case law out there to answer the bullshit wild goose chase research that inevitability gets assigned (which I love doing to associates now, by the way, "there MUST be some case law out there that says a not-for-profit in New York City can engage in a non-profit maximizing transaction that is in furtherence of any chartible purpose, even if its not that entities particular chartible mission, go find it"), drove me absolutely nuts. I'd just keep searching and searching for ever, feeling totally paranoid that I had to have missed something.

If we'd had the benefit of todays high fangled legal research software back then, however, I suppose the decision may well have gone the other way.

everything mentioned here is a byproduct of how big firms approach their cases rather than the nature of the cases themselves.

kind of a shame that even the most able and talented attorneys are given a negative impression before they ever learn what actual litigation is really like.

and no one can be faulted for seeking employment at the big firms, it's the common sense play with a degree from a big shot law school.

mfw I realized the board is now 50% lawyers

also, I can't wait for machine-learning technologies like Watson to replace something like 80% of the lawyers in this country

computer geeks and lawyers.

what was it you do again?

i mean, i know it's something that boaboy is very proud of you for, but i have no idea what line of work it is.

i never fit in

He hires people through Boa Boy. That's the main line of work.

Sidenote I'm neither a computer geek nor a lawyer.

in your opinion

computer geek /obv

such a computer geek that I teach other geeks how to be bigger geeks

I'm pretty proud of my industry for finding a pathway for taking out a huge portion of the nation's lawyers though

FTFY

never going to happen. wanna know why? the best clients are those that try to lawyer an issue themselves without 'wasting money on attorneys'. the fuck-ups they create are highly lucrative.

and you wanna know why THAT is? bc our laws are written and administered by lawyers, so we aren't going to be searching for ways to change the system to render lawyers unnecessary

like in every other industry, the low level grunt work will go away -- document and diligence review, discovery, low level forms and filing, but most law firms have offloaded that work already. and i don't know a sole who sheds a tear for that work being gone, its unbearable to do and impossible to collect on

ftfy!

Or

Yes

Yes

No