Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Evolve

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12
Sorry for invading the law student board as a lowly prelaw student, but I had a question that needed some law student help. I'm trying to decide between several schools regarding where I'll attend next year. I'm leaning heavily towards Rutgers at this point, but its my understanding that they do not rank their students and instead just assign grades. Now, I am not going to go anywhere with the plan to transfer elsewhere and am more than aware of the folly in that kind of thinking. However, the ability to transfer if I don't like a place or if I do exceptionally well is an option I want to keep open. That being said, would going to Rutgers (or any other school with a non-ranking policy) hinder that ability or would the grades received instead substitute for the rank in some manner?

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« on: August 10, 2006, 02:00:14 AM »
As always Dershowitz is spot on. As much as it pains me, all the rhetoric we've been spouting about terrorism and guerrilla warfare in Iraq actually apply in spades to Israel. Its painful to me that the so many people and nations can't see it this way.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: U tube hall of fame
« on: August 07, 2006, 11:14:26 AM »

First off, thats not YouTube. Second, GO BIG RED:

Dammit, you're right.  I really have to stop LSDing when I'm sick.   :D

I understand, high fever and vomitting have often been associated with preferring the 'Canes over the Huskers. ;)

General Off-Topic Board / Re: U tube hall of fame
« on: August 07, 2006, 02:03:35 AM »
Ok, I realize I'm pretty much the only 'Cane here, but I just watched this about an hour ago and it is currently my favorite you tube video.   ;D

First off, thats not YouTube. Second, GO BIG RED:

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Rutgers-Newark vs. Drexel
« on: July 24, 2006, 10:21:43 AM »
I ended up choosing RU-N. While I was really impressed by Drexel in a lot of ways, I didn't feel comfortable pinning myself in there. I'm not from the east coast so one of my major concerns was my ability to transfer my credits to another law school if I wasn't happy out there. I don't necessarily mean transferring up either, just that if it turns out the east isn't for me I'd like to have not completely wasted my time and money. Also, the areas of Drexel's focus didn't really appeal to me and I liked my post-degree prospects a little more at Rutgers. Ultimately, I think I preferred Drexel because of thier location, their novelty, and their enthusiasm. However, I decided that those probably weren't the best reasons for me to choose a law school.
I'd also like to thank everyone for their input on this subject. You gave me a lot to think about and helped me to mull out the thoughts I was having on my own. That all aided in making my decision.


I don't believe DTA referenced "new" cases in any way, and as far as the intent of Congress, you know that the conservative jurists really won't care (as a strict constructionist, if DTA doesn't say "new cases" then it doesn't mean "new cases").  This is where Alito and Scalia would likely bump heads (though probably coming to the same conclusion regarding the meaning of statute): Alito is much more likely to use legislative history (and the perceived intention of Congress) than Scalia (see this terms U.S. v. Zedner in which the two duke it out over this idea).

Not explicitly, no. Section 1005(h)(2) states "REVIEW OF COMBATANT STATUS TRIBUNAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS- Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (e) shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is governed by one of such paragraphs and that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.". The paragraphs it is referring to hear are the ones that limit the Court's jurisdiction over these cases. Basically, the Act is saying that any claim for reviewing combatant status (which is at the heart of any habeus corpus request or demands for PoW/Geneva rights) after the Act is passed can not be heard by the Court, hence my saying no new cases. The Court in this case, however, judged Hamdan to be pending before the Act was passed. Therefore, it had jurisdiction and therefore it could rule against the military tribunals and, I'm sure by no coincidence, against DTA restriction of judicial power.


I see your point.  I would, however, interpret this as saying that Congress can assign original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court by statute, not that it can strip a court of any and all jurisdiction on a particular issue.  If Congress can strip the Supreme Court, or other courts for that matter, from any jurisdiction, doesn't this completely negate the judicial check on the legislature?

Actually, it states that the Court's appellate jurisdiction is at the mercy of Congress, but its original jurisdiction in beyond Congress. Historically though, the Court does not take kindly to Congress limiting its powers and, as a result, usually finds a way to moot such laws.

The sad part is the mental gymnastics one has to go to in order to even find that SCOTUS has jurisdiction in this case.  DTA and Article III should've forbidden them from hearing this case at all.

I agree, but so goes many of the Court's decisions. In all fairness it isn't that big of a stretch. The DTA simply stated that the Court couldn't hear new cases concerning military tribunals. The Court then just decided that since Hamdan was appealing for a writ of habeus corpus that his case was pending. Whether or not that was the intention of Congress is highly debatable (I think its clear that Congress meant to keep SCOTUS from hearing any more cases regarding Bush's military tribunals), but the reasoning of the Court in hearing the case isn't that convuluted.

Not if he asks immediately...if he shuts down Guantanamo, moves the prisoners there elsewhere, holds on to them until after the elections, and then asks, he might get it.

That would be a major risk for him politically. First of all, the legal implications of this trial are not isolated to Guantanamo Bay. The thrust of this case revolves around the "enemy combatant" status the DoD has been doling out as a reason to deny PoW rights and dodge the Geneva Convention. Simply moving them out of Gitmo won't rectify the problems the Court has found. Second, moving them and holding them until after elections would run him past the Detainee Treatment Act time table for reviewing and reporting "enemy combatants" putting his administration into further legal trouble than its been in thus far. At that point he would be directly violating a law passed by Congress that he pushed for. Finally, doing so would act contrary to the Court's decisions in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Rumsfeld which found that the sort of indefinate holding of detainees without fair trial was unconstitutional. I suppose a case could be made for a new time table being needed because of the Hamdan decision, but I doubt the Court would buy it.

What I think is more likely is that Bush will shut down Gitmo and release most of its prisoners back to their own countries for trial or release there. Of course, the real baddies will move into the federal court system and be tried there. On a side note, does anyone else find it interesting that Bush distinguishes between the real terrible guys locked up at Gitmo and the rest. I mean, if there's such an obvious difference who are these others we're holding and why? Oh yeah, the Court ruled on that too didn't it.

im currently wading through SCOTUSblog atthe moment. yayyy. remember that he can still go back and ask congress for the proper authority, etc. but i doubt they'd give it.
True, but that's already happened once before and it resulted in the Detainee Treatment Act. The DTA addressed the Court's concerns with Gitmo, at that time, pretty much to the letter. Yet, here we are today watching them find for Hamdan. Bush was even quoted earlier this week saying he was considering shutting down Gitmo pending the results of this case. I highly doubt he'll go back to Congress for new authority yet again and expect the result to be any different. To that end, even if he believed it might work this time I  simply don't think he has the political capital to push something like that through without a major victory  in the midterm elections.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12