Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.

Next JS2 wave(s) will be...

Monday 3/27
2
2%
Tuesday 3/28
18
17%
Wednesday 3/29
35
33%
Thursday 3/30
13
12%
Friday 3/31
29
27%
Saturday 4/1
10
9%
 
Total votes: 107

VA2lawschool

Bronze
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:52 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby VA2lawschool » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:04 pm

canafsa wrote:
Instrumental wrote:Gorsuch's resume is ridiculous.


Awesome pick all in all.


We will have to agree to disagree, but I imagine we are on different sides of the aisle. I am thankful we aren't dealing with Pryor, however.

User avatar
unrelated

Bronze
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:05 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby unrelated » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:05 pm

VA2lawschool wrote:
canafsa wrote:
Instrumental wrote:Gorsuch's resume is ridiculous.


Awesome pick all in all.


We will have to agree to disagree, but I imagine we are on different sides of the aisle. I am thankful we aren't dealing with Pryor, however.


Was hoping for Peter Thiel tbh

canafsa

Bronze
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby canafsa » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:06 pm

.
Last edited by canafsa on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
unrelated

Bronze
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:05 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby unrelated » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:12 pm

canafsa wrote:
unrelated wrote:
VA2lawschool wrote:
canafsa wrote:
Instrumental wrote:Gorsuch's resume is ridiculous.


Awesome pick all in all.


We will have to agree to disagree, but I imagine we are on different sides of the aisle. I am thankful we aren't dealing with Pryor, however.


Was hoping for Peter Thiel tbh


Ha, he'd have melted some minds (and would never be confirmed).


Pour one out for Merrick

canafsa

Bronze
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby canafsa » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:13 pm

.
Last edited by canafsa on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

goldenbear2020

Silver
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:47 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby goldenbear2020 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:57 am

canafsa wrote:
unrelated wrote:
canafsa wrote:
unrelated wrote:
VA2lawschool wrote:
canafsa wrote:
Instrumental wrote:Gorsuch's resume is ridiculous.


Awesome pick all in all.


We will have to agree to disagree, but I imagine we are on different sides of the aisle. I am thankful we aren't dealing with Pryor, however.


Was hoping for Peter Thiel tbh


Ha, he'd have melted some minds (and would never be confirmed).


Pour one out for Merrick


Who?

Garland, Obama's stonewalled SCOTUS pick

illini2016

New
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:17 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby illini2016 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:59 am

canafsa wrote:
unrelated wrote:
canafsa wrote:
unrelated wrote:
VA2lawschool wrote:
canafsa wrote:
Instrumental wrote:Gorsuch's resume is ridiculous.


Awesome pick all in all.


We will have to agree to disagree, but I imagine we are on different sides of the aisle. I am thankful we aren't dealing with Pryor, however.


Was hoping for Peter Thiel tbh


Ha, he'd have melted some minds (and would never be confirmed).


Pour one out for Merrick


Who?


Her?

User avatar
Helioze

Bronze
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 5:10 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby Helioze » Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:35 am

Who'se hidin all the JS1's around here?

Can I still blame Obama or should I direct my anger towards Trump?

KatCoco

New
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:49 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby KatCoco » Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:36 am

illini2016 wrote:
Her?


Excellent reference :lol:

canafsa

Bronze
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby canafsa » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:47 am

.
Last edited by canafsa on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
pretzeltime

Gold
Posts: 1993
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby pretzeltime » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:11 am

Glad to see some super mature jurisprudential discourse in this H thread

saf18hornet

Bronze
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:21 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby saf18hornet » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:38 am

xnsch wrote:
blahblah123 wrote:
unrelated wrote:
xnsch wrote:Wow that was incredibly thoughtful. Got a package today from HLS that contained a book on the modern history of same-sex marriage litigation in the U.S. along with a note from the author (HLS professor) on the title page. I wrote about how being gay had given me an interest in civil rights battles in the courts and thought this was an incredibly nice and personal gesture and it's nice to know they really do care about the content of our applications :)


I think you have to enroll now.


+1 on this idea. I come from a country that is affected by the recent Muslim ban, and I received a phone call from JS herself asking me how things are going and if HLS could be of assistance in any way. Super impressed.


Wow that's incredibly thoughtful. Hope you and your family are doing okay. I've got family in an affected country as well and it's a tough time


Homeland security is still letting 1000+ folks through each week, so likely it won't affect many people at all!

User avatar
forum_user

Silver
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:40 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby forum_user » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:54 am

Homeland security is still letting 1000+ folks through each week, so likely it won't affect many people at all!

Even if that's the case, there are still thousands and thousands of people who are still affected by the ban. Beyond family members and friends of individuals directly impacted, the message is that immigrants, particularly Muslims, are a) presumptive terrorists and b) not welcome. That sentiment is bound to have far-reaching consequences even if you're not being detained or barred from your home.

Beyond that, the propaganda value for actual terrorists is immense. This is literally the narrative they've been working with for 20 years -- that America is hostile to Islam -- and it's finally come true. In the long term this will have disastrous consequences for far too many people. It's not making our country safer at all.

Sorry, don't mean to single you out, but this just pisses me off on every level imaginable because yes, it will affect many, many more people than we can imagine.

User avatar
notorious_mig

Bronze
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby notorious_mig » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:56 am

saf18hornet wrote:
xnsch wrote:
blahblah123 wrote:
unrelated wrote:
xnsch wrote:Wow that was incredibly thoughtful. Got a package today from HLS that contained a book on the modern history of same-sex marriage litigation in the U.S. along with a note from the author (HLS professor) on the title page. I wrote about how being gay had given me an interest in civil rights battles in the courts and thought this was an incredibly nice and personal gesture and it's nice to know they really do care about the content of our applications :)


I think you have to enroll now.


+1 on this idea. I come from a country that is affected by the recent Muslim ban, and I received a phone call from JS herself asking me how things are going and if HLS could be of assistance in any way. Super impressed.


Wow that's incredibly thoughtful. Hope you and your family are doing okay. I've got family in an affected country as well and it's a tough time


Homeland security is still letting 1000+ folks through each week, so likely it won't affect many people at all!


While that's awesome that 1000+ people are getting through each week, unfortunately, that's not so much the issue here, since (of course) those 1000+ people aren't being barred from getting back to their homes in the United States. The pressing issue here is for the people who aren't getting through due to what appears to be an overreach of executive authority, regardless of whether it's "only" 100 or so people who can't get back home to the US. Think of it this way: if you have one really bad cavity but your other 31 teeth are totally healthy, that's awesome that the vast majority of your teeth are doing fine, but you're not going to care so much about the 31 healthy teeth as you are the cavity because the cavity is presenting an urgent issue.

User avatar
texteach

Bronze
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:49 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby texteach » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:00 am

.
Last edited by texteach on Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

VA2lawschool

Bronze
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:52 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby VA2lawschool » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:00 am

texteach wrote:
forum_user wrote:

Beyond that, the propaganda value for actual terrorists is immense. This is literally the narrative they've been working with for 20 years -- that America is hostile to Islam -- and it's finally come true. In the long term this will have disastrous consequences for far too many people. It's not making our country safer at all.


This. 100%


+10000000

illini2016

New
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:17 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby illini2016 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:03 am

VA2lawschool wrote:
texteach wrote:
forum_user wrote:

Beyond that, the propaganda value for actual terrorists is immense. This is literally the narrative they've been working with for 20 years -- that America is hostile to Islam -- and it's finally come true. In the long term this will have disastrous consequences for far too many people. It's not making our country safer at all.


This. 100%


+10000000

+100000000000000.

We had a good run, man. 250 years is a strong showing.

User avatar
notorious_mig

Bronze
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby notorious_mig » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:08 am

forum_user wrote:
Homeland security is still letting 1000+ folks through each week, so likely it won't affect many people at all!

Even if that's the case, there are still thousands and thousands of people who are still affected by the ban. Beyond family members and friends of individuals directly impacted, the message is that immigrants, particularly Muslims, are a) presumptive terrorists and b) not welcome. That sentiment is bound to have far-reaching consequences even if you're not being detained or barred from your home.

Beyond that, the propaganda value for actual terrorists is immense. This is literally the narrative they've been working with for 20 years -- that America is hostile to Islam -- and it's finally come true. In the long term this will have disastrous consequences for far too many people. It's not making our country safer at all.

Sorry, don't mean to single you out, but this just pisses me off on every level imaginable because yes, it will affect many, many more people than we can imagine.


Ok first of all AMEN to all of this. Very very beautifully put and I couldn't agree more. Second of all, even if we completely remove the elements of Islamophobia and xenophobia at play here, just from a legal standpoint this EO is unconstitutional. Treating it like a law (since it carries the same weight as a law, just without congressional approval) and applying the MOST LAX standard for constitutionality (rational basis test), the EO does not provide a rational relation between this ban and the alleged legitimate government interest of preventing terrorism. More terrorism has been committed since 9/11 by white supremacists than by foreign terrorists in the US (http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extr ... dangerous/). I think I read that in 2015 more Americans were killed by toddlers than by foreign terrorists. So this would be akin to banning flights from, say, New York to Charlotte with the ~legitimate government interest~ of preventing crash landings.

That's my (probably really incoherent) two cents on this

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1429
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:15 am

notorious_mig wrote:
saf18hornet wrote:
xnsch wrote:
blahblah123 wrote:
unrelated wrote:
xnsch wrote:Wow that was incredibly thoughtful. Got a package today from HLS that contained a book on the modern history of same-sex marriage litigation in the U.S. along with a note from the author (HLS professor) on the title page. I wrote about how being gay had given me an interest in civil rights battles in the courts and thought this was an incredibly nice and personal gesture and it's nice to know they really do care about the content of our applications :)


I think you have to enroll now.


+1 on this idea. I come from a country that is affected by the recent Muslim ban, and I received a phone call from JS herself asking me how things are going and if HLS could be of assistance in any way. Super impressed.


Wow that's incredibly thoughtful. Hope you and your family are doing okay. I've got family in an affected country as well and it's a tough time


Homeland security is still letting 1000+ folks through each week, so likely it won't affect many people at all!


While that's awesome that 1000+ people are getting through each week, unfortunately, that's not so much the issue here, since (of course) those 1000+ people aren't being barred from getting back to their homes in the United States. The pressing issue here is for the people who aren't getting through due to what appears to be an overreach of executive authority, regardless of whether it's "only" 100 or so people who can't get back home to the US. Think of it this way: if you have one really bad cavity but your other 31 teeth are totally healthy, that's awesome that the vast majority of your teeth are doing fine, but you're not going to care so much about the 31 healthy teeth as you are the cavity because the cavity is presenting an urgent issue.


So you see, that's the thing - it literally isn't an overreach of executive authority. Whether or not we like it, doesn't change the fact that he has precedent to do this. If you want more on it, just read Eric Posner's opinion pieces (I say that because I trust the 4th most cited legal scholar's opinion more than my own)

dhbiv

Bronze
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby dhbiv » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:21 am

.
Last edited by dhbiv on Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
pretzeltime

Gold
Posts: 1993
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby pretzeltime » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:27 am

I think the legality of this EO is up for debate (and citing one prominent scholar neither proves nor denies that it is legal, the courts will decide that)

And I also think that approximately 0 minds will be changed on this applicants thread in either direction, whether about SCOTUS or Trump or whatever.

So maybe we should all agree to fight about this when we're 7 beers deep at Bar Review, k?

User avatar
notorious_mig

Bronze
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby notorious_mig » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:30 am

mrgstephe wrote:
notorious_mig wrote:
saf18hornet wrote:
xnsch wrote:
blahblah123 wrote:
unrelated wrote:
xnsch wrote:Wow that was incredibly thoughtful. Got a package today from HLS that contained a book on the modern history of same-sex marriage litigation in the U.S. along with a note from the author (HLS professor) on the title page. I wrote about how being gay had given me an interest in civil rights battles in the courts and thought this was an incredibly nice and personal gesture and it's nice to know they really do care about the content of our applications :)


I think you have to enroll now.


+1 on this idea. I come from a country that is affected by the recent Muslim ban, and I received a phone call from JS herself asking me how things are going and if HLS could be of assistance in any way. Super impressed.


Wow that's incredibly thoughtful. Hope you and your family are doing okay. I've got family in an affected country as well and it's a tough time


Homeland security is still letting 1000+ folks through each week, so likely it won't affect many people at all!


While that's awesome that 1000+ people are getting through each week, unfortunately, that's not so much the issue here, since (of course) those 1000+ people aren't being barred from getting back to their homes in the United States. The pressing issue here is for the people who aren't getting through due to what appears to be an overreach of executive authority, regardless of whether it's "only" 100 or so people who can't get back home to the US. Think of it this way: if you have one really bad cavity but your other 31 teeth are totally healthy, that's awesome that the vast majority of your teeth are doing fine, but you're not going to care so much about the 31 healthy teeth as you are the cavity because the cavity is presenting an urgent issue.


So you see, that's the thing - it literally isn't an overreach of executive authority. Whether or not we like it, doesn't change the fact that he has precedent to do this. If you want more on it, just read Eric Posner's opinion pieces (I say that because I trust the 4th most cited legal scholar's opinion more than my own)


Ahh my understanding (read: perhaps wishful thinking) was that it would be considered an overreach on similar grounds that the Fifth Circuit found Obama's DAPA program to be an overreach (US v Texas), in that the process of screening so many immigrants has got to be costly, in terms of labor, background checks, etc. At the very least, if we're going to make the argument that providing drivers' licenses to immigrants without legal status is costly enough to make DAPA an executive overreach (as the Fifth Circuit did), I think we can at least keep the argument on the table that the introduction of this extreme screening is costly enough to make Trump's EO an executive overreach.

Anyways, I'll have to check out the Eric Posner opinions. Sigh. I know I'm just being paranoid but this has got me really worried about my dad (who is an immigrant but not from one of the banned countries), who's coming to visit me in Mexico.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1429
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:30 am

pretzeltime wrote:I think the legality of this EO is up for debate (and citing one prominent scholar neither proves nor denies that it is legal, the courts will decide that)

And I also think that approximately 0 minds will be changed on this applicants thread in either direction, whether about SCOTUS or Trump or whatever.

So maybe we should all agree to fight about this when we're 7 beers deep at Bar Review, k?


I agree that no one's mind will be changed, but as aspiring members of the legal community, it seems pretty irresponsible to be tossing around claims 'unconstitutionality' and 'apparent overreaches of executive authority' because of an emotional/moral disagreement with EOs.

There is undisputed legal precedent, and that's the fact. We don't have to like it, but claiming something to the contrary is just silly.

At very best, it is *possibly* questionable - not straight up unconstitutional.

http://ericposner.com/is-an-immigration ... itutional/

User avatar
notorious_mig

Bronze
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby notorious_mig » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:31 am

dhbiv wrote:
mrgstephe wrote:
notorious_mig wrote:
saf18hornet wrote:
Homeland security is still letting 1000+ folks through each week, so likely it won't affect many people at all!


While that's awesome that 1000+ people are getting through each week, unfortunately, that's not so much the issue here, since (of course) those 1000+ people aren't being barred from getting back to their homes in the United States. The pressing issue here is for the people who aren't getting through due to what appears to be an overreach of executive authority, regardless of whether it's "only" 100 or so people who can't get back home to the US. Think of it this way: if you have one really bad cavity but your other 31 teeth are totally healthy, that's awesome that the vast majority of your teeth are doing fine, but you're not going to care so much about the 31 healthy teeth as you are the cavity because the cavity is presenting an urgent issue.


So you see, that's the thing - it literally isn't an overreach of executive authority. Whether or not we like it, doesn't change the fact that he has precedent to do this. If you want more on it, just read Eric Posner's opinion pieces (I say that because I trust the 4th most cited legal scholar's opinion more than my own)



This. There is a huge difference between something being good/bad policy and something being lawful/unlawful.


Oh yeah no I just think this particular EO is both haha (see my response above)

User avatar
notorious_mig

Bronze
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby notorious_mig » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:34 am

mrgstephe wrote:
pretzeltime wrote:I think the legality of this EO is up for debate (and citing one prominent scholar neither proves nor denies that it is legal, the courts will decide that)

And I also think that approximately 0 minds will be changed on this applicants thread in either direction, whether about SCOTUS or Trump or whatever.

So maybe we should all agree to fight about this when we're 7 beers deep at Bar Review, k?


I agree that no one's mind will be changed, but as aspiring members of the legal community, it seems pretty irresponsible to be tossing around claims 'unconstitutionality' and 'apparent overreaches of executive authority' because of an emotional/moral disagreement with EOs.

There is undisputed legal precedent, and that's the fact. We don't have to like it, but claiming something to the contrary is just silly.

At very best, it is *possibly* questionable - not straight up unconstitutional.

http://ericposner.com/is-an-immigration ... itutional/



Thanks for including the Eric Posner link, I'm gonna check it out. But please also note that I did respond to your previous post not strictly with emotional/moral disagreement but with precedent, US v Texas. I'm with you that as aspiring members of the legal community we've got to make legal arguments rather than emotional/moral ones, and I'm pretty certain I did that in response to your post above.



Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests