SSC v. Fed Mag Forum

[username5101520]

Habeas petitions may be sort of “de facto” appeals in a literal kind of way, but that doesn’t make handling them particularly like handling actual appeals, and it doesn’t change the value of a mag clerkship in relation to a SSC by making the mag clerkship into some pseudo-appellate experience.

I agree that both have value and that which one a person should do depends on the judges in question, the jdx, and that person’s goals. But trying to sell habeas work as analogous to state Supreme Court appeals isn’t very convincing.

(Re: recruitment by biglaw - I think that’s very very jdx specific. I did a DCt clerkship outside the major coastal hubs and there was very very little recruitment, but from the way you’ve framed this DCt would definitely be more prestigious than mag. So I’m not sure biglaw direct recruitment is a simple measure of value here.)

I'm glad you agree with me now that it's a de facto appeal in a literal way. Where did I say MJ clerking was a pseudo-appellate experience?

Yes, I'm at one of CDCA/NDCA/EDNY/DE (trying to keep it vague). Your experience is very interesting. That honestly may disprove my hypothesis, and, instead, prove that the geography factor is more powerful than I've thought.

I didn’t not agree with you before - I hadn’t weighed in before the post above. And I guess I don’t know why you’d talk about habeas work as a kind of appeal without trying to sell the mag clerkship as in some way pseudo-appellate.

Looking back at your original post, I don’t really agree that because mag clerks handle habeas work, that makes them “higher up the chain” than SSC clerks. They’re 2 different chains. Criminal defendants may jump from one to the other but that’s not really the same thing.

Yes you did. You attacked me personally by saying "you don't understand habeas well enough to be reviewing habeas petitions."

Why do you see it as two different chains?

Um, I didn’t say that. You get that multiple different people can post as “Anonymous User” here, right? (To be clearer, when I said “post above,” I meant the one you were quoting.)

And I see them as two separate chains because state law and federal law are separate creatures.

I understand that. Seems like very similar language, but ok, I believe you.

When you say "state law and federal law are separate creatures," what do you mean?

[Anonymous User]

Look, I’m posting anon because I was discussing my own clerkship experience, but believe me, if I’d said “you don’t understand habeas etc” I’d stand by it - there’s absolutely no reason to post that anonymously and then disavow saying it in another anonymous post.

And I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures. Do you think they’re not? They operate largely independently of each other. There are places of overlap, of course, like a state criminal defendant being able to raise a habeas claim in federal court, and state law can’t violate the federal constitution, but otherwise they’re independent entities. The feds can’t make state law and the states can’t make federal law. For instance, why would federal courts ever certify legal questions about state law to the state supreme court if they could just decide it all themselves? In practice, they’re not conceptually different in the same way that common law and civil law are, but they’re still different systems that operate differently in a lot of ways, and often with different sets of players.

[Anonymous User]

Why do threads always devolve into this kind of thing lmao

[username5101520]

Look, I’m posting anon because I was discussing my own clerkship experience, but believe me, if I’d said “you don’t understand habeas etc” I’d stand by it - there’s absolutely no reason to post that anonymously and then disavow saying it in another anonymous post.

And I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures. Do you think they’re not? They operate largely independently of each other. There are places of overlap, of course, like a state criminal defendant being able to raise a habeas claim in federal court, and state law can’t violate the federal constitution, but otherwise they’re independent entities. The feds can’t make state law and the states can’t make federal law. For instance, why would federal courts ever certify legal questions about state law to the state supreme court if they could just decide it all themselves? In practice, they’re not conceptually different in the same way that common law and civil law are, but they’re still different systems that operate differently in a lot of ways, and often with different sets of players.

Re the comment fair enough, and I think there's no reason to post it...anonymously or otherwise. Law school should've taught people to disagree and make their points without crossing the line into insults. Taking your word for it that you and that commenter are different people, thank you for doing just that (making your point without being insulting). I respect that.

Regarding your point: my question isn't why you call them "separate creatures," but what you mean by "separate creatures." That's a bit of a vague and informal term, which is fine because we're discussing informally on the internet, but I want to understand, with more precision, what you mean before I agree or disagree.

[Anonymous User]

Look, I’m posting anon because I was discussing my own clerkship experience, but believe me, if I’d said “you don’t understand habeas etc” I’d stand by it - there’s absolutely no reason to post that anonymously and then disavow saying it in another anonymous post.

And I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures. Do you think they’re not? They operate largely independently of each other. There are places of overlap, of course, like a state criminal defendant being able to raise a habeas claim in federal court, and state law can’t violate the federal constitution, but otherwise they’re independent entities. The feds can’t make state law and the states can’t make federal law. For instance, why would federal courts ever certify legal questions about state law to the state supreme court if they could just decide it all themselves? In practice, they’re not conceptually different in the same way that common law and civil law are, but they’re still different systems that operate differently in a lot of ways, and often with different sets of players.

Re the comment fair enough.

My question isn't why you call them "separate creatures," but what you mean by "separate creatures." That's a bit of a vague and informal term, which is fine because we're discussing informally on the internet, but I want to understand, with more precision, what you mean before I agree or disagree.

I just answered what I mean by saying they’re separate creatures. With regard to this discussion, I also mean there isn’t “one chain” that SSC and mag clerks are working in - there are two. I don’t think it makes sense to think of one of those as above/below the other because they’re operating in different spheres.

[Anonymous User]

Interesting thread and a lot of great thoughts. I think the value of a MJ clerkship also depends on the district you are in. In some districts MJs have a high consent rate and act as semi-DJs. Also some SSCs have more "prestige" than others (e.g. NJ SSC vs. NY SSC). I think MJ clerkships are also a great stepping stone for someone who eventually wants a DJ clerkship and may not have been competitive initially. I say all this as someone who has not done a MJ clerkship but clerked for two different DJs in two different districts.

[username5101520]

Look, I’m posting anon because I was discussing my own clerkship experience, but believe me, if I’d said “you don’t understand habeas etc” I’d stand by it - there’s absolutely no reason to post that anonymously and then disavow saying it in another anonymous post.

And I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures. Do you think they’re not? They operate largely independently of each other. There are places of overlap, of course, like a state criminal defendant being able to raise a habeas claim in federal court, and state law can’t violate the federal constitution, but otherwise they’re independent entities. The feds can’t make state law and the states can’t make federal law. For instance, why would federal courts ever certify legal questions about state law to the state supreme court if they could just decide it all themselves? In practice, they’re not conceptually different in the same way that common law and civil law are, but they’re still different systems that operate differently in a lot of ways, and often with different sets of players.

Re the comment fair enough.

My question isn't why you call them "separate creatures," but what you mean by "separate creatures." That's a bit of a vague and informal term, which is fine because we're discussing informally on the internet, but I want to understand, with more precision, what you mean before I agree or disagree.

I just answered what I mean by saying they’re separate creatures. With regard to this discussion, I also mean there isn’t “one chain” that SSC and mag clerks are working in - there are two. I don’t think it makes sense to think of one of those as above/below the other because they’re operating in different spheres.

Well no, you said: "I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures," which is a bit circular. I'm asking what you mean by them being "separate creatures?"

As to the "one chain," are you aware that on habeas review, the MJ reviews the decision of the SSC?

[username5101520]

Interesting thread and a lot of great thoughts. I think the value of a MJ clerkship also depends on the district you are in. In some districts MJs have a high consent rate and act as semi-DJs. Also some SSCs have more "prestige" than others (e.g. NJ SSC vs. NY SSC). I think MJ clerkships are also a great stepping stone for someone who eventually wants a DJ clerkship and may not have been competitive initially. I say all this as someone who has not done a MJ clerkship but clerked for two different DJs in two different districts.

Yeah there is definitely a huge difference in consent rate, even between judges within the same district. Great point.

[Anonymous User]

On habeas review, the federal court reviews the SSC's decision, or other last reasoned decision, on the issues raised. It cannot entertain an issue not fairly presented to the SSC. When a state trial court entertains collateral review, it would not review its SSC's decision. Indeed, it generally could only entertain collateral review on a previously un-raised issue (typically, ineffective assistance or new evidence of actual innocence). That's the key difference. The same is true of a federal trial court hearing a 2255. It does not review the SCOTUS decision. Indeed, it cannot re-pass on that issue once SCOTUS has decided it.

This makes two basic mistakes, so you’re not really helping your case.

1. Federal habeas can evaluate issues not raised in state courts so long as the petitioner satisfies the exceptions to procedural default. This is extremely important in practice.

2. 2255s can reevaluate issues decided on the merits on direct if there has been intervening precedent under 2255(f)(3). Again, in practice this is extremely important, not a minor technicality, since most successful 2255 petitions are “legal innocence” claims involving intervening precedent (i.e. crime of violence issues).

Also state collateral review rules differ state-by-state.

And the standards of review matter because if you ever actually *do* grant a petition because a state court was wrong over the 2254(d) bar, and you somehow get affirmed, you will likely earn yourself a summary reversal by SCOTUS, which is very prestigious.

[Anonymous User]

Well no, you said: "I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures," which is a bit circular. I'm asking what you mean by them being "separate creatures?"

I've answered this twice now.

As to the "one chain," are you aware that on habeas review, the MJ reviews the decision of the SSC?

Yes, I have been reading this thread, and you've mentioned this numerous times already, and I acknowledged habeas as one of the limited places of overlap. Are you aware that habeas is limited to criminal cases, and there's this whole universe of what's called civil law out there?

[username5101520]

Well no, you said: "I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures," which is a bit circular. I'm asking what you mean by them being "separate creatures?"

I've answered this twice now.

As to the "one chain," are you aware that on habeas review, the MJ reviews the decision of the SSC?

Yes, I have been reading this thread, and you've mentioned this numerous times already, and I acknowledged habeas as one of the limited places of overlap. Are you aware that habeas is limited to criminal cases, and there's this whole universe of what's called civil law out there?

So, I think there's three things going on here, which I'll take in turn:

1. I'm sorry I missed your definitions of "separate creatures." I'm a bit dull. Could you define the phrase one more time. Maybe in the form of: 'to me, 'separate creatures' means XYZ.' I tend to need things stated clearly and unambiguously.

2. So, if an MJ directly reviews an SSC decision, why do you see those as two separate chains, rather than one chain?

3. I am aware of civil law (mainly in France). I'm also aware of civil lawsuits, which we have here. Why do you think that means that SSC to MJ is two separate chains, rather than one chain?

[Anonymous User]

Well no, you said: "I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures," which is a bit circular. I'm asking what you mean by them being "separate creatures?"

I've answered this twice now.

As to the "one chain," are you aware that on habeas review, the MJ reviews the decision of the SSC?

Yes, I have been reading this thread, and you've mentioned this numerous times already, and I acknowledged habeas as one of the limited places of overlap. Are you aware that habeas is limited to criminal cases, and there's this whole universe of what's called civil law out there?

So, I think there's three things going on here, which I'll take in turn:

1. I'm sorry I missed your definitions of "separate creatures." I'm a bit dull. Could you define the phrase one more time. Maybe in the form of: 'to me, 'separate creatures' means XYZ.' I tend to need things stated clearly and unambiguously.

2. So, if an MJ directly reviews an SSC decision, why do you see those as two separate chains, rather than one chain?

3. I am aware of civil law (mainly in France). I'm also aware of civil lawsuits, which we have here. Why do you think that means that SSC to MJ is two separate chains, rather than one chain?

The reference to civil law was the fact that habeas is a remedy only for criminal defendants, inapplicable to civil lawsuits, taking them outside this federal review you're focused on.

As for the rest, I've already answered.

[username5101520]

Well no, you said: "I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures," which is a bit circular. I'm asking what you mean by them being "separate creatures?"

I've answered this twice now.

As to the "one chain," are you aware that on habeas review, the MJ reviews the decision of the SSC?

Yes, I have been reading this thread, and you've mentioned this numerous times already, and I acknowledged habeas as one of the limited places of overlap. Are you aware that habeas is limited to criminal cases, and there's this whole universe of what's called civil law out there?

So, I think there's three things going on here, which I'll take in turn:

1. I'm sorry I missed your definitions of "separate creatures." I'm a bit dull. Could you define the phrase one more time. Maybe in the form of: 'to me, 'separate creatures' means XYZ.' I tend to need things stated clearly and unambiguously.

2. So, if an MJ directly reviews an SSC decision, why do you see those as two separate chains, rather than one chain?

3. I am aware of civil law (mainly in France). I'm also aware of civil lawsuits, which we have here. Why do you think that means that SSC to MJ is two separate chains, rather than one chain?

The reference to civil law was the fact that habeas is a remedy only for criminal defendants, inapplicable to civil lawsuits, taking them outside this federal review you're focused on.

As for the rest, I've already answered.

1. Do you think habeas is totally inapplicable to civil lawsuits, or just usually inapplicable as a practical matter?

2. Could you show me where you've already answered? I don't understand why you're so secretive about your positions. I'm personally happy to repeat mine again and again and again, and in different ways if it helps clarify.

[Anonymous User]

AUSA/AFPD here and former BL. I'll say in my market, the SSC would trump the MJ clerkship. But, I think the AUSA/AFPD office here would view them as equal, and maybe even slightly prefer the MJ clerk due to actually knowledge and practice, but BL would prefer the SSC clerk.

Moderately senior DOJ here. Total agreement. Also, the chance to become buddies with a federal magistrate, who knows everyone in the universe (in your local legal community, including the district court judges), is a pretty huge advantage. Also, let's not downplay the prestige factor of magistrates too much. There are plenty who have gone directly from magistrate to federal appellate.

[Anonymous User]

Well no, you said: "I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures," which is a bit circular. I'm asking what you mean by them being "separate creatures?"

I've answered this twice now.

As to the "one chain," are you aware that on habeas review, the MJ reviews the decision of the SSC?

Yes, I have been reading this thread, and you've mentioned this numerous times already, and I acknowledged habeas as one of the limited places of overlap. Are you aware that habeas is limited to criminal cases, and there's this whole universe of what's called civil law out there?

I don't really know what the hell you guys are fighting about. But I just wanted to say that I'm a civil AUSA and we civil AUSAs have to handle the habeas petitions filed in our office. It's super annoying and I wish they were sent to the criminal AUSAs, but what do I know, I just work here.

[username5101520]

Well no, you said: "I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures," which is a bit circular. I'm asking what you mean by them being "separate creatures?"

I've answered this twice now.

As to the "one chain," are you aware that on habeas review, the MJ reviews the decision of the SSC?

Yes, I have been reading this thread, and you've mentioned this numerous times already, and I acknowledged habeas as one of the limited places of overlap. Are you aware that habeas is limited to criminal cases, and there's this whole universe of what's called civil law out there?

I don't really know what the hell you guys are fighting about. But I just wanted to say that I'm a civil AUSA and we civil AUSAs have to handle the habeas petitions filed in our office. It's super annoying and I wish they were sent to the criminal AUSAs, but what do I know, I just work here.

The USAs office in the district I clerk in does it the same way I believe. That was one of the points I was driving at with this person: that it’s not as bifurcated as they think.

[username5101520]

On habeas review, the federal court reviews the SSC's decision, or other last reasoned decision, on the issues raised. It cannot entertain an issue not fairly presented to the SSC. When a state trial court entertains collateral review, it would not review its SSC's decision. Indeed, it generally could only entertain collateral review on a previously un-raised issue (typically, ineffective assistance or new evidence of actual innocence). That's the key difference. The same is true of a federal trial court hearing a 2255. It does not review the SCOTUS decision. Indeed, it cannot re-pass on that issue once SCOTUS has decided it.

This makes two basic mistakes, so you’re not really helping your case.

1. Federal habeas can evaluate issues not raised in state courts so long as the petitioner satisfies the exceptions to procedural default. This is extremely important in practice.

2. 2255s can reevaluate issues decided on the merits on direct if there has been intervening precedent under 2255(f)(3). Again, in practice this is extremely important, not a minor technicality, since most successful 2255 petitions are “legal innocence” claims involving intervening precedent (i.e. crime of violence issues).

Also state collateral review rules differ state-by-state.

And the standards of review matter because if you ever actually *do* grant a petition because a state court was wrong over the 2254(d) bar, and you somehow get affirmed, you will likely earn yourself a summary reversal by SCOTUS, which is very prestigious.

Let’s remember the posture here. YOU attempted a reducto ad absurdum by attempting to show that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas necessarily means that I would also have to say, to be logically consistent, that a state trial court reviews an SSC decision when it undertakes collateral review. I explained that you were actually engaging in the slippery slope logical fallacy because state trial courts undertaking collateral review do not directly review the SSC decision from the direct appeal, whereas an MJ can and typically does.

You now would need to explain why my logic actually does necessarily and inescapably lead to the absurd conclusion (that state trial courts review SSC decisions). You’ve brought up procedural default and 2255(f)(3). Why do those two things mean that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas must mean I’d also logically have to say state trial courts review SSC decisions?

Now, on to your second, I must be misreading, you surely didn’t type that scotus reverses any grant of habeas relief to a state prisoner that makes it over the 2254(d) bar?

Also, flat out wrong that procedural default is important in practice. It actually rarely comes up and more rarely works, but ok.

[Anonymous User]

Well no, you said: "I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures," which is a bit circular. I'm asking what you mean by them being "separate creatures?"

I've answered this twice now.

As to the "one chain," are you aware that on habeas review, the MJ reviews the decision of the SSC?

Yes, I have been reading this thread, and you've mentioned this numerous times already, and I acknowledged habeas as one of the limited places of overlap. Are you aware that habeas is limited to criminal cases, and there's this whole universe of what's called civil law out there?

I don't really know what the hell you guys are fighting about. But I just wanted to say that I'm a civil AUSA and we civil AUSAs have to handle the habeas petitions filed in our office. It's super annoying and I wish they were sent to the criminal AUSAs, but what do I know, I just work here.

Oh of course, but to the extent they address state law, they’re addressing criminal law issues (you get them in immigration too but those are exclusively federal).

[Anonymous User]

Well no, you said: "I call state and federal law separate creatures because they are separate creatures," which is a bit circular. I'm asking what you mean by them being "separate creatures?"

I've answered this twice now.

As to the "one chain," are you aware that on habeas review, the MJ reviews the decision of the SSC?

Yes, I have been reading this thread, and you've mentioned this numerous times already, and I acknowledged habeas as one of the limited places of overlap. Are you aware that habeas is limited to criminal cases, and there's this whole universe of what's called civil law out there?

I don't really know what the hell you guys are fighting about. But I just wanted to say that I'm a civil AUSA and we civil AUSAs have to handle the habeas petitions filed in our office. It's super annoying and I wish they were sent to the criminal AUSAs, but what do I know, I just work here.

Oh of course, but to the extent they address state law, they’re addressing criminal law issues (you get them in immigration too but those are exclusively federal).

Yeah, to be clear, we civil AUSAs are handling habeas petitions filed by both federal inmates and federal immigration detainees. I guess state inmates filing federal habeas petitions are being sent to criminal AUSAs or maybe exclusively to the appellate folks.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

On habeas review, the federal court reviews the SSC's decision, or other last reasoned decision, on the issues raised. It cannot entertain an issue not fairly presented to the SSC. When a state trial court entertains collateral review, it would not review its SSC's decision. Indeed, it generally could only entertain collateral review on a previously un-raised issue (typically, ineffective assistance or new evidence of actual innocence). That's the key difference. The same is true of a federal trial court hearing a 2255. It does not review the SCOTUS decision. Indeed, it cannot re-pass on that issue once SCOTUS has decided it.

This makes two basic mistakes, so you’re not really helping your case.

1. Federal habeas can evaluate issues not raised in state courts so long as the petitioner satisfies the exceptions to procedural default. This is extremely important in practice.

2. 2255s can reevaluate issues decided on the merits on direct if there has been intervening precedent under 2255(f)(3). Again, in practice this is extremely important, not a minor technicality, since most successful 2255 petitions are “legal innocence” claims involving intervening precedent (i.e. crime of violence issues).

Also state collateral review rules differ state-by-state.

And the standards of review matter because if you ever actually *do* grant a petition because a state court was wrong over the 2254(d) bar, and you somehow get affirmed, you will likely earn yourself a summary reversal by SCOTUS, which is very prestigious.

Let’s remember the posture here. YOU attempted a reducto ad absurdum by attempting to show that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas necessarily means that I would also have to say, to be logically consistent, that a state trial court reviews an SSC decision when it undertakes collateral review. I explained that you were actually engaging in the slippery slope logical fallacy because state trial courts undertaking collateral review do not directly review the SSC decision from the direct appeal, whereas an MJ can and typically does.

You now would need to explain why my logic actually does necessarily and inescapably lead to the absurd conclusion (that state trial courts review SSC decisions). You’ve brought up procedural default and 2255(f)(3). Why do those two things mean that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas must mean I’d also logically have to say state trial courts review SSC decisions?

Now, on to your second, I must be misreading, you surely didn’t type that scotus reverses any grant of habeas relief to a state prisoner that makes it over the 2254(d) bar?

Also, flat out wrong that procedural default is important in practice. It actually rarely comes up and more rarely works, but ok.

You said that you were competent to judge habeas petitions, then made a couple of clear errors. Then you make a couple of more clear errors in your reply.

1. Procedural default is extremely important, idk what to tell you. It comes up constantly and the need to avoid it funnels petitioners to IAC claims.

2. Yes, one of the largest (if not the largest) categories of SCOTUS summary reversals are of circuits holding that 2254(d) was satisfied. Usually the Sixth or the Ninth. You would know this if you had a strong grasp on habeas.

[Anonymous User]

This is a dumb thread. Also, SSC and Federal Magistrates do vastly different things and see cases in vastly different postures, and deciding between clerking for each based on prestige is also dumb.

[username5101520]

On habeas review, the federal court reviews the SSC's decision, or other last reasoned decision, on the issues raised. It cannot entertain an issue not fairly presented to the SSC. When a state trial court entertains collateral review, it would not review its SSC's decision. Indeed, it generally could only entertain collateral review on a previously un-raised issue (typically, ineffective assistance or new evidence of actual innocence). That's the key difference. The same is true of a federal trial court hearing a 2255. It does not review the SCOTUS decision. Indeed, it cannot re-pass on that issue once SCOTUS has decided it.

This makes two basic mistakes, so you’re not really helping your case.

1. Federal habeas can evaluate issues not raised in state courts so long as the petitioner satisfies the exceptions to procedural default. This is extremely important in practice.

2. 2255s can reevaluate issues decided on the merits on direct if there has been intervening precedent under 2255(f)(3). Again, in practice this is extremely important, not a minor technicality, since most successful 2255 petitions are “legal innocence” claims involving intervening precedent (i.e. crime of violence issues).

Also state collateral review rules differ state-by-state.

And the standards of review matter because if you ever actually *do* grant a petition because a state court was wrong over the 2254(d) bar, and you somehow get affirmed, you will likely earn yourself a summary reversal by SCOTUS, which is very prestigious.

Let’s remember the posture here. YOU attempted a reducto ad absurdum by attempting to show that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas necessarily means that I would also have to say, to be logically consistent, that a state trial court reviews an SSC decision when it undertakes collateral review. I explained that you were actually engaging in the slippery slope logical fallacy because state trial courts undertaking collateral review do not directly review the SSC decision from the direct appeal, whereas an MJ can and typically does.

You now would need to explain why my logic actually does necessarily and inescapably lead to the absurd conclusion (that state trial courts review SSC decisions). You’ve brought up procedural default and 2255(f)(3). Why do those two things mean that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas must mean I’d also logically have to say state trial courts review SSC decisions?

Now, on to your second, I must be misreading, you surely didn’t type that scotus reverses any grant of habeas relief to a state prisoner that makes it over the 2254(d) bar?

Also, flat out wrong that procedural default is important in practice. It actually rarely comes up and more rarely works, but ok.

You said that you were competent to judge habeas petitions, then made a couple of clear errors. Then you make a couple of more clear errors in your reply.

1. Procedural default is extremely important, idk what to tell you. It comes up constantly and the need to avoid it funnels petitioners to IAC claims.

2. Yes, one of the largest (if not the largest) categories of SCOTUS summary reversals are of circuits holding that 2254(d) was satisfied. Usually the Sixth or the Ninth. You would know this if you had a strong grasp on habeas.

So you're getting personal again, which isn't a strong argument and is unnecessary. Notice I haven't gotten personal with you.

1. Simply wrong. Comes up rarely.
2. That doesn't mean you're guaranteed a summary reversal, come on...

But on to the main show, why do either of these things complete your attempted reducto ad absurdum?

[Anonymous User]

This is a dumb thread. Also, SSC and Federal Magistrates do vastly different things and see cases in vastly different postures, and deciding between clerking for each based on prestige is also dumb.

I’m one of the people sucked into arguing and you’re not wrong.

[username5101520]

This is a dumb thread. Also, SSC and Federal Magistrates do vastly different things and see cases in vastly different postures, and deciding between clerking for each based on prestige is also dumb.

I’m one of the people sucked into arguing and you’re not wrong.

No one made you chime in. Typically people call a debate "dumb" when they realize the logic of their argument, in that debate, can't hold up. It's a permutation of 'sour grapes.' 'I didn't want to win that debate anyways, it's dumb.'