I am a lawyer. I am admitted in the state bars of MA, IL and NH and several federal courts as well. You can look me up. It won't be hard as I post under my own name.
Well, you don't turn up in a careful search in Martindale-Hubbell on line for a J Allen (61 hits nationwide, no J.L.; same for all of the New England states (your SI profile says you are in New England).
BTW, after practicing for 16 years one thing I have learned is NEVER to try to predict what any Court will do.
Disingenuous at best, and (typically, it seems) wildly overstated. Of course, you can't predict every case with certainty, but most of a lawyer's job is advising clients how a court will apply legal principles to a set of facts,
based principally on what courts have previously said. You "NEVER" do this? Sure.
My point, and Nadine's repeated point, is that on the equal protection and federalism issues, the Supreme Court's majority departed quite dramatically from the principles they themselves had vigorously espoused in previous cases, and it's very hard to argue otherwise (which is why, when you can't defend the decision on coherent legal principle you argue with a high-toned stuff like "averted a constitutional crisis", "rendered a much more divisive and rancorous process which would have crippled the Presidency, moot..." and similarly, result-orientated, flexible ideas).
It's hardly an answer, to the observation that these justices violated their prior principles, to say that "you can't predict these things" -- like the court is throwing dice (and it's OK with you as long as they rule for your candidate). |
