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).
Try Manchester, NH. I'm rated by Martindale but I don't put my profile in there anymore. Too expensive and I get better bang for the buck in other directories more suited to my particular practice.
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.
Not disingenuous. Fact. I don't. I lay out the options and I provide my opinion BUT I never predict how a Court will rule, especially in state Court. The client always makes the decision.
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
You mean you don't like the answer. But it is an answer nevertheless. As I said I believe the case was decided correctly on adequately stated and justified federal grounds....
JLA |
