Louie, Louie

When I woke up from my afternoon nap/about to get sick drowsiness, a story came on CNN's Lou Dobbs program regarding the Senate's "stealth" attempt to increase the number of HB2 visas. A bit of objectivity is in order. The visas in question are used by corporations and other business to allow foreigners to immigrate and work for that company. Prior to the issuance of the visa, the business seeking it must obtain a Dept. of Labor certification that satisfies certain criteria, mostly about why Americans are not hired to do that job. The provision is part of a budget reconcilliation bill, hence Dobbs's use of "stealth."

I hate this guy!!! I couldn't believe the hyperbole (I'll put up parts of the transcript tomorrow when it's on lexis). He never mentioned the Labor cert portion of the visa. Not once. If he did, then the entire story would be moot. There is, in fact, no reverse outsourcing of jobs assuming the Labor Department is doing its job. Similarly, the increase in the quota and the removal of family members is another non-issue since the quota has not increased with the growing pace of the US economy (and the complementary decline in US education in the sciences and high tech sector). And family members do not have authorization to work.

But I'm secure knowing Lou is on the prowl for such reckless actions on the part of our government. Hopefully, tomorrow he will discuss how Alito should trace his ancestry to a time in our nation's immigration history when all new arrivals were warmly embraced and welcomed into the melting pot without bigots claiming that the sky is falling.

TortorNot.com

At the prodding of a classmate, and after an e-mail to the Yahoo list-serv, I'm creating this as a general thread for people to ask and receive input about profs.

Also, Shawn's website for enrollment is http://www.essentially.net/misc/boalt/index.jsp

The Case for Democratic Support of Miers

To take a break from the more serious debacle that occurred Tuesday morning, I'd like to turn to politics if I may.

I've been pondering this question for a while now, well really since she was nominated. On the one hand, in these weeks of anti-Bushism it seems like a good strategy to oppose anything he does. On the other hand, maybe she’s the best the dems can hope for. With such strong opposition from hardcore conservatives, if she fails, Bush will no doubt nominate someone more to the right’s liking – and this, to me, spells disaster for democrats, as they'll surely acquiesce to the new nominee much like they did to Roberts.

Personally, I don’t think Miers is at all qualified. SMU? Come on. First woman to run her law firm or to be president of the state bar? Please. Slate has an excellent article debunking both these as accomplishments worthy of the Supreme Court (though they are no doubt accomplishments). My take – I can point to 49 other women who were the first women in their state to be president of the state bar. Does that make them qualified to sit on the High Court? No.

I think the bottom line is that I'd rather have her on the court writing nonsensical logic 1Ls can poke holes through than another Scalia. I disagree with Scalia most of the time, but it’s generally hard to fault his logic - and he is a good read. Maybe Bush’s legacy won’t be that he shifted the Court to the right for the next 30 years. Maybe it will be that he put on a woman whose best qualification was that she was his friend, and when she can’t keep pace with the rest of the Justices, we'll find out what kind of company the President keeps.

We Believe in Yoo

I'll definitely have more to say about this later, but this morning's disruption of Con Law by those who can't live without a cause to fight for really pissed me off (as many noticed). If you weren't around this morning, about half a dozen protesters stormed into Booth where Prof. Yoo was in the middle of asking me a question to protest his torture memos (yeah I know, some people still live in the past). I'm glad my classmates were for the most part in agreement that the means was not appropriate. I'm also glad that others have contacted Prof. Yoo to offer to come early tomorrow to make up for the lost time.

And that is what really irked me. Disrupting a class is disrupting a class is disrupting a class. I can agree with their message ad infinitum, but you are in the wrong for disrupting a class. This was something the protestors could not fathom. Neither could some of my classmates, with one saying "well it's civil disobedience." The premise of civil disobedience is breaking a law or rule you disagree with. If they disagree with the university regulations and state laws prohibiting disruption of class, then they're welcome to break them and face the consequences. But they broke those rules and laws for other reasons that have nothing to do with disrupting class. They acted selfishly to promote their own cause. As important as they perceive their cause to be, they cannot steal our time from us...without that is...paying for it. I'd really like to know where they live. Let's just say the strobe lights and bull horms will be out in force. I am a champion of classroom time and feel that no hour of the night is too sacred to get my message across.

More seriously, the crux of the protesters' argument was that John Yoo should not be teaching here. I couldn't disagree more. He WAS a tenured professor here when he took leave to work at the DOJ and returned to that position. Tenure is such a sacred position for a reason. But of course those whose knee-jerk reaction is to disagree with a person without much thought tend not to respect such concepts as tenure or academic freedom. Frankly, these people are worse than the Bill O'Reillys of the world who went after Ward Churchill. At least Bill O used his bully pulpit and didn't disrupt Churchill's classes.

Update: Patrick Rodriguez of CalPatriot actually points out that these people are from World Can't Wait. Interesting. So I was right that they're people who can't live without having a cause to fight for.

Post-offer leverage

Perhaps Disco Stu is the only one wondering if we 2Ls have any leverage on the firms and how best to go about using what we have.

DS did an excellent job when he graduated from college of playing two companies off each other and increasing his starting salary 8K plus getting a signing bonus. Can we do the same thing now?

For example, perhaps 3Ls (or enlightened 2Ls) could answer how DS can go about getting his number 1 choice firm to offer him a signing bonus that his number 2 firm offers a certain associate class upon joining. Or, alternatively, are signing bonuses so far off in the future (at least a year) that it doesn't really matter what one firm says they give IP associates upon signing - no firm will commit to it before you accept an offer for summer employment?

Weekest Link

With flyback week now behind us, I hope each class has accomplished the goals it had set out in the beginning of the year. I certainly hope the 1Ls have now begun their outlines, grasping the subtleties of damages for breach of K, etc. At this point you should also be realizing just how useless the rainbow outlines really are, but of course, as a genuine obsessive compulsive law student you will not change. For some strange reason I'm still on the 1L school e-mail list, so I get the cryptic e-mails from the CDO about the impending doom that is summer employment, which of course conveniently coincides with finals. Be prepared to to learn MailMerge AND 12(b)(6). So the anxiety you felt building up all this week is just a tiny sample of what awaits you in the months to come.

The 2Ls have it a lot easier. They have less time than Nicolas Cage in "The Rock" to decide the rest of their lives. Judging by the record number of 3Ls who interviewed during OCIP this year, I'd say it's more than enough. Oh and don't forget who it is that actually runs every student group, journal, organization, cult, secret society, flock, etc., at Boalt while looking devilishly good in their sartorial splendor.

And finally 3Ls are are rumored to be working on a few construction projects personally developed by Dean Edley in an effort to boost the school's "percent employed" numbers for US News. Details are hard to come by, but one 3L murmured something about Skadden at least allowing bathroom breaks every odd day.

No Time, There's Never Any Time

For all the 2Ls busy partying across the country (the four that I saw yesterday, great seeing you), there was an e-mail sent by Terry Galligan advising us that according to the NALP guidelines we can only keep 3 offers open. I think the NALP guidelines are absolutely essential to maintaining some sort of a uniformity in the job searching process for all law students. However, the deadline seems a bit contrived given that our school did not start OCIP until over a month after some (See, Harvard and Columbia). I'm too sleepy to offer anything concrete, but I just don't understand the point of a deadline that passes before our callback week begins. What a great way to make decisions that will only affect the rest of your life.

Meet the Senators

Earlier today I went sight seeing in Washington DC. A mother and her daughter asked me directions to the WWII memorial, after which they eagerly described their sighting of Justice Stephen G. Breyer lunching with his clerks at the Monocle. I knew previously that SGB was to serve as the presiding judge [along with Judge Silberman of the DC Cir] in a mock appeal put on by the Lawyers' Committee for the Shakespeare Theater where they'd hear arguments in the case of Iago inducing the murder of Othello and Desdemona. Needless to say I was more than pissed off that I didn't see SBG during either of those occasions.

Fortunately for me, I did see two of my classmates at National airport [I'm willing to bet that there have been countless such stories during call back season]. As wonderful as my classmates are, I'm sorry to say they don't compare with me sharing a flight with Sens Kennedy and Kerry. While Kerry sat first class, Kennedy sat in my row, just on the other side of the plane.

[Sidenote: If people remember the last issue of Boalt Briefs that talked about various firm contributions to OCIP, and a certain firm was mentioned as donating plastic surgery to 100 lucky candidates to help them meet the high [firm name] standard. Well I just found out that a friend of a friend of a friend, who is currently clerking for S.D. Cal will use part of his/her $10,000 clerkship bonus from [firm name] for plastic surgery. Kudos to Boalt Briefs for another excellent expose.]

I've been hearing that crap ever since I was at UCLA

I have managed to keep fairly quiet during college football for the past two years (except to bash on Mack Brown) but yesterday's games prompt me to make a few points. Notre Dame played its heart out and probably came closest to beating that $C team. Congrats to them.

UCLA had a thrilling come from behind OT victory against Wash St (first time UCLA has won in Pullman in 12 years). With Penn State and Florida State losing, there's a strong chance that UCLA will move into the top 10. The question asked during the radio post game show was whether we deserve to be a top 10 team (in light of our fluff schedule). The answer of course is well, depends on your faith in the rankings as a whole. We've beaten two ranked teams (one of them a top 10 team), but unfortunately only after losing to us did it become known that both teams were quite overrated (see, Cal's loss to the Beavers yesterday). To that end, if the pollsters want to skyrocket UCLA to #12 because we beat what they had previously considered to be a top 10 team, then so be it...squeaking by Wash State should at the very least move us past Florida and you continue on with the rankings game. But if you think that wins and losses are not as important as other factors such as depth chart, a solid D-line, etc., then clearly we don't belong in the same category as a VTech or even Notre Dame.

Regardless, overrated ranking [and a possible BCS berth] here I come.

Yoo Might be a Con Law Scholar if...

[Note: Cross posted at De Novo]

A few weeks ago A3G noted that Boalt con law Prof. John Yoo's new book was released. She also has a profile of John Yoo here. The profile notes that Yoo is a brilliant scholar and quite hilarious. As a student in his structural issues class, I considered writing this post to add to those characteristics, but decided to hold off. But now, at the midway point of the semester, I bring you quotes and miscellany courtesy of Prof. Yoo.

First, I discovered only very recently that Prof. Yoo is in fact married to a poet. Rumor has it that she does not share her poetry with him because he'd make fun of it. I can only imagine the dinner conversations. Second, Yoo has made the following snide remarks in class:

“It’s this area by the James River where settlers would come and die. It’s Virginia’s idea of a tourist attraction.”

“Judge asked ‘Isn’t that an Erie problem?’ And the lawyer answered 'Yeah it is kinda spooky.'”

“Three hours [on the senate floor] is a long time. You can raise taxes and seize property in a matter of minutes.”

“So you would strike the legislative veto down along the lines of what you just said. Which is not surprising since you just said it.”

“You’d have to have committee hearings…which are quite useful.”

“So in light of the whole Ken Starr affair…well more accurately the Bill Clinton affair.”

“The founders believed war powers included beating up on Indians, fighting Mexico, and expanding to our heart’s content, but not getting into wars with the Europeans without a declaration.”

Classmate: “It’s not like we need armed troops in Berkeley.”
Yoo: “I’d feel bad for our troops.”

“There’s this thing called the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. People on Telegraph Avenue still get upset talking about it.”

“Then there was the Whiskey Rebellion. Those were the good old days when we had real issues…whiskey.”

[Talking about Kyoto Protocol] “Scalia and Breyer have written about this in their concurrences and dissents where Scalia says that unfettered treaty power can lead to Federal government regulation of the wood you burn in your fireplace. To which Breyer responds, ‘Yes. And I love every minute of it.’”

“Let me ask you about France, since you’re from France, although you’ve had a lot of Constitutions so it’s hard to keep track of them.”

“You think the Bush administration has cronies…the Nixon administration was chock full of cronies.”

“You mean Clinton not Cheney? Because Cheney is not formally the President.”

“It only takes a threat of a filibuster for the Senate to say that you have to waive your executive privilege or we’re not going to confirm. It’s perfectly within their right. I mean I’d rather they do that than say we’re not going to confirm you because we don’t like your hair or the videos you watch. Blockbuster. They did that to Bork. *laughter* Oh you guys don’t remember? The media was so obsessed with his nomination that they dug up his video rentals from Blockbuster. It was a weird list of videos, let me tell you.”

I Vote, You Decide

I got my absentee ballot a few days ago for the special election to be held on Nov. 8 for the various state and local measures. I figure I'd share my brief thoughts on each.

Prop 73 - NO (This bad boy modifies the state constitution to require parental notification for the termination of a minor's pregnancy. Duh!)

Prop. 74 - YES (Changes probationary period for teachers to 5 years from 2 and makes it easier to fire incompetent teachers. I've long resented teachers' unions, in particular UTLA, because they have been incredibly successful at preventing the firing of morons. I've had great teachers throughout school, but I think this rule is worth changing.)

Prop. 75 - NO (Limits political contribution of union dues. So many things wrong with this one)

Prop. 76 - NO (Although Prop 98 is choking the budget, I don't think this is the answer. Now if there was an initiative to repeal Prop 13, I'd be the first in line to sign).

Prop. 77 - NO (Texas needs to adopt this measure not California. After redistricting in 2000, the Democrats lost seats. I think it was done fairly.)

Prop. 78 - NO

Prop. 79 - YES (78 and 79 are very similar and it's almost impossible to differentiate. But 79 covers more individuals and goes further in screwing drug companies. I'm all for that).

Prop 80 - YES (places electric utilities under the purview of the PUC.)

LA also has a bond measure for schools. As much as I disdain the LAUSD, I voted for this with the vague hope that some day my alma mater will return to a traditional calendar from year round.

I tried to gloss over the summaries provided by the Secretary of State before deciding, and you should do the same.

Another Weekend Update

This is just a hodgepodge of a few things that I want to note. First, I would like to congratulate all the Bruins everywhere. Thrilling game...even better when you watch in person and pretty much lose your voice yelling and screaming. So anyway, just wanted to say I somewhat pity those of you who went to Cal for undergrad or went to a school with a shitty athletic program so now you're jumping on the Tedford bandwagon. Tough luck. Better luck next year.

Second, I had one of the weirdest flights ever (even by Southwest standards) on the way back. The person who sat next to me was the same person who sat next to me on the way to LA. As we marveled at this amazing coincidence, the person in the aisle seat got into the conversation, and as it turns out, she's the person hired as Eric Abrams' replacement. She's looking for Boalt mentors for admitted minority students who request such mentors. I don't have her contact info, but if anyone's interested, drop by Room 5. And of course we had a flight attendant who could seriously moonlight as a comedianne. Turns out she worked for 17 years as a psychiatric nurse. And I quote, "At least the people here get my jokes."

Lastly, the fame of this blog is truly global now that the DailyCal has a sentence about the OCIP post in today's paper. I'm tempted to make glossy copies of this and the Daily Journal article to hand out as promo material during call backs.

All's Well that Gladwell

Malcolm Gladwell has a fascinating article on the history of admissions at elite universities (as well as a brief mention of law school admissions). Worth a read.

Callback in the USSR

Not really, but I just want a general thread to share callback stories and complaints. I think the first thing I want to note is how I kind of awkwardly did not tip the doorman when he hailed a cab for me. In my defense I was running on 3 hours of sleep. But relatedly, are those kinds of expenses covered by firms as per the NALP form?

Watchu Gon Do?

Somewhere, out there, a lawyer is in charge of this case. Which of course begs the question: if you were the lawyer, watchu gon do?

ATTY: Shall we go over your testimony?
CLNT: WHAT?
ATTY: Shall - we - go - over - you - testimony?
CLNT: O-K!
ATTY: Did you have a contract with the defendants?
CLNT: YE-EAH!!
ATTY: Ok-
CLNT: O-K!
ATTY: Ok. Did anyone else witness your dealing with these defendants?
CLNT: WHAT? I was off with UR-SHER and LU-DAA!
Atty: What?
CLNT: WHAT?

I wish I was Lil Jon's attorney. Then I could go to court with him and his grill would set off the metal detector, and he'd yell "WHAT?" and all would be right.

Kick those guys' assess, Lil Jon. That's right. Bring the beat to make their booties go smack.

And now for something a little different...

Departing from OCIP for a moment...

Robert Samuelson, Wash Po econ columnist, welcome to reality. This ain't 2001 anymore.

Honestly, a pundit now declaring that "compassionate conservatism" may have turned out to be "merely a clever sound bite." What courage! What insight! Give that Samuelson guy a Pulitzer. That's the kind of piercing analysis I expect from a columnist at a leading national newspaper.

And now back to your regularly scheduled job search stress.

Update: Oh, yeah, and in other WashPo editorial/legal news: George Will, baseball fan and all around smart guy, "goes off" (to put it politely) on the Harriet Miers as SCOTUS pick.

OCIPin on Cristal

Because all the interviewing Boalties look so stunning, thoughts of brazen fashion statements keep me from sleeping. [Sidenote: Ladies, a camel toe suit is NEVER acceptable. Please check yourself in the mirror] As such, I am taking the time at this god forsaken hour to repost from below the firms that have made some sort of a response in alphabetical order (to prevent double posting as Phase II begins).

Key to Grades: + = callback offer; - = rejection offer; PA/SV = South Bay; WC = Walnut Creek; EC = East Coast

Akin Gump (LA) +
Allen Matkins -
Alschuler Grossman +
Alston Bird +
Arnold Porter (LA) +
Baker McKenzie (SF) +/-
Bingham (WC) + (SF) +/-
Boies Schiller & Flexner +
Cadwalader (NY) +
Cleary (EC) +
Cox Castle (LA) +
Cooley (PA, SF, SD) +/-
Covington (SF) +/-
Cravath Can Kith My Ath (see the guy in our class who makes shirt if you want your copy) +
Curtis Mallet-Prevost (NY) +
Davis Polk +
Day Casebeer (SV) +
Debevoise +
Dechert +
Dewey Ballentine (PA) +
Diamond McCarthy +
DLA Piper (EC) + (LA) + (PA) -
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson (DC) +
Downey Brand +
Drinker +
Faegre & Benson -
Farella Braun + Martel +
Fenwick + (SV) -
Fish and Richardson +
Folger (SF) + (LA) -
Fried Frank (NY) +
Fulbright (EC, TX) +
Garvey Schubert (Seattle) +
Gibson (SF, PA, LA) +
Greenberg +
Gunderson Dettmer +/-
Hanson Bridgett +
Heller +/-
Hogan +
Howard Rice +/-
Howry +
Hughes Hubbard Reed (LA) +
Irell (LA) +
Jenkens Gilchrist +
Jenner and Block (Chic) +
Jones Day (SF, EC, SV) +/-
Katten (LA) +
Kaye Scholer -
Kelley Drye (NY)
Kirkland (SF) +/- (LA) -
Kramer Levin -
Latham (DC, SF) +
LeBoeuf +
Leiff Cabraser - (using Townsend approach)
Loeb ^2 -
Mayer Brown (LA) -
Milbank Tweed (NY) +/- (PA) +
Miller Star Regalia (WC) +
MorganLewis (LA) +/- (SF) -
MoFo (SF) +/- (WC) + (PA) + (NY) + (LA) +
Munger +
Nixon Peabody (SF) +
O'Donnel Shaeffer Mortimer (LA) +
O'Melvyny (LA/CC, SF) +/- (SV, Newport) -
Orrick (SF) +/- (PA) +/- (LA) +
Paul Hastings +/-
Payne and Fears and Anxiety (OC) +
Perkins Coie +
Pillsbury (SF, LA, CC, DC, NY) +
Preston Gates & Ellis (Seattle) +
Proskauer Rose (LA) +/-
Quinn Emanuel +
Reed Smith (SF) +
Ropes and Gray (EC, SF, PA) +
Ross, Dixon Bell (are these two firms?) -
Schulte Roth (NY) +
Shearman and Sterling -
Sheppard Mullin (LA, SF) +
Sidley (LA) + (SF) + (Chic) +
Simpson Thatcher (PA) +/- (NY) +
Skadden (NY, LA) +
Sonnenscheim (SF) +/-
Steefle +
Steptoe and Johnson (DC) +
Stoel +
Stroock and Stroock +
Sullivan & Cromwell (PA) +
Thelen (SJ, SF) +/-
Townsend (SF) +
Weil (Call of the) (NY) +
White & Case (SF) + (PA) -
Wilmer Cutler (NY, PA, DC) +/-
Wilson Sonsini +/-
Winston (Chic, NY?, PA) +
Wright Tremaine (LA) +

* If there are any additions/corrections that you want to make to this list of firms here then, e-mail me using the following account (to maintain anonymity): boaltocip05-at-gmail-dot-com pw: boaltocip. My addy is armenaut-at-gmail-dot-com or you can use my berkeley account. Otherwise I want to reserve the comments for any additional firms.

** This e-mail thing strikes me as a bit creepy, but it's the best way I can keep the comments from being cluttered with "oh I forgot, Sidley LA rejected my ass" type of comments.

*** As per the ad hoc rules established by those who go nuts whenever a firm they interviewed with is mentioned but no office cited, please state relevant office(s) (if decisions made on that basis) and date of callback/rejection offers.

Quiz Show

Chief Judge Danny Boggs (6th Cir) apparently gives his potential clerks the following quiz [recommend that you right click on link and open in new window] to gauge their interests. (HT: A3G) This serves as yet another proof that federal judges are superhuman entities.

Just for entertainment purposes, I'll answer the questions I know in the comments. Feel free to do the same, though I would frown upon (to the point of deleting) anonymous answers.