Sue Yoo
posted by Dan at 10:42 AM
Friday, March 06, 2009
The Rules of Engagement
Senior Status:
Armen's ProfileTacitus' Profile
Tom's Profile
Disco Stu(d)'s Profile
Mad J.D.'s Profile
Max Power Profile
Isaac's Profile
Earl Warren's Profile
MRP's Profile
Sean Fernandes' Profile
Slam Master A's Profile
TJ's Profile
Caley's Profile
Carbolic's Profile
McWho's Profile
Patrick's Profile
Toney's Profile
J.D.elicious' Profile
Bekki's Profile
Dan's Profile
Petch’s Profile
Active Status:
Jackie O's ProfileJames' Profile
L'Alex's Profile
Maude's Profile
McTwo’s Profile
Ursus Major's Profile
Labeled Threads:
What is a Labeled Thread?0L/1L Advice
Academia
Bar Exams
BLF
Boalt Briefs
Classes and Professors
CLR Discussion
Clerkships
DE
Deep Space
DO
Elections
Exams
Grades
Grammar Snarks
Greetings from the BHSA
Honor Code
Idaho
Kashmiri
Law Student Life
Legal Culture
Legal Education Costs
Library
LRAP
Moot Court and Trial Team
Moving Out (Graduation)
N&B
Nancy Grace
OCIP and Employment
Only in Berkeley
Professor Quotes
Professor Ratings
Prop. 8
Rabid Conservatives
Rabid Liberals
Rankings
Shiny Gold Stars
Technology Rants
The Others
The Red Menace
The Resident Evil
The Simpsons
Yoo-Hoo
Blogroll
De NovoThe Tacitus Project
Group Think Tank
Berkeley/Boalt Blogs
Anderson BerryBeetle Beat
Berkeley Graduate
Berkeley Jurisprude
Berkeley Law Blog
Bleed Blue & Gold
Boalt Professor Review
Boalt H. Civ. P.
Boalt Movie Review
Cal Stuff
Cause and Defect
Dean Berring's Building Blog
Exact Approx
Expressio Unius
For God and For Cheese
Frolicking in Your Panda
A Girl Walks into a Bar (Exam)
Governing Through Crime
Jungle Cat Diaries
I'm Not Crunchy
La Mitotera
Musings from Boalt Hall
Robert Reich's Blog
The Present Tense
Repatriated Expatriate
The Seema Machine
Stacita
A Year Deferred
Other Blogs
Above the LawAmbivalent Imbroglio
Amicus Curae
The Armacost Project
Bag and Baggage (Boalt '90)
Bainbridge
Balkinization
Barely Legal
Begging to Differ
Biting Tongue
Black Book Legal
Blawg Wisdom
BlueGrassRoots
Boffo Blog
Buffalo Wings & Vodka
Color of Law
Concurring Opinions
The Debate Link
Dropping a Barbell
EB Express Blog
First Movers
The Frugal Law Student
Half the Sins of Mankind
Head Heeb
Hear Me Roar
Illiterally
Intel Dump
Inter Alia
Is That Legal?
JAG Central
JD2B
Jeremy Blachman
Kevin Drum
Law & Terrorism Blog
Law Career Blog
Legal Ethics
Legal Times Blog
Leiter's Law School Rep
Leiter Rep
Life of Lexi (UVA/Hutz fan)
Mel Woods
Memoirs of Hastings
Notes from the (1L) Underground
Notes from the (Legal) Underground
Objective Justice
Orin Kerr
Other Side of Wall (Hastings)
Prague Blog
Random...Chase
Samples Connection
SCOTUSBlog
The Berkeley Blog
The Shark
SoapBox Law
Sua Sponte
Sua Sponte (GW Law)
Sui Generis
Three Years of Hell
TJ's Double Play
Trad'l Notions (USF)
Turning Cathy into a Lawyer
Underneath Their Robes
Volokh Conspiracy
Will Work for Favorable Dicta
16 Comments:
Agreed, the article is interesting. You have to give us some analysis, however. That is what people come here for and that is the difference between the great blog nuts and boalts has always been, and the lame blog it is becoming (Patrick's post on Prop 8 being an exception to the recent trend).
I don't intend that in a mean way, by the way. It is constructive criticism from a loyal and longtime reader.
Fair enough. I was in a bit of a hurry this morning, and didn't want to get into the weeds with the Yoo stuff. Just thought it was worth sharing. I think you'll find analysis in most of my posts.
Went and saw oral arguments this morning. My sense is that Padilla has enough to survive at the 12(b)(6) stage (since the court assumes that all his allegations are true). Summary judgment seems like it may be a different story, however.
Matt,
Can you explain more? What are the outstanding factual issues? Weren't the memos attached to the complaint? What allegations is he Padilla relying on that he will have difficulty proving?
I don't understand the last paragraph of the article. Why is Yoo suing other government officials? Background please.
I have a very limited knowledge of the case, because I haven't read any of the papers (nor the bench memo that the judge is going off of). That said, I gather that Padilla's complaint alleges that Prof. Yoo intentionally misrepresented the law (when he knew the representations he was making were inaccurate statements) and that those misrepresentations directly resulted in Constitutional harms to Padilla.
The government's legal argument seems to be something to the effect of: "the law was unsettled in this area prior to Hamdi, and therefore whatever representations Yoo made cannot be categorized as 'misrepresentations.'" Padilla's counter is something along the lines of: those rights existed prior to Hamdi, and the government cannot just make up new legal designations - i.e., "enemy combatant" - to temporarily take away the rights of U.S. Citizens until there is a SCOTUS ruling that the rights apply to those individuals, too. The rights, according to Padilla, exist for all U.S. Citizens both before and after any SCOTUS rulings.
Everything else appeared to be arguments regarding factual allegations that Padilla makes with respect to various unreleased memos - allegations that the court must take as true at this stage.
That's a rather scant and simplified summary of what I got out of it.
2:33, I think that was a typo. I think it should have been "Padilla also filed a similar suit in South Carolina . . . ." Which is where he was detained.
That would make sense. Padilla lost his first go-around with the Supreme Court, on jurisdictional grounds. They said he should have filed in South Carolina. If that happened to me I'd file there, too.
Update: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19734.html
MPRE thoughts post?
My sense is that Padilla has enough to survive at the 12(b)(6) stage (since the court assumes that all his allegations are true). Summary judgment seems like it may be a different story, however.
I'm not sure how you can assess Padilla's chances of getting past SJ until/unless he gets discovery.
8:37--I think Matt's point is that there is unlikely to be a "smoking gun" which shows that Yoo deliberately crafted erroneous memos. Yoo's been pretty consistent in defending his work since then; it seems like his legal theories are sincere (even if incorrect).
That is correct. There probably isn't a smoking gun. I'm also guessing that there probably isn't much material to be discovered that isn't already known or that isn't protected by various state secrets privileges.
We discussed the MPRE earlier in the year and discussed how many questions one would need to get correct to pass, etc. Just in case you're nervous, you could search for that. It will probably calm your fears.
I too heard the oral argument and I was surprised to hear Padilla claim that he failed the MPRE last fall because prof. steele never mentioned "partisan arbitrators."
Partisan arbitrators are going into the next version of the outline. Along with distinction between law reform boards and legal services boards. And, oh yeah, lots more judges stuff. And criminal liability too. Plus some more malpractice and discovery sanctions.
John Steele
Post a Comment
<< Home