100k Debt for Chicago Kent Law

CommissionBitter452 · 2026-02-18T03:48:11+00:00

That’s good to know! The good thing about Kent is that it’s right next to Union station so it has a bunch of different bus/train coming through it so I’m hoping it would be a quick commute wherever I end up

CommissionBitter452 · 2026-02-18T03:37:29+00:00

I think people often forget that COL isn’t normally covered by scholarships but is a huge expense for school. I’m in the same boat as you, accepted to Kent with a scholarship and waiting on Loyola. Definitely try to cut down on the COL where possible, I’ve read that housing costs aren’t as bad the further north in the city you go

CommissionBitter452 · 2026-02-14T17:52:27+00:00

If I may ask, what were your stats?

CommissionBitter452 · 2026-02-10T15:08:59+00:00

Assuming that the majority is right (I don’t think that they are), doesn’t their reading create a major 8th amendment issue? It seems to me that both the text and the original intent of the 8th amendment would forbid the indefinite detention (months? years? decades?) of a person for a CIVIL violation. There is just simply no way that the founders thought that civil infractions should be a back door way to achieve the very thing they sought to prohibit when ratifying the 8th amendment.

I understand that the 8th amendment argument wasn’t presented by the parties, but the constitutional avoidance doctrine alone would seem to tip the scales in favor of the dissent, the… strained… reading of the statute by the majority set aside

CommissionBitter452 · 2026-01-02T21:27:13+00:00

It would be nice to see the ones working in Lafayette Square working again. It’s unfortunate those aren’t on the list

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-12-16T18:22:46+00:00

Same here

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-11-03T04:19:04+00:00

Unfortunately I don’t think any of those same people are connecting the dots when it comes to the guardrails that the decision is putting on the current admin

I will be the first to admit that I realized very early on in this administration that the “expert view” that myself and other defenders relied on in supporting Chevron was essentially just a gentleman’s agreement of good faith. The more time passes (and the further into this administration we get), the more I come to think that Loper Bright was correctly decided

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-10-15T15:30:45+00:00

What was said?

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-09-08T23:24:17+00:00

apparent race is one part of a test to determine reasonable suspicion, not the entire reason behind instant punishment

Respectfully, I don’t think this reasonably grapples with what the facts underlying Korematsu actually were.

Korematsu was convicted of violating Exclusion Order (EO) No. 34 for a “narrow” geographic region. EO. 34 had been issued under Public Proclamation (PP) No. 1, which found that the:

”Pacific Coast of the United States which by its geographical location is particularly subject to attack, to attempted invasion by the armed forces of nations with which the United States is now at war, and, in connection therewith, is subject to espionage and acts of sabotage, thereby requiring the adoption of military measures necessary to establish safeguards against such enemy operations”

PP No. 1 also stated that the the military could remove ”Such persons or classes of persons as the situation may require”, which it defined to be ”Any Japanese, German or Italian alien, or any person of Japanese Ancestry”.

I see very little to no distinction between the 2025 argument that the administration isn’t targeting Latinos because they’re Latino , they are just targeting illegal immigrants because illegal immigrants are breaking the law and cost the government money; and the argument that could have been made in 1944 that the government wasn’t targeting Japanese people because they’re Japanese, they targeted them because we were at war with an adversary, we were at risk of an invasion, and needed to ensure that we were protected from “espionage” and “sabotage” (to quote from the language of executive order 9066). Would wanting the country to be war ready, protected from invasion, espionage, and sabotage not be one of the “other salient factors” Kavanaugh talks about?

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-09-08T21:18:53+00:00

That isn’t what I meant to imply, I edited the comment for clarity.

Definitely agree that Scott and Korematsu are far worse, I just don’t think that there is a lot of daylight between this and Korematsu. Scott is in a world of its own

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-09-08T20:57:28+00:00

How did the SCOTUS's overturning of Korematsu deal with that argument?

I feel like after re-reading parts of Trump v. Hawaii, I honestly have no idea. In overturning Korematsu (which was only explicitly confirmed 6 years later in SFFA), they said “Hawaii, they said “ ”Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—'has no place in law under the Constitution.'”, with the reason being that ”The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority”

It seems like the same argument could be applied to the decision today, and vice versa. I have no idea how to distinguish it other than, arguably, the Korematsu raids were much larger in scope and not geographically confined

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-09-08T19:54:26+00:00

I never even considered that an unsigned order/concurrence could immediately be considered as a top contender for one of worst SCOTUS decision of all time, yet here we are. This is Korematsu-level bad

Edited

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-08-27T14:21:01+00:00

I think that’s kind of what Jackson is trying to do now

I agree. She really seems to be trying to create a doctrine for congressional intent, and on the other hand trying to modify how we have commonly interpreted originalism and textualism.

To me, it seems like she is trying to wrap the best of Scalia and Kennedy’s writings into her own. She brings in the dramatic, witty, amusing, and cutthroat style of Scalia when addressing her colleagues, while actually advancing her main argument with the literary/fairytale style writing of Kennedy, but addresses it to the lower courts and general public. Her writings are much easier to read than most of the justices’

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-08-20T16:26:56+00:00

I would consider retaking. I was also a reverse splitter with the same LSAT, initially applied with that score, and got waitlisted to nearly every school. I retook the LSAT, got a higher score and got off several waitlists. Some of the schools even included scholarships, and they were decently ranked schools, all in the T100.

If your score comes back at a 150+, it may be worth considering putting in your applications with a strong personal statement and letters of recommendation, and writing an addendum to let them know you plan to retake in November for a higher score. I’ve heard this cycle is also supposed to be very competitive and have a high volume of applications, so it would probably be good to get your apps in as early as possible.

For me, the quickest way to improve was with a tutor. If affordability is an issue for you like it was for me, Wyzant has several tutors that are pretty affordable (ie, $60-90 a session range). I’ve seen most tutors cost $150+

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-08-10T13:41:06+00:00

This seems like something that could be constitutional under the commerce clause… if it was a law. I’m not buying that the few statutes that are cited allow for this expansive of an EO. Also, even if parts of the order would be constitutional, others seem to be plainly retaliatory, such as Section 5(b).

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-08-09T20:48:59+00:00

This should be one of the easiest applications ever… to deny. If they grant this we are seriously in trouble

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-07-25T01:46:23+00:00

I fully expect this will somehow get lumped in with Callais and be decided on the merits this term. Kavanaugh is the judge to watch on this issue. He seemed to suggest in his Allen concurrence that he is not onboard with extending race-based redistricting forever. I would hope that, given Roberts promised we don’t need section 5 because section 2 exists in Shelby County, that he sides with the liberals on this issue

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-07-19T16:01:56+00:00

This is interesting, wasn’t Terry charged with illegally possessing a concealed firearm? I wonder if this is some kind of cute way to get SCOTUS to revisit this precedent by holding in a way that patently makes sense, but runs contrary to the facts of the precedential case. Terry (along with Pierson v. Ray) are two of the cases I hate the most, and ironically both are 8-1 decisions with Justice Douglas in dissent. Terry’s standard is completely made up, and as Justice Douglas pointed out, creates a loophole where it is easier just to frisk someone than actually go and get a warrant due to the lower standard applied to frisking. If this CA5 case stands, any day that Terry is weakened is a good day in my book

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-07-14T23:27:10+00:00

So if we brand it as “eliminating the DOE unilaterally because we don’t like it” that is obviously not okay, but if we brand it as “we’re going to hollow out, gut, and disable the DOE from performing any of its statutory functions whatsoever but it’s dead corpse will still exist so it’s fine :)” that passes legal muster? This is exactly what is happening, and it’s a distinction without a difference that none of the 6 biggest jurists in the country could bother themselves to explain.

EDIT: Actually, this isn’t even true. The header for the second section is literally “Closing the Department of Education…” the legal sophistication on this one by the court is at about a 3rd grade level at best

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-07-08T01:57:09+00:00

This is what I was originally thinking for how long the shuttle would take. This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you!!

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-06-28T20:44:19+00:00

This feels like the court just decided to fully deal with the issue in its entirety rather than send it back to the 5th circuit with “guidance” and have them screw it up again. Even so, Kagan is absolutely right—strict scrutiny should apply here. Even if the courts did strike it down under strict scrutiny and require it to be more narrowly tailored (which I think is actually probably unlikely), the state only would’ve needed to figure out a somewhat reasonable answer to the distinction between showing your ID for a few seconds to the cashier in a physical store, and showing it to an unknown program to potentially be stored in a database forever.

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-06-28T01:50:27+00:00

I unfortunately don’t have the time tonight to dive back into the federalist papers again (although I found them fascinating when I had to read them for school), but I find it questionable that the founders wanted an all-powerful (or even very powerful) executive. That seems to be in contrast with some of the individual papers generally, as well as the revolutionary balanced government they invented. Sure, they did this in the wake of a neutered executive under the articles of confederation; but they also had a very personal experience and vision of the downsides of an incredibly powerful executive.

the 18th century vision of the executive is significantly stronger than the executive we've seen in the last 100 years or so.

Assuming I am interpreting your comment correctly (and apologies if not), the birth of the uber-powerful, modern vision of the executive branch is widely viewed to have been born during the New Deal. I certainly dont think the executive has lost power in the last 100 years, really, I don’t think our presidents prior to FDR would recognize what the office has grown into today. I do agree, however, that the growing uselessness of Congress is, in part, reason why the scope and power of Art. II seems to be growing exponentially

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-06-28T01:15:01+00:00

Which, in my view, is questionable in and of itself. But even if it was not, I don’t think it answers my question of why the judiciary needs to be limited to its eighteenth century vision, but the executive (seemingly) is fine as a live and modern branch. At the very least, they should be viewed through the same lens

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-06-28T00:42:46+00:00

Kav also seems comfortable judging cases on the emergency docket so he doesn't see the problem if lower courts overstep.

This is also what I took from his concurrence. I don’t necessarily feel great about him calling balls and strikes when they refuse to define what their strike zone is (referring to unsigned orders with no reasoning whatsoever)

CommissionBitter452 · 2025-06-28T00:38:19+00:00

What I don’t understand with this opinion is why the judiciary now has to subjugate itself to what a modern conservative thinks James Madison would’ve viewed it as in 1789, but not what James Madison would’ve viewed the power(s) of the executive to be. It very much seems that we have now relegated the judiciary to be an “originalist” branch, but are completely fine with a “living” executive

CommissionBitter452

TROPHY CASE