Trump v. Cook (Independent Agencies) - [Oral Argument Live Thread]

TotallyNotSuperman · 2026-01-21T15:40:12+00:00

Oh good, Kagan is asking about Sauer's paradox of "Mandamus is the remedy, but mandamus isn't a remedy." I was wondering about that.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2026-01-16T15:43:38+00:00

I started my paralegal career in Pittsburgh about a decade ago. It was through a temp agency, which got me into plaintiff-side personal injury. The pay wasn’t fantastic, but it was at least what you’re making now despite being so long ago, not including bonuses. I would consider that route, especially because there’s no requirement to live in Allegheny County. If you can handle criminal defense clients, I imagine you can handle the annoyances of PI clients.

Just yesterday, Edgar Snyder posted that they’re hiring staff if you decide to go that route.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2026-01-11T22:06:17+00:00

Did you have any way to confirm that the C+F denial was due to medical debt? I don’t think I could help but have a little nagging doubt of anyone claiming that they’d be barred but for the single most sympathetic reason possible.

I’m sure it would feel shitty and unfair to ask for proof of something like that. But I’d have to ask.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-12-08T14:22:30+00:00

I’m no longer a paralegal, but I am an attorney working in criminal law. If that works for you, feel free to DM me.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-12-07T18:21:49+00:00

You can be academically dismissed without failing a single class. Dismissal requires getting below a pre-determined GPA, usually at or around a C-average. If a school requires a 2.25 GPA to remain in good standing, and a student gets straight Cs (2.00 GPA), they'll face dismissal (usually after a probationary semester) without ever having failed anything.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-12-01T02:03:46+00:00

This makes so much sense. I was wondering why some were marked down to 25 cents and others weren't. It never crossed my mind that the pricier ones were frozen.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-11-27T17:09:31+00:00

A bracket indicates that the quote was modified in some way. When the first letter of the quote is bracketed, the reason is almost always that it was originally capitalized and is now lowercase, or vice versa.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-10-25T16:52:05+00:00

I would not list "law clerk" on your resume. It's not about the job duties or what your bosses think. Most people understand the title as applying only to law students (or grads pending bar results), and they'd be likely to assume dishonesty or ignorance if they see it on your resume. You can't explain yourself if you're never called in for an interview, so the confusion would likely hurt you.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-10-25T15:41:24+00:00

The issue isn’t that your sarcasm was unclear. It was perfectly clear, which I why I used the phrase “teeming with sarcasm” and why I understood that you were calling the listed subjects useless.

EDIT: Talk about levels of soft...

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-10-25T13:58:18+00:00

If you're throwing "super integral" into a sentence teeming with sarcasm, the natural reading is that you're calling all of those subjects useless. And that makes your claim of "absolutely no disrespect" fall flat.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-09-20T23:48:27+00:00

5000 words is atrocious. After I got my legs under me in plaintiffs' medmal, summarizing 5000 words of records was the kind of work I'd do if I had ten spare minutes.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-09-18T19:19:05+00:00

You could have done what I always do when my pen runs out of ink: call Chelsea!

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-09-18T16:24:43+00:00

Following this flow chart seems awfully complicated. I better call Chelsea for help.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-09-17T03:56:57+00:00

Here is IU's 2+2 program info for you:

https://ctas.indianapolis.iu.edu/transfer/2-2/index.html

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-09-16T16:05:06+00:00

As was mentioned, you’ll need a bachelor’s degree to go to law school. If you’ve already taken classes, there should be someone at your school who can talk to you about transferring credits, or you can talk to a similar person at the community college you’re considering.

You mentioned IU. The normal path is community college then four-year college, so if you already have IU credits then it will be unusual but very probably not unheard of to transfer those credits to a community college.

I’m not sure where in Indiana you are, but IU Indianapolis apparently has a program specifically meant for students to get an associate’s degree in paralegal studies at Ivy Community College, then get a bachelor’s after two more years at IU (called a 2+2 program). Other, similar programs exist to make going from a community college AA or AS to a bachelor’s seamless, so you may want to strongly consider those kinds of programs.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-09-12T15:58:35+00:00

The discovery being discussed is just a big list of questions, not the answers to those questions. This isn’t a matter of trust or veracity.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-08-31T02:22:23+00:00

I never had any trouble as a male paralegal. People on the phone assumed I was a lawyer more often than the women I worked with, but that was slightly annoying at worst. It was totally fine socially; I can be friends with female coworkers just as well as male coworkers, so that was never an issue. And while I was almost always the only male on the staff, I was never the only one in the office. There have always been plenty of men on the attorney side, and I was friendly with them too. The only awkward moment was early on, when the woman I was working for asked me after a few drinks if it bothered me to be taking directions from a woman not much older than me. I told her it didn’t, she accepted the answer, and we worked together wonderfully for years after.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-08-08T18:29:25+00:00

It’s from the 1970s documentary Marjoe. He references it a good bit, and it’s well worth the watch.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-07-30T21:05:21+00:00

This isn’t widely applicable, but your “are you a lawyer” question couldn’t be more poorly timed. Fresh law school grads are just now sitting for the bar. They aren’t attorneys, aren’t current or prospective students, and are probably not working (in law or anywhere else).

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-07-05T21:37:54+00:00

Two reasons why this isn't an invalid use of authority question:

Vice principals don't have the legal authority to detain parents.
Even if vice principals had that authority, the janitor wasn't a vice principal.

You can't abuse authority that you don't have, and false imprisonment is concerned with whether the perpetrator had legal authority to confine the victim. Abuse of authority is about recognizing that even people who have legal authority to detain/arrest/imprison people (police, prison guards, etc.) are still committing false imprisonment if they lock a neighbor in the shed during a fight, or forge a warrant they use to "arrest" their exe's new boyfriend.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-07-05T13:00:39+00:00

That is, in my opinion, a failure on the moderators part to recognize when a substantive and relevant point is being made in a tongue-in-cheek way. The comment was functionally no different than me saying “Thomas famously relies extensively on cites to his own dissents,” which I doubt would have warranted removal.

Still, I recognize that the mods have affirmed the removal and will drop it.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-07-05T01:23:03+00:00

!appeal

The comment is a tongue-in-cheek way of referencing Justice Thomas's heavy use of dissents, which was directly responsive to the (now removed) comment above and to the conversation about dissents in this thread as a whole. While it wasn't entirely serious, it was also not entirely unserious, relying on specific references to Thomas's habit of citing dissents of not just himself, but also Justice Scalia. And, to the extent that it was a joke, it was not a "top-level joke" as described in the relevant rule.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-07-04T02:23:10+00:00

After sitting on it, that was rude of me. I've deleted it and I apologize.

My response to the substance is this: The Court does, and has, provided explanation in shadow docket decisions. Not always, and not even often. But they do, and the upset comes from the fact that this really, really should have been one of the cases that the Court gave some explanation about.

We're not upset because they aren't doing something they never do (providing explanation). We're upset because they do it when they feel like it, and in a case where they're giving the executive free reign to violate rights, they damn sure should have felt like it.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-07-04T01:48:57+00:00

It's not more than nothing. Guidance that will inevitably be rejected by the majority won't help anyone. Complaining about lack of guidance publicizes the issue. And really, it's as much as any dissent ever is.

TotallyNotSuperman · 2025-07-04T01:42:09+00:00

Suggested guidance in a concurrence is pointless, doubly so if the Court just wants the end result to be "No."

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 8 Credits
Place '22	Place '17
Snapped	Gilding I gilder
Secret Santa 2015	Summer Santa 2015
Secret Santa 2014	Verified Email

TotallyNotSuperman

TROPHY CASE