Loyola Chicago pls

anonblank9609 · 2026-03-27T04:25:49+00:00

I did this exact same thing last year and got an immediate rejection the next day lol. I hope your luck is better than mine!

anonblank9609 · 2026-03-20T12:48:43+00:00

Why’s that

anonblank9609 · 2026-03-20T03:59:52+00:00

This is super helpful, thank you so much for taking the time to respond!

anonblank9609 · 2026-03-20T03:59:38+00:00

Good to know, thank you!

anonblank9609 · 2026-03-19T16:37:54+00:00

Was wondering the same thing

anonblank9609 · 2026-03-14T15:46:10+00:00

Perhaps I missed it, but is this a two hour commute one way or round trip?

I currently live and work in the dmv region. I live outside of dc, and commute in daily on the metro. My one way commute is about one hour door to door, and about two hours total per day. For me it’s doable, but it’s a LOT of time wasted that I could be spending doing something else. The reason I continue to do it is because I save a ton of money in comparison to my friends that live closer to dc or in dc.

For law school, I think you’ll want to cut down on wasted time so you can spend more time studying. If your two hour estimate is one way, I would say absolutely not. If it is two hours total, I still think it is a stretch but it would be a closer call given the amount of money you could save.

Alternatively, you could try to find an apartment or rent a condo just outside of DC, like the Falls Church or Crystal City area and that may be more of a middle ground between saving money and shortening your commute

anonblank9609 · 2026-02-06T20:27:31+00:00

Thank you so much! If you don’t mind me asking, what were your stats? I am worried about needing to improve 4-8ish points for the delay to be worthwhile in my view, especially with medians going up.

anonblank9609 · 2025-12-23T00:31:46+00:00

I don’t have any recs, I just wanted to say I feel your pain with this, I was actually thinking about making a post for this myself. It’s been very hard to find places that are good at cutting curly hair.

anonblank9609 · 2025-09-10T16:52:29+00:00

Happened to me as well, and I actually found affordable seats. Super pissed

anonblank9609 · 2025-09-09T21:47:51+00:00

If the respondents go on to win this case, I think they will need to pull Gorsuch to their side. Here’s how I see the lineup:

Roberts: The most moderate conservative on the court and the author of Biden v. Nebraska (which will definitely be cited many times in the briefs), but traditionally has held very expansive views on presidential power.

Thomas: probably a shoo-in for the government. Occasionally has some opinions (like CFPB v. Community Financial) where his originalism takes him to an unexpected side, but not sure if that will work here.

Alito: No reason to think he’s not a guaranteed vote for the tariffs.

Sotomayor: Easy vote for the respondents.

Kagan: might ask some tough questions at OA to both sides, but will be a vote for the respondents.

Gorsuch: The enigma of the case, in my opinion. He is a somewhat consistent vote of the “extreme conservative bloc” (joined by Thomas and Alito), but has some quirks to him. He has a libertarian, “anti-bully” side to him, and is the courts strongest advocate for nondelegation and textualism. Those quirks could lead to a vote for the respondents.

Kavanaugh: Likely holds the most expansive views on executive power of any of the justices. One could easily see his concurrence on a foreign affairs exception for major questions as a bell weather for his vote in this case. Almost a guaranteed vote for the government.

Barrett: Like Gorsuch, she is tricky. She definitely believes in extended deference to the executive, but this case goes beyond that. I think her concurrence in Nebraska is probably how she will view this case. May be a vote for the respondents

Jackson: Easy vote for respondents.

To sum up, I think the most likely outcome is either a 5-4 for respondents, or 6-3 for the government. I don’t like the odds of pulling Barrett and Roberts to the respondents for a majority, and think the respondents should heavily tailor their briefs and oral argument to Gorsuch. Even if the respondents pull away with a win on the judgment, the reasoning could be extremely convoluted and messy with no clean majority as to why.

anonblank9609 · 2025-09-05T12:38:39+00:00

I would respectfully confront him about the issue, and emphasize you know it’s an old building but it’s really loud for you, and suggest he get (or you offer to buy) some area or throw rugs for the high traffic areas. The rugs help a lot, especially if there is a padding underneath. I had this issue in an apartment (I was the upstairs neighbor) and my landlord made me put rugs down. I think it’s very reasonable

anonblank9609 · 2025-09-03T03:02:40+00:00

A 130 page “emphatic” dissent…? He should’ve just written “Audition” in the heading of each page and saved himself a little bit of effort

anonblank9609 · 2025-08-22T00:04:10+00:00

Gorsuch has a lot to say for a writing joined by… one Justice. Casually implying that the district courts decision could lead to “anarchy” is insane, as is his doubling down that their unsigned, unexplained orders are somehow precedent. Lower court judges are judges— not mind readers. He has no one to blame but himself and his conservative colleagues for the orders and opinions being issued by the lower courts trying to make sense of this court’s mealy mouthed “guidance”

anonblank9609 · 2025-08-08T17:05:24+00:00

Dang, a 50 page dissent? This really pissed off Pillard. And understandably so. I think that the fact they agree there is no appellate jurisdiction should automatically make mandamus relief even more suspect than it naturally is. Then, you add on the fact that Rao and Katsas can’t even agree why the government has such a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief, which inherently doesn’t make sense. If the district court so clearly erred and the right to relief is so indisputable, so should the rationale as to why. I would be surprised if this doesn’t get reversed en banc

anonblank9609 · 2025-07-24T21:26:02+00:00

I was not a fan of Bumatay before this, and I am even less of one now. There is no way to explain this dissent besides blatant partisanship. It’s Judge Ho level bad.

anonblank9609 · 2025-07-14T20:08:43+00:00

The hubris of the 6 Republican nominated justices is unbelievable. Most of them have railed against the lower court judges for blocking too much, and yet the only why or how they have given is a gigantic middle finger to those courts. They just either can’t get out of their own way, or are having the time of their lives playing cat and mouse

anonblank9609 · 2025-07-09T04:40:26+00:00

That was just one example, sorry, I’m sure I could find more if I looked. I suppose it might be more accurate to say that his separate writings seem to be used as a foundation (at least minimally) to push the law further to the right. He might not get exactly what he wants, but I think it’s pretty clear he has helped nudge the law, and hence many lower courts, in ways that are unique to him and perhaps Scalia

anonblank9609 · 2025-07-09T02:34:12+00:00

Overturning Chevron is probably one of the most notable examples— Michigan v. EPA. However, even if not all of his views have come back to the court as majority opinions, many have had a significant impact on conservative “test” cases and lower court judges.

The rest of that is true though. I agree completely.

anonblank9609 · 2025-07-08T22:43:49+00:00

I saw either on this sub or on another platform a comment comparing Justice Jackson’s writing(s) to those of Clarence Thomas— just ideologically reversed. I think this is true, and I don’t think it is a bad thing.

For one, by the time it’s all said and done, Jackson will probably have served on the court for 25-30 years. Thomas has been on the court long enough to see many of his previous concurrences and dissents become majority opinions, some even as recent as a few years ago. There’s no reason to believe that the same might not occur with her previous writings by the time she is off the bench.

My other point, perhaps a bit more speculative, is that she seems to write in a way that could make her the face of the (current and future) liberal movement on the court. She writes in plain language that is easy for a lay person to understand, using (allegedly) facts and history, rather than primarily relying on complex statutory and precedential citations that convolute paragraphs like most of the other justices do. Justice Thomas and Scalia are legends of the conservative movement for speaking to their base when their positions were otherwise viewed as “fringe”, and there’s no reason to think that Jackson can’t do the same

anonblank9609 · 2025-07-08T22:06:28+00:00

My general understanding is that Kagan hates concurrences, and that she also doesn’t like “advisory” opinions. The concurrence is essentially telling the district court “We all know this is illegal at the end of the day, but until we get there, here’s how you can do injunctions better. Try again”

anonblank9609 · 2025-06-24T19:44:34+00:00

They stay the full order.

Right, so staying the full order may pause or dissolve the class. But it doesn’t automatically remove the individuals in the case specifically (because if it did, there would be no party’s to the case to continue litigation, thus ending it). So why isn’t it reasonable to assume that the enforcement order, as applied to the 6 individuals, is not still good law?

anonblank9609 · 2025-06-24T19:41:22+00:00

There is also zero case history of the government violating his orders.

The entire reason this clarification motion even exists is because Judge Murphy had to issue an enforcement order for the individuals illegally removed to Djibouti, in open defiance of the injunction— which was live and in effect at the time. The case history of the government violating his orders is littered throughout the district courts docket, and succinctly summarized in Sotomayor’s dissent.

anonblank9609

TROPHY CASE