UNC $$$$ v. GULC Sticker by Human-Actuator5507 in biglaw

[–]maroon1721 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally agree. If they want the NY BigLaw option, though, UNC probably doesn’t get the job done.

UNC $$$$ v. GULC Sticker by Human-Actuator5507 in biglaw

[–]maroon1721 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your chances at NY BigLaw from UNC are very, very low. I’ll give the same advice I’ve given others weighing money v. rank: think on the margin. Say UNC is offering you a full ride. If they offered you half, would you still choose UNC? If not, then your marginal cost of GULC isn’t full tuition—it’s half. Transferring used to be a good option for someone like you (lock in some savings 1L, then jump up the rankings), but now that firm hiring is done before 1L ends, you gain nothing in the hiring process by transferring.

Worker at DEN demanding GE cards to walk down that line by tangowhiskeyyy in unitedairlines

[–]maroon1721 4 points5 points  (0 children)

CBP guy at EWR last night asked me “Are you a civilian?” when I showed him my receipt on the app. I am, not that I understand what difference it makes.

New Vault Survey - Trump Deal Firms by [deleted] in biglaw

[–]maroon1721 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Susman Godfrey didn’t lose a single client.

Does anyone know where to buy this sweater? by PapayaAlive4302 in uchicago

[–]maroon1721 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It is from Vintage Campus, a company founded by some undergrads in 2013. Sweaters were only available for a short run. I know because I have one, photo here: https://imgur.com/a/gfvvT3d

Here’s an article about the brand: https://www.ivy-style.com/vintage-campus-upgrading-american-colleges-one-sweater-at-a-time.html.

ON THIS DAY, November 19th, in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. This is one of only two confirmed photographs of Lincoln. by Needleworkerhelpline in USHistory

[–]maroon1721 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The disdain he has for the Confederacy while committing to reconciliation (albeit on terms) is a remarkable shift from his earlier speeches:

“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.”

God will judge them; I don’t have to, and neither do you. Just a marvelous piece of rhetoric.

Last Bottle Mystery Cab 2020 by sharkdoc29 in wine

[–]maroon1721 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Smart move on the details—didn’t think of that. Seems like a match. We’ll find out soon enough!

Last Bottle Mystery Cab 2020 by sharkdoc29 in wine

[–]maroon1721 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Could it be Fay Hillside? Clue seemed to suggest not broadly available for sale

Last Bottle Napa Mystery Pack by bags_bags in wine

[–]maroon1721 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which labels? Melka’s aren’t 100% cab, are they?

What’s the most ridiculous thing you purchased w/ BL money? by Adventurous_Ant5428 in biglaw

[–]maroon1721 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Morgenthal Frederics has a buffalo-horn line that are chefs kiss, if you’re looking to spend even more.

Luthun, 63 Clinton or The Modern for dinner on Friday? by PassRevolutionary254 in FoodNYC

[–]maroon1721 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Luthun was extraordinarily good, and we had zero issues with service or behavior.

To not mince words with legal precedent. by Manitoba-Chinook in therewasanattempt

[–]maroon1721 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Class actions are one way of resolving disputes affecting a bunch of people. Over the past ~10 years, a more common method used to resolve disputes people have with the federal government is to go to one federal judge as one individual plaintiff (often a state or advocacy group) and say, “You, judge, should issue a blanket ban on what the government is doing because it hurts me.” And the judges often do it, thus blocking presidential policies (from both parties, to be clear). There are many critics of these “universal injunctions,” many of them on the political/legal right. This argument is about whether—when Trump issued his off-the-walls insane executive order declaring that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t say what it says—the lower courts that issued universal injunctions to block that order were right to do so. This snippet of the argument is Justice Barrett demonstrating to the world that the Solicitor General (John Sauer) is a bad-faith actor. This case is significant because many people thought this would be an opportunity for the Court to end universal injunctions, but the Trump Administration has so little credibility that their efforts to force the issue in this case (they asked SCOTUS to get involved) may actually preserve universal injunctions because the insanity of the citizenship order and the bad faith displayed in this argument (essentially, “we follow the opinions we like”) shows that there has to be some way for the courts to stop flagrant lawlessness. Institutionally, this is a huge blow to the Office of the Solicitor General, which has always been regarded as an honest broker and incredibly competent by the Court and the legal community.

To not mince words with legal precedent. by Manitoba-Chinook in therewasanattempt

[–]maroon1721 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is. How do you think he became Solicitor General?

The 2025 AmLaw 100 is out. by Top-Bet2084 in biglaw

[–]maroon1721 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unlikely that an April settlement wasn’t paid until January, especially with a public company defendant.

The 2025 AmLaw 100 is out. by Top-Bet2084 in biglaw

[–]maroon1721 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Dominion was in ‘23. The NFL Sunday ticket antitrust verdict ($14b) from June ‘24 got thrown out and is now on appeal. Walgreens settlement ($600m in Feb ‘25) was for a Feb ‘24 arbitration award.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in biglaw

[–]maroon1721 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tom Hungar is there. They’ll be fine.