Balkinization  

Saturday, December 06, 2014

"Opinions on the Shape of the World Differ" Legal Reporting

Mark Tushnet

From a New York Times story by Julia Preston with the headline "Experts See Legal Hazards in States' Immigration Suit":
Several lawyers said the states could have a hard time convincing the federal courts that they could suffer specific harms as a result of Mr. Obama’s actions. Those harms are the legal foundation for them to bring the suit. 
“The injury the states are alleging seems a bit speculative,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor of immigration and constitutional law at Yale Law School. “In many ways this is a political document,” she said of the suit, adding, “It feels more rhetorical than legal.”
Others counter that the suit is sound. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice who has argued several cases involving conservative causes before the Supreme Court, said that Mr. Obama had gone far beyond the bounds of executive discretion and that the lawsuit would demonstrate that. “The scope and breadth of what the president has done is so impressive that it changes the dynamic dramatically,” he said.
It's exam time, so here's a question (actually, not entirely non-serious) for our students: In what sense is "The scope and breadth of what the president has done is so impressive that it changes the dynamic dramatically" a legal argument, even one simplified for public consumption?

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home