Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Nuts & Boalts

Law Students

: Nuts & Boalts

Sunday Lexico-Neuroticism

Welcome to installment number two of the Sunday Lexico-Neuroticism series. This week's cringe is induced (actually, more like inadvertently approved) by Judge Patel, of our very own Northern District of California:

The proper focus is upon the detention faced by the petitioner and whether the same is a due process violation, not whether petitioner is likely to succeed in his appeals. A contrary rule would punish the petitioner if he chooses to permissibly appeal the decisions made by the IJ or the BIA. This Hobbesian choice, whereby petitioner must ?choose? to stay detained indefinitely if he wishes to appeal an erroneous decision or accede to the IJ's determination and depart his adopted home, violates due process guarantees. Singh v. Sepulveda, WL 2242215 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2008).

Unlike "concerted," this one is pretty glaring.  Personally, it really grates on the ol' nerves; it's like last spring's "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" advertising -- after the first sighting, you begin to see its twisted little face everywhere.  Which means that if this particular barbarism didn't get under your skin before this post, well, it probably does now.  

If the answer hasn't been disclosed on Monday, I'll share it with you.

Massive exception:  the foregoing is unlikely to apply to those of you who will willfully enter that 9th level of hell tomorrow Tuesday morning -- you don't have the capacity for a single new fact, nor, I venture, could you be an iota more tightly wired.

I might have been tempted to blurt some inspiring remark, but frankly, the whole affair looks too damn awful.  When the dust settles, as we Idaho Vandals are given to say, "Win or lose, there's always booze."

Full post as published by Nuts & Boalts on July 27, 2008 (boomark / email).