|
Feces Starship posted:EDIT: actually gently caress it you're a cool guy roger and there's no point in fighting about this We were going to fight? I'm just a cynical bastard. <3
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Lilosh posted:Yes, all of this is clearly the fault of the Federalist Society. I am certainly taking cheap shots. Almost like Scalia does at oral argument. Except I'm not a sitting member of the judiciary acting in my official capacity, and I'm not being invited to any Federalist luncheons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Frankly, I'm surprised that Obama would say something that can easily be spun as "drat the constitution, the law is what I say it is". Seems like a talk radio host's wet dream.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
Yeah; I don't mind that he said it, but somebody dropped the ball with "unprecedented" in there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Misusing the word "unprecedented" is the new misusing the word "literally."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Well, half true. He made the precedent point accurately (though I think you can question whether it's appropriate), but then went off the reservation with the "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" language. It's clearly neither unprecedented nor extraordinary. In addition, he has been happy to praise the court for overturning laws with broad bipartisan support if that decision fits with his ideological views. While we're listing words he used that aren't true, I don't know if the "majority of a democratically-elected congress" with which the law passed qualified as "strong" at all. Unless all majorities are strong, in which case the word was superfluous instead of just incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Lilosh posted:While we're listing words he used that aren't true, I don't know if the "majority of a democratically-elected congress" with which the law passed qualified as "strong" at all. Unless all majorities are strong, in which case the word was superfluous instead of just incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
nm posted:One of my dad's friends was a very successful litigator in private practice and was county counsel until he retired recently. He was also a sheep rancher. Hey I'm a very successful litigator who is a state litigator. I'm also a sheep rancher! I have 70ish sheep. Almost all are destined for mine and my friends' freezers. Want to be bros?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
What really makes me scratch my head is the logic that could lead to such a statement. It basically reduces down to majority rule = valid law. But one of the reasons any country has a judiciary in the first place is to protect minorities and society's most vulnerable from being trampled by the majority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Hey I'm a very successful litigator who is a state litigator. I'm also a sheep rancher! I have 70ish sheep. Almost all are destined for mine and my friends' freezers. Yes, send me some lamb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:What really makes me scratch my head is the logic that could lead to such a statement. It basically reduces down to majority rule = valid law. Thankfully, the Supreme Court seems pretty intent on protecting the right of the wealthy to watch the poor bankrupt themselves any time they need surgery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 12:26
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:Yeah; I don't mind that he said it, but somebody dropped the ball with "unprecedented" in there. The unprecedented part is that it's a center-right politician saying it, rather than one farther to the right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The unprecedented part is that it's a center-right politician saying it, rather than one farther to the right. but but obama is a socialist... who champions conservative ideas re: health reform from the mid-90s... and who authorizes the killing of American citizens abroad without due process... sigh
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:What really makes me scratch my head is the logic that could lead to such a statement. It basically reduces down to majority rule = valid law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
entris posted:but but obama is a socialist... I do find this pretty humorous. Why is it non-extreme conservatives don't like Obama? Serious question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Obama's comment is true though not for the precise reason he said: to overrule the Health Care Act you have to throw out decades of precedent, most uncontroversial, for crassly political reasons. The commerce clause precedents set since the New Deal on are hardly uncontroversial. I mean come on. Those cases stretched the commerce clause in absurd fashion in order to get to the result that the court wanted, often for crassly political reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:I do find this pretty humorous. Why is it non-extreme conservatives don't like Obama? Serious question. A lot of political allegiance is emotional, and I'm not saying that to be flippant. I can't find the article at the moment, but there have been multiple studies about the thought processes of people who are committed Republicans/Democrats - their brains actually ignore certain facts or overemphasize others to fit in with their predetermined worldview. So a Democrat President who is center-right can only be seen as a "leftist" by committed Republicans, nevermind all of the facts to the contrary. Facts do not really play into political arguments between idealogues, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:What really makes me scratch my head is the logic that could lead to such a statement. It basically reduces down to majority rule = valid law. I'm scratching my head at this post, given that in america the popular belief seems to be that majority results in validity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:I think the litigators are usually ok with the simple corporate matters, but the corporate guys aren't going to be dabbling with discoveries and the other nuts-and-bolts litigation matters. Tax litigation is a real niche within a niche. I was talking with a litigator and asked him about this situation. He said that occasionally in his firm a tax lawyer will come along to the proceedings but usually they're just told the situation and run it themselves. His explanation was that the tax lawyer could explain the tax law involved in the case, but he couldn't explain how to do litigation to the tax lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
In the tax department of my firm, we have people who specialize in tax controversy - this includes administrative proceedings with the IRS and court proceedings before federal courts, including the Tax Court. These people are tax lawyers but they are also litigator-types.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I was talking with a litigator and asked him about this situation. I wonder how true this litigator's generalization is. I imagine a tax lawyer would have a different explanation of why they don't litigate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
I don't care who's to blame for the dustup, the Federalist Society is poo poo and it will always be poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Lilosh posted:I wonder how true this litigator's generalization is. I imagine a tax lawyer would have a different explanation of why they don't litigate. My guess would be that they don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
I don't really think legal areas of practice have the say stereotypes that, say med specialties do... except for tax. Tax lawyers are bespectacled nerds who, outside of appellate specialists, on average have the best credentials.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I was talking with a litigator and asked him about this situation. He said that occasionally in his firm a tax lawyer will come along to the proceedings but usually they're just told the situation and run it themselves. His explanation was that the tax lawyer could explain the tax law involved in the case, but he couldn't explain how to do litigation to the tax lawyer. There's some truth to that as "doing litigation" can be more of a skill than knowledge, while the specific tax law is more knowledge than skill. But that will be true for any law that underlies litigation: and the litigator will probably be hopeless at the things the tax lawyer does that are based on skill instead of knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
PSA to dinosaur partners: the youth of today (including myself) are surprisingly tolerant of alternative sexual lifestyles and the proliferation of sex in the media and pop culture, but please please please stop trying to conduct conversations while standing at a urinal with your dick in your hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
entris posted:PSA to dinosaur partners: the youth of today (including myself) are surprisingly tolerant of alternative sexual lifestyles and the proliferation of sex in the media and pop culture, but please please please stop trying to conduct conversations while standing at a urinal with your dick in your hand. That is one thing us women kind will never have to experience. Mind you, stall etiquette can also be awkward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
entris posted:PSA to dinosaur partners: the youth of today (including myself) are surprisingly tolerant of alternative sexual lifestyles and the proliferation of sex in the media and pop culture, but please please please stop trying to conduct conversations while standing at a urinal with your dick in your hand. I thought this was a dominance thing? I usually grunt and ignore. LBJ used to make people hold meetings with him while he dropped a deuce.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:I thought this was a dominance thing? I usually grunt and ignore. See, it's things like that that make me use the urinal with my pants around my ankles. No one tries to talk to me and it feels good, man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
entris posted:PSA to dinosaur partners: the youth of today (including myself) are surprisingly tolerant of alternative sexual lifestyles and the proliferation of sex in the media and pop culture, but please please please stop trying to conduct conversations while standing at a urinal with your dick in your hand. Ever have someone assign you work in the can? I have it's like, what do you think I'm gonna take notes with
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Ever have someone assign you work in the can? I have I had a senior counsel talk to me while I was using the urinal and he was making GBS threads. The worst part was that I could hear the poo poo sliding out of his rear end. Then splash. He would be in the middle of a sentence and then strain on a word...then the sound of sliding....and splash....it haunts me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
Oh god that is awful and when I am an old senior partner (which will never happen) I am totally doing that to some lackey associate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Ever have someone assign you work in the can? I have First rule of working in any office environment: always carry a pad and pen with you. It makes you look busy--even if you aren't--so people are less likely to bother you on your way to wherever you're going, especially if you adopt the "man on a mission" walk (thousand yard stare and walking briskly, cutting corners, etc.). Though yeah, people will also expect you to take notes while making GBS threads. But trust me, it pays off in other ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
IrritationX posted:Though yeah, people will also expect you to take notes while making GBS threads. But trust me, it pays off in other ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
entris posted:PSA to dinosaur partners: the youth of today (including myself) are surprisingly tolerant of alternative sexual lifestyles and the proliferation of sex in the media and pop culture, but please please please stop trying to conduct conversations while standing at a urinal with your dick in your hand. They were all naked in the locker room growing up
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
entris posted:and who authorizes the killing of American citizens abroad without due process... Do any of the legal arguments really hinge on whether Obama goes after a citizen or non-citizen? I suspect that if there was a policy of "only kill the people deemed threats if they're foreigners" that would get called some form of racism or bias and probably face some sort of equal protection challenge. Not that the courts would hear it either way. gret posted:The commerce clause precedents set since the New Deal on are hardly uncontroversial. I mean come on. Those cases stretched the commerce clause in absurd fashion in order to get to the result that the court wanted, often for crassly political reasons. Yeah, I guess that does stick in the craw of the very few people who actually believe in originalism instead of just kinda when it suits them. But I'm pretty sure the original intent of the framers was also for there to be a lot more amendment to the constitution as society developed instead of the perpetual stalemate of a bunch of gridlocked assholes. Now we've got a governing document with relatively few changes that in practice is a lot harder to amend than probably anticipated, and a society that's way outside of an 18th century comprehension. Hell yes judges should adapt the constitutional text to the present day. It is that or wait for government to collapse and start from scratch every couple generations. Calling that an unprincipled position is bullshit. The real unprincipled position is people falling in love with originalism because it just so happens to allow them to stop democratic change in its tracks when voters, in the long run, show a marked preference for expanded regulation and government. Sorry, seriouspost derail. I'll add I didn't hear anyone taking a poo poo but I do think I heard a lawyer crying in public the other day. And it wasn't even me. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Apr 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:They were all naked in the locker room growing up EXACTLY. Totally different world. In other news, I had a really slow and unproductive Jan-March, so I have to bill approximately 1900 hours in the remaining nine months of this year. Whoa. Also, I have just finished drafting a memo on Medicaid and Social Security issues for one of our clients, and this memo will cost three thousand dollars if we bill out all of the time I spent on it. Medicaid and SSI laws and regs are awful, I don't know how elder law attorneys do this poo poo on a regular basis. I would shoot myself in the penis if this was my entire career. Researching the issues involved has been a long, painful experience. entris fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Apr 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
burf posted:The most formal will. you know my first year is almost over and I still haven't gotten around to seeing this thing in person. Monaghan fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Apr 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Lawyer & Law School Megathread #13: I would shoot myself in the penis if this was my entire career.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Do any of the legal arguments really hinge on whether Obama goes after a citizen or non-citizen? I suspect that if there was a policy of "only kill the people deemed threats if they're foreigners" that would get called some form of racism or bias and probably face some sort of equal protection challenge. Not that the courts would hear it either way. So, to answer your question: maybe the citizen/non-citizen distinction doesn't matter with Due Process, but it certainly bolsters the argument that DP should be afforded (or at least judicial review should be extended) in light of the person potentially denied Due Process was a citizen. Especially because the citizen's "life" interest was targeted by government action, which one might imagine to be fairly more important than the property or liberty interests. I also bet that if someone were to bring an Equal Protection claim on a "kill foreigners at will, kill American citizens after a hearing" policy, the SCOTUS would claim no Art. III standing because there is no actual or imminent harm. Because they are fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 04:47
|
|