|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is the same logic that said the democrats would take blame for a government shutdown. You're right, I'm just in a foul mood right now.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
The issue is people tend not to notice when their side messaged well and won (because you attribute your win to being right) while when your side loses, you tend to attribute it to messaging because by god, you're right and we must have failed to convince people that we're right. Sometimes you lose despite your messaging being good, sometimes you win despite it being bad because you're on such favorable ground you won anyway, but you're really only going to remember the times you lost and you thought the messaging was bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Care to engage with what I actually said, like a human being, or are you simply a talking-point-parrot? Why would I "engage" with intellectual dishonesty in the form of smears & lies? If you have a specific question relevant to this thread for which you want my answer, then state it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Willa, I used to think evilweasel was wrong about you. Used to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I wonder what's up with the Kerry decision about Jerusalem becoming part of the EU or whatever. Rumor is is that there may be problems with standing, particularly in light of some other case they recently granted cert on, and so there is speculation that the Court may hold the case over. reputable source: academic blogging about some lawnerd thing, totally reputable guys
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Why would I "engage" with intellectual dishonesty in the form of smears & lies? If you have a specific question relevant to this thread for which you want my answer, then state it. Figured you'd just dodge. Seriously, ask yourself what you think you're achieving by your repackaging of Republican talking points in this and other threads. Does it actually advance the cause of single payer, or any other cause you (supposedly) support? Since rational people know that single-payer is, for the moment--whatever may have been the case when the ACA was attempted--politically completely out of reach, constantly attacking the Democrats and the ACA is going to have the actual effect of moving us, as a country, farther away from single payer. Again, whether or not it is true, people see the ACA as a step towards single-payer, movement towards 'government control of healthcare'. By shittalking it constantly and using every opportunity to say that the Democrats actually harmed the nation by passing ACA, you erode support for government involvement in health insurance and health care. At this point--after months and months and months of reflexive talking-point posting on your part--it seems like this is either more an emotional thing for you--that you feel betrayed by the Democrats and want to attack them and their supporters, without actually looking at effects--or that you are an accelerationist or some sort of other completely impractical ideologue who refuses to actually self-criticize. Do you entertain the possibility that what you're doing is wrong, that you need to re-evaluate your approach, or do you just dismiss all criticism as 'intellectual dishonesty in the form of smears & lies"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:25
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Willa, I used to think evilweasel was wrong about you. Used to. Yeah, this. You can't just refuse to seriously engage any of your opponents and expect people to take any of your arguments seriously.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:without acknowledging that only 1 percent of the previously uninsured had been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions And you're calling Obdicut intellectually dishonest? That number is only counting (by your own admission) people who had already been denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition, and doesn't even begin to touch on the number of people who were trapped in dead-end jobs in lovely companies because they would be denied insurance or subjected to a ridiculous exclusionary period for something that would be considered a pre-existing condition by their new employer's insurance. Won't even get into how disingenuous it is to talk about "cost controls" and out of pocket costs when people like me have been stuck with lovely coinsurance-only policies with unlimited OOP potential in the past. Most of your parroted talking points only apply to the well-off who are pissed that they have to languish in the same risk pools as the people who actually do the work they get paid for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Is there a chance that the king decision is taking a long time because scotus doesn't want to violate the last paragraph of U.S. CONST. ART. I. SECT. 9?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Is there a chance that the king decision is taking a long time because scotus doesn't want to violate the last paragraph of U.S. CONST. ART. I. SECT. 9? The No Gods No Masters Clause?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Obdicut, I answered your post in the PPACA thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Obdicut, I answered your post in the PPACA thread. Obdicut, do I actually have to go read the PPACA thread or can I just assume this is Willa being Willa?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:Obdicut, do I actually have to go read the PPACA thread or can I just assume this is Willa being Willa? Yeah, not actual answers or valid response so far. Some caricatures of what I said, as well as making up poo poo I didn't say, no explanation of how repeatedly attacking the Democrats and the ACA leads to any increased support for single-payer. Maybe in a future post. For actual Supreme Courty stuff: How big a deal is being a clerk of a Supreme? Is it like, career-making, an important step, something given on who you know rather than quality, etc?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yeah, not actual answers or valid response so far. Some caricatures of what I said, as well as making up poo poo I didn't say, no explanation of how repeatedly attacking the Democrats and the ACA leads to any increased support for single-payer. Maybe in a future post. It's kind of like going to an Ivy-League school. It's not going to make a career by itself, but the networking and brand name will make it really easy to move onto something big afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's kind of like going to an Ivy-League school. It's not going to make a career by itself, but the networking and brand name will make it really easy to move onto something big afterwards. Does the actual work help you prepare for a further career--is what you do as a Supreme Court clerk similar to any other sort of legal work that you'd be likely to move on to? It's something you do quite early in your career, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:For actual Supreme Courty stuff: How big a deal is being a clerk of a Supreme? Is it like, career-making, an important step, something given on who you know rather than quality, etc? Incredibly big deal, there's very few things that you can have on your resume that top that. Pretty merit-based (except for Alito, iirc, who has a habit of hiring poorly credentialed ideologues).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Incredibly big deal, there's very few things that you can have on your resume that top that. Pretty merit-based (except for Alito, iirc, who has a habit of hiring poorly credentialed ideologues). So if I know someone who was a clerk for a supreme and is now working for a mid-tier firm after having been let go after three years at another firm, that probably indicates that something went seriously awry for them? 'cuz I do know that person. It made me overall interested in what the clerk system is like, but it struck me as odd. It wasn't Alioto they clerked for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So if I know someone who was a clerk for a supreme and is now working for a mid-tier firm after having been let go after three years at another firm, that probably indicates that something went seriously awry for them? 'cuz I do know that person. It made me overall interested in what the clerk system is like, but it struck me as odd. It may be they are a fantastic legal academic but not really suited for the firm life (which depending on the firm can be brutal hours and high stress). People who clerked for the Supreme Court usually go into appellate work (handing appeals) or teaching (which is an incredibly cushy gig). He probably had straight A's at a good school, clerked at an appeals court and was thought of highly by his judge. That may not translate well into biglaw where what matters most is being able to churn out the work you're doing reliably while working long hours and under high stress. Moving from a big firm to a mid-size firm is often a lifestyle choice seeking lower hours and lower stress rather than failing downward - a lot of the people I know of who left a big firm after three years self-selected out rather than got asked to leave. He would have entered his firm as a third year though (paid as if he'd been working there the two years he clerked instead) and then had to catch up to the people who knew the system of the firm and knew a lot more applied "here is how to get poo poo done" stuff. He'd have probably started getting pushed out because it's an up-or-out system and what matters most is the business you can bring in once you're at a 7th year or above level, not so much how good you are. I wouldn't necessarily assume thing went awry for them - they'd have collected a lot of money in those three years which they might need for student debt - but they may not be leveraging the clerkship for their career as well as they could. But they're always going to be able to get their foot in the door to at least get an interview for a job they want by listing that clerkship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So if I know someone who was a clerk for a supreme and is now working for a mid-tier firm after having been let go after three years at another firm, that probably indicates that something went seriously awry for them? 'cuz I do know that person. It made me overall interested in what the clerk system is like, but it struck me as odd. Yeah, something went wrong there. SCOTUS clerkship is the kind of thing you keep on your resume 40 years later - it is very much a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It may be they are a fantastic legal academic but not really suited for the firm life (which depending on the firm can be brutal hours and high stress). People who clerked for the Supreme Court usually go into appellate work (handing appeals) or teaching (which is an incredibly cushy gig). He probably had straight A's at a good school, clerked at an appeals court and was thought of highly by his judge. That may not translate well into biglaw where what matters most is being able to churn out the work you're doing reliably while working long hours and under high stress. Kalman posted:Yeah, something went wrong there. SCOTUS clerkship is the kind of thing you keep on your resume 40 years later - it is very much a big deal. Thanks. I don't know if he self-selected out or was pushed out, but either way I've always thought he was more suited to academia and not quite sure why he hasn't gone that route; I bet student debt is part of that. Final random question, I promise: Do law schools have the same situation as regular academia, where adjuncts are doing an enormous proportion of the teaching as compared to twenty years ago?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Words You're right. We on the left should just shut up and fall in line. Anytime we criticize an Obama policy, we are only aiding the right. Besides, DISLOYALTY CANNOT BE TOLERATED.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:You're right. We on the left should just shut up and fall in line. Anytime we criticize an Obama policy, we are only aiding the right. Besides, DISLOYALTY CANNOT BE TOLERATED. This is a silly and insufficient summation of what I said, though. Feel free to come over to the PPCA thread, where I've said even more 'words'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Thanks. I don't know if he self-selected out or was pushed out, but either way I've always thought he was more suited to academia and not quite sure why he hasn't gone that route; I bet student debt is part of that. Not so much, since the prestige of the faculty is a selling point (their actual teaching skill is not). You have very large classes where the professor does two or three hours of class a week by lecturing and calling on people. The "how to actually practice law" classes tend to be non-tenure track people who actually are practicing lawyers doing it as a side job because shockingly few legal academics have any actual experience practicing law. However since a law degree is technically a doctorate, you need the same degree for teaching as you do to practice so it doesn't have the problem that regular academia does of people getting a degree that's only useful to teach, and there being millions more of those people than there are positions. Law schools are massive profit centers for a university since their only cost is professors and real estate and they charge tuition as opposed to granting a stipend, so they don't face cost-cutting pressures unless they're really bad schools that can no longer attract enough students. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Pretty merit-based (except for Alito, iirc, who has a habit of hiring poorly credentialed ideologues). I'm shocked  Everything I hear about that man makes me hope he gets hit by a bus full of trans gay atheist abortionist union activists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I'm shocked They don't all do it: Scalia often hires a liberal clerk (usually only one, out of four) and supposedly you can tell his decisions are better written in those years because you can tell someone pushed back on the dumbest arguments. The end result doesn't change of course, just how well he explains how he gets there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They don't all do it: Scalia often hires a liberal clerk (usually only one, out of four) and supposedly you can tell his decisions are better written in those years because you can tell someone pushed back on the dumbest arguments. The end result doesn't change of course, just how well he explains how he gets there. Even Alito's "poorly credentialed ideologues" are still well credentialed, though. They wouldn't necessarily get a look from another justice, but they've generally all clerked in prestigious clerkships, did well at school, etc. it just might be a more conservative school (but still not completely terrible) instead of Yale, and a conservative appellate judge. I mean, Alito's 2013 clerks were Harvard/Harvard/Georgetown/Minnesota, his 2014 clerks were Harvard/Harvard/Harvard/Notre Dame, and his 2015 clerks are columbia/stanford/yale/harvard. He biases to more conservative people but their credentials are still extremely good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Even Alito's "poorly credentialed ideologues" are still well credentialed, though. They wouldn't necessarily get a look from another justice, but they've generally all clerked in prestigious clerkships, did well at school, etc. it just might be a more conservative school (but still not completely terrible) instead of Yale, and a conservative appellate judge. I think I was wrong: I was thinking of his BYU clerks, but it looks like he brought those from when he was a 3rd Circuit justice and had been out of school a little while. He definitely dips outside the top law schools more than others, but not to the extent I'd thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
I don't think dipping outside the hys pool too far is a bad idea. But having attended a perennial 50-60 ranked "practice oriented" school, I don't blame the judiciary for heavily relying on the top schools for their clerks. We didn't learn theory nearly to the levels that you do at a traditional school. Unless by poorly credentialed you meant "only the notes editor on Yale's law journal."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The No Gods No Masters Clause? Can't recognize titles like King.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I don't think dipping outside the hys pool too far is a bad idea. But having attended a perennial 50-60 ranked "practice oriented" school, I don't blame the judiciary for heavily relying on the top schools for their clerks. We didn't learn theory nearly to the levels that you do at a traditional school. I think I was offended that it was BYU because they're so insanely conservative, but looking at the complete list made it clear I was wrong - he's hired other lower-tier people from other schools, all of them had enough time they'd clearly proven themselves, and the BYU people were essentially legacies of his appeals court time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
So, I wonder if Scalia will say something about this?quote:Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death. “For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,” Scalia wrote in a 1994 ruling. “How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!”
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:So, I wonder if Scalia will say something about this? Something something the courts found him guilty something something execute him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:So, I wonder if Scalia will say something about this? Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting) posted:The Georgia Supreme Court rejected petitioner's "actual-innocence" claim on the merits, denying his extraordinary motion for a new trial. Davis can obtain relief only if that determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." It most assuredly was not. This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally cognizable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Of course that "who cares if they're actually innocent" case came out of Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the place, but what prevents congress from trying to make a declaration of fact in law. For example, what prevents congress from declaring Santa to be really-actually real. Obviiously, it's a completely ridiculous argument, I'm wondering if there's any constitutional way to overturn it once the president signs this crazy imaginary law. I was thinking about weed laws, and the fact that weed is schedule one despite being harmless, as well as global warming denial. Climate change is objective reality, how can anyone declare it untrue legally?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Not sure if this is the place, but what prevents congress from trying to make a declaration of fact in law. For example, what prevents congress from declaring Santa to be really-actually real. Obviiously, it's a completely ridiculous argument, I'm wondering if there's any constitutional way to overturn it once the president signs this crazy imaginary law. SCOTUS could probably strike the law down as unconstitutional as a 10th amendment violation, since the finding of fact of existence of Santa on its own wouldn't seem to fall under any of the enumerated powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Not sure if this is the place, but what prevents congress from trying to make a declaration of fact in law. For example, what prevents congress from declaring Santa to be really-actually real. Obviiously, it's a completely ridiculous argument, I'm wondering if there's any constitutional way to overturn it once the president signs this crazy imaginary law. Depends on how the law is actually applied and who is required to pretend it's true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:SCOTUS could probably strike the law down as unconstitutional as a 10th amendment violation, since the finding of fact of existence of Santa on its own wouldn't seem to fall under any of the enumerated powers. Green Crayons posted:So good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
twodot posted:As evilweasel notes, it's unclear how you would get standing to sue a law declaring Santa is real. Actually, the more I think about it the more I think I would approach it as a violation of the establishment clause.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 18:36
|
|