|
Nice piece of fish posted:So how are y'all spending your summer? The same way I spend every other season of the year, I guess? Alaemon posted:I'm exceeding 45 hours a week I honestly can't decide on how to respond to this.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:So how are y'all spending your summer? Performing improv and trying to restrain my boss’s unfocused energy. In “dine on Alpo” news, Valparaiso Law School is planning to move to Tennessee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I did winter camping at elevation (Yellowstone) in just a tent and it was like -25 overnight? It stunk since we were under geared. I do recall during bright sunlight the day we got to the car it being -19. Then back in Chicago it was 25 and I was overheating immediately
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
loving Roberts. Oh for sure, in retrospect Korematsu was a terrible decision, a disgrace in fact, with “no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S. 214, 248 (1944)(Jackson, J., dissenting). And yes, we're using the same rationale here that we used in Korematsu. And yes, Trump did compare himself favorably to FDR interning Japanese Americans. But it's okay here, you see, because, well, here there is a valid national security concern. As has been obvious from the dozens of terrorist attacks that have occurred without the travel ban.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
echopapa posted:Performing improv and trying to restrain my boss’s unfocused energy. Lol, the “gift” of Valpo I like to think that this thread had some role in bringing about the death of Valparaiso law school
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:loving Roberts. Oh for sure, in retrospect Korematsu was a terrible decision, a disgrace in fact, with “no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S. 214, 248 (1944)(Jackson, J., dissenting). And yes, we're using the same rationale here that we used in Korematsu. And yes, Trump did compare himself favorably to FDR interning Japanese Americans. But it's okay here, you see, because, well, here there is a valid national security concern. As has been obvious from the dozens of terrorist attacks that have occurred without the travel ban. Gotta say folks, I'm speaking from a place of ignorance but based just on my reading the SCOTUS thread... the gently caress is up with your supreme court?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:01
|
|
exactly how old are you, are you like a geriatric trying to reach single digit bodyfat? If so, I have bad news.
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Gotta say folks, I'm speaking from a place of ignorance but based just on my reading the SCOTUS thread... the gently caress is up with your supreme court? Turns out that if you appoint racist ideologues to the Supreme Court, they make racist ideological rulings. Weird, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Gotta say folks, I'm speaking from a place of ignorance but based just on my reading the SCOTUS thread... the gently caress is up with your supreme court? a multi-decade program to pack it with nutcases
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Gotta say folks, I'm speaking from a place of ignorance but based just on my reading the SCOTUS thread... the gently caress is up with your supreme court? The "tests" concocted by the justices rely on willful ignorance about the motivation behind polices rather than using a modicum of the intelligence the justices have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:The "tests" concocted by the justices rely on willful ignorance about the motivation behind polices rather than using a modicum of the intelligence the justices have. Some might even say they are being intellectually dishonest in order to reach a prejudged partisan outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Some might even say they are being intellectually dishonest in order to reach a prejudged partisan outcome. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Well at least Sotomayor published a dissent that's going to be read in 50 years like Jackson's in Korematsu
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:a multi-decade program to pack it with nutcases Pook Good Mook posted:The "tests" concocted by the justices rely on willful ignorance about the motivation behind polices rather than using a modicum of the intelligence the justices have. That's hosed up. Or, in the words of my civil procedure law professor (and supreme court judge) and I paraphrase "if you are a law-reader (pejorative term right there by the way), taking law as a passive observer and neglect the legal-philosophical and logical framework that constitutes modern legal methodology, how are you any better than a lay person? A jurist is first and foremost a law practicioner. If you don't understand what this means and why it is important, I recommend you drop out." The point being, that every law scholar or jurist is not entitled to but obligated to work within a framework and a methodology that first and foremost is responsible for producing "the good result". The obligation in this case simply means a responsibility to go beyond the normal scope of sourcework and legal methodology into everything from natural philosophy to comparative law in the cases where ordinary methodology fails to deliver a result that is compatible with fundamental principles and human rights, democratic principles and natural law. It's actually pretty self-evident. If nothing else, just as a simple matter of pragmatism if you practice bad law and the results are incomprehensible or continually at odds with good morals, good ethics, good logic, the public sense of justice and fairness and produce real-world results that are a net negative for society as a whole, you weaken your authority as arbiters of justice. When it comes right down to it, every single appointment to every court in a democracy is a function of that democracy and any legitimacy and authority directly derives from the people and nothing else. Failing to recognize that is a failure to recognize the central duty of law. In my personal opinion - and feel free to call me out on my bullshit here - judgements that are at odds with the general good of society and that are offensive to democratic will, the zeitgeist of the time, fundamental human rights etc. and/or are just terrible judgements in general, weaken the authority of the supreme court and weaken the precedential impact of such judgements to the point that the question can be raised whether they give any precedential guidance at all. Alright, never mind my rambling. It's not like my own supreme court hasn't thrown out some stupid poo poo judgements before and the world hardly ended for all that. At least I can count my blessing that our supreme court is predominantly occupied by democratic interpretation of the will of parliament and the central legislative concerns that give reason to each statute instead of political horseshit. That's a real good thing about parliamentarism, judges leave their politics out of the courtroom entirely, or risk their impartiality compromised in the eyes of their collegues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:That's hosed up. Yes but the United States is infested with “jurists” who think it’s their job to divine how a bunch of guys who have been dead for centuries meant their laws to apply to circumstances they could not possibly have imagined in their wildest dreams. Thankfully—O quam mirabilis est!—more often than not that “original meaning” falls in line with modern conservative zeitgeist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Gorush was appointed because he's so militantly ignorant that he was willing to interpret any laws diametrically opposed to their obvious, plain intent in order to do bad things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
That's a lot of words to say you agree with Thomas and that stare decisis doesn't mean poo poo. It's just legal decorum and ignore it if you want to or use it as a rhetorical shield if you don't want to
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:That's a lot of words to say you agree with Thomas and that stare decisis doesn't mean poo poo. It's just legal decorum and ignore it if you want to or use it as a rhetorical shield if you don't want to Yeah well I mean who doesn't love  Anyway, it's not that stare decisis doesn't mean poo poo so much that it's about me being in support of a legal ideology where the value and weight of precedence diminishes proportionally with the relative shittyness of a supreme court and its judgements. Yeah I know, I'm pretty arrogant, but I also think there's good reason and I'd be fine with a de facto rebellion against hardline stare decisis in the lower courts and also against originalist thinking as described while I'm at it because what the gently caress kind of ideology is that  No for real this Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, the people behind the right wing court have basically constructed an elaborate, yet simultaneously content-free ideological "legal theory" that tries to do the opposite. It produces the results the justice wants through disingenuously asserting that they should not examine the underlying framework, effect, evidence, rationale, anything. The "commonsense" and originalist textualist theories developed by the right are weaponized, rheotorical legal-moral solipsism. is loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I honestly can't decide on how to respond to this. I know it's laughable to the billable hours set. But I'm from the world of "Why are you working overtime? Who authorized this? You realize you won't get paid for it?" etc. I'm lucky in that people in my department are decent. However, a separate branch of government actually pays my salary, and they don't care.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:
Just landed in Puerto Rico four hours ago. Never experiencing winter again
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
In Biglaw news, I forgot to eat lunch
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
disjoe posted:In Biglaw news, I forgot to eat lunch Don’t worry, someone else ate yours
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Just got cast by invitation to sing Phyllis in an Iolanthe pub sing. w00t. Quitting law. Pursuing opera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Just got cast by invitation to sing Phyllis in an Iolanthe pub sing. w00t. Quitting law. Pursuing opera. Rhyme doesn't pay, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
homullus posted:Rhyme doesn't pay, though. I'm getting paid. Just not well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
homullus posted:Rhyme doesn't pay, though. booo
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm getting paid. Just not well. Getting paid anything is pretty well for Opera
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
Hoshi posted:Getting paid anything is pretty well for Opera Truth. Usually I only get paid for directing/choreographing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Just got an interview scheduled for a second chair spot for one of my state's capital conviction review teams. FL doesn't use habeas procedures for capital appellate review, and instead has three designated regional counsel offices that provide all post-sentencing appellate work. This is my first interview I'm actually excited about because I actually give a drat about the work they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
Like the law job market is vicious but the entry level Opera market is "pay for gigs until someone notices you"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
homullus posted:Rhyme doesn't pay, though. YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO LET THIS PERSON GET AWAY WITH THIS?!?!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Just got an interview scheduled for a second chair spot for one of my state's capital conviction review teams. FL doesn't use habeas procedures for capital appellate review, and instead has three designated regional counsel offices that provide all post-sentencing appellate work. This is my first interview I'm actually excited about because I actually give a drat about the work they're doing. Man, whole lotta goons love post-conviction work apparently. Congrats on the interview!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Man, whole lotta goons love post-conviction work apparently. Congrats on the interview! Thanks. Hopefully I can land this. I'm not getting my hopes up, but this type of position would be great. e: I know the subject matter of the work may wear on me after a while, since it's exclusively post-capital conviction work, but even so I think all the appellate work will be good for my career. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Welp, RIP my union. We have enough morons here who think the union does nothing despite getting like 5-6 weeks of vacation and getting paid more than government lawyers in other states who will be happy to free-ride to save 40bux a month.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO LET THIS PERSON GET AWAY WITH THIS?!?!? Yes, justice must be metered out for such per-verse-ity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
nm posted:Welp, RIP my union. We have enough morons here who think the union does nothing despite getting like 5-6 weeks of vacation and getting paid more than government lawyers in other states who will be happy to free-ride to save 40bux a month. I think you mean they know the union works out well for them but they got theirs and don’t care about up and comers and they are cheap assholes. These people are Baby Boomers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
The tenor of this conversation is getting off-beat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The tenor of this conversation is getting off-beat. I think you mean timbre E: because tenors are perfect
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Hoshi posted:I think you mean timbre I put my clef where I want. I'll c my way out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:29
|
|