|
No most lawyers would agree with you and find any other belief laughably naive. Some old dinosaurs remember and care deeply about when law was "a profession and not a business" and feel any criticism on the foundational legitimacy of anything about the justice system is an attack on their identity as a lawyer. See eg attorney advertising, referral fees, etc.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Wow one of the older lawyers at the place I'm working for got really pissed when I casually mentioned that republicans would appoint someone who would advance their policy goals to SCOTUS, he was the one that brought up the subject too so it's not like I was idly chatting on work time. Borderline screamed at me that I didn't understand that judiciary and judicial philosophy (something about originalism) if I thought that justices were just "politicians in robes". Is this (the supreme court being impartial) really like a sacrosanct belief or shibboleth among lawyers? I mean, if that were true, it would mean that our profession was largely farcical and more about power and privilege than actual justice. And admitting that would be rather difficult if you'd spent your whole life in the profession, wouldn't it? I
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, if that were true, it would mean that our profession was largely farcical and more about power and privilege than actual justice. And admitting that would be rather difficult if you'd spent your whole life in the profession, wouldn't it? That and if older lawyer agrees with the politics of those judges, he has an interest in the court still appearing impartial and apolitical. Like you'd never admit to cheating at golf if you were winning every hole. He yelled because he's insecure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Wow one of the older lawyers at the place I'm working for got really pissed when I casually mentioned that republicans would appoint someone who would advance their policy goals to SCOTUS, he was the one that brought up the subject too so it's not like I was idly chatting on work time. Borderline screamed at me that I didn't understand that judiciary and judicial philosophy (something about originalism) if I thought that justices were just "politicians in robes". Is this (the supreme court being impartial) really like a sacrosanct belief or shibboleth among lawyers? It's generally wise to avoid bothering blarzgh until after he's had his supper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1308840513567682562 lol of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Supreme Court has only been "political" since like the 1830's. Come on whippersnappers, have some respect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Wow one of the older lawyers at the place I'm working for got really pissed when I casually mentioned that republicans would appoint someone who would advance their policy goals to SCOTUS, he was the one that brought up the subject too so it's not like I was idly chatting on work time. Borderline screamed at me that I didn't understand that judiciary and judicial philosophy (something about originalism) if I thought that justices were just "politicians in robes". Is this (the supreme court being impartial) really like a sacrosanct belief or shibboleth among lawyers? 1. He's incredibly naive and probably just never actually challenged his own world view 2. The US President literally just said today that he wants a justice that will decide the election (in his favor), so apparently it's not too far off the mark
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
If you squinted, you could maybe be that naive up until the Bork nomination, but after that would take some willful blindness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
If it wasn't political, and they really were impartial, I should not be able to tell how they will vote on something ahead of time with nearly unerring accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
joat mon posted:If you squinted, you could maybe be that naive up until the Bork nomination, but after that would take some willful blindness. In the 1930s the supreme court suddenly magically changed its rulings on the new deal to avoid court expansion so I think this would have have to be the end point in the modern era for the end of the belief in impartial judiciary. Weren't you admitted that year?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Wow one of the older lawyers at the place I'm working for got really pissed when I casually mentioned that republicans would appoint someone who would advance their policy goals to SCOTUS, he was the one that brought up the subject too so it's not like I was idly chatting on work time. Borderline screamed at me that I didn't understand that judiciary and judicial philosophy (something about originalism) if I thought that justices were just "politicians in robes". Is this (the supreme court being impartial) really like a sacrosanct belief or shibboleth among lawyers? You should ask this geezer what he thinks the purpose of the Federalist Society is, next time you see him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
He’s actually mentioned that to me as a possible source of funding for research I should look into, funnily enough. Evidently they have some grants for social science stuff. I don’t know a ton about legal politics because it’s not my area, but I know enough about them to know they’d never fund me though. And yeah, he is very old indeed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:In the 1930s the supreme court suddenly magically changed its rulings on the new deal to avoid court expansion so I think this would have have to be the end point in the modern era for the end of the belief in impartial judiciary. I was just addressing the appointment process. But no, I'm not busy bitter at all that that coward Roosevelt didn't expand the court. I was _THAT CLOSE_.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
MechaX posted:1. He's incredibly naive and probably just never actually challenged his own world view He also said the following: Reporter: "Win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?" President Trump: "We're going to have to see what happens." Soon the study of law may be entirely obsolete! What a relief.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Bush v gore 2 is going to be loving lit. I hope Roger stone is a central figure again
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 13:19
|
|
|
Remember how Bush v. Gore had no precedential value? lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:11
|
|
|
Under these specific facts, we hold that votes in Florida that favor a democrat will not be counted so that George W. Bush will be president and Al Gore will not. Truly fulfilling the mandate of the Supreme Court. I haven’t read the decision in years, how did they justify granting cert?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:39
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Remember how Bush v. Gore had no precedential value? lol Had a lot of presidential value
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Under these specific facts, we hold that votes in Florida that favor a democrat will not be counted so that George W. Bush will be president and Al Gore will not. Equal Protection Clause based on counties using different methods to do their re-counts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Under these specific facts, we hold that votes in Florida that favor a democrat will not be counted so that George W. Bush will be president and Al Gore will not. quote:On December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered, inter alia, that manual recounts of ballots for the recent Presidential election were required in all Florida counties where so-called "undervotes" had not been subject to manual tabulation, and that the manual recounts should begin at once. Noting the closeness of the election, the court explained that, on the record before it, there could be no question that there were uncounted "legal votes"-i. e., those in which there was a clear indication of the voter's intent-sufficient to place the results of the election in doubt. Petitioners, the Republican candidates for President and Vice President who had been certified as the winners in Florida, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, this Court granted the stay application, treated it as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. There was no petition for cert. The court just made it up and took the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
Y'all almost sucked me into replying to this poo poo I know your game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Had a lot of presidential value I am writing this joke down now so that I can be hilarious outside this thread in November.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:There was no petition for cert. The court just made it up and took the case. I had no idea it was an original action. Is Bush v. Gore worth reading?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Well it has no precedential value but it did stop a recount from continuing so that uh...911 could happen so sure
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I had no idea it was an original action. Is Bush v. Gore worth reading? It's not exactly an original action. The SCoFL ordered a recount. While the recount was in the early stages, Bush & Cheney asked the SCOTUS for a stay on the SCoFL's recount. The SCOTUS granted the stay and treated the request for one as a petition for cert to hear the case. Then the majority twists itself into knots to say that on a per county level that due process and equal protection had been violated because different counties had different recounts. It is a really bad decision and the dissents explain how bullshit it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:It's generally wise to avoid bothering blarzgh until after he's had his supper. GRUMBLRUMBL WHO'S SUMMONED ME BEFORE I FINISHE MY TENDIES
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's not exactly an original action. The SCoFL ordered a recount. While the recount was in the early stages, Bush & Cheney asked the SCOTUS for a stay on the SCoFL's recount. The SCOTUS granted the stay and treated the request for one as a petition for cert to hear the case. Also, it can't be said enough, they said it had no precedential value. They did this because the supposed equal protection violation, if extrapolated, would mean that all other elections were also violations lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Also, it can't be said enough, they said it had no precedential value. They did this because the supposed equal protection violation, if extrapolated, would mean that all other elections were also violations lol I’m sure Anthony Kennedy will speak up when  uses it as precedent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
It can and will be used as precedent if a majority on scotus wishes to, of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:It can and will be used as precedent if a majority on scotus wishes to, of course. does it go by seniority for whoever writes the opinion if roberts is in minority? so we could get clarence thomas citing bush v gore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:does it go by seniority for whoever writes the opinion if roberts is in minority? so we could get clarence thomas citing bush v gore? Chief assigns unless he's in the minority, in which case the most senior judge in the majority assigns the author.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Chief assigns unless he's in the minority, in which case the most senior judge in the majority assigns the author. hell yeah im pumped for a thomas opinion joined by gorsuch, kavs, barrett and alito
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
But the author may not be able to command a majority, so we're more likely to see a Gorsuch opinion joined by those 4. Because Thomas writing about how in 1787 the Constitution didn't contemplate a woman running for vice president probably can't command a majority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:But the author may not be able to command a majority, so we're more likely to see a Gorsuch opinion joined by those 4. Because Thomas writing about how in 1787 the Constitution didn't contemplate a woman running for vice president probably can't command a majority. Lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:But the author may not be able to command a majority, so we're more likely to see a Gorsuch opinion joined by those 4. Because Thomas writing about how in 1787 the Constitution didn't contemplate a woman running for vice president probably can't command a majority. Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the most powerful 10ish people in America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 10:34
|
|
|
If the police had a search warrant for a particular residence, but went into another residence by mistake and happened to find evidence of a crime, could that evidence be admissible in court? Or would it really depend on whether the police made the mistake out of genuine incompetence, or actual malice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
Cirrhosis Johnson posted:If the police had a search warrant for a particular residence, but went into another residence by mistake and happened to find evidence of a crime, could that evidence be admissible in court? Or would it really depend on whether the police made the mistake out of genuine incompetence, or actual malice? Yeah, there's a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, but the details are very case specific.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
when in doubt, the police win
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 06:22
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:when in doubt, not empty quoting This is legal realism (and true)
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Green Crayons posted:when in doubt, I can’t, I can’t, I can’t stand losing I can’t, I can’t, I can’t stand losing I can’t, I can’t, I can’t stand losing I can’t, I can’t, I can’t stand losing...
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 12:12
|
|