|
VitalSigns posted:This conversation is odd. I don't know man, I think you've lost the plot completely and aren't even making a point anymore in your last rambling ten posts. Good thing blarzgh set you straight. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Here is the real truth: the justice system only benefits the rich and powerful. Source: I'm a lawyer for the poor, formerly, and for the rich and powerful, currently. Meanwhile I'm just sitting on the sidelines eating popcorn and lmao at this entire thread. To the OP's initial premise and question: No, based on the universal principle of non-identification, it is a fundamental tenet of a justice system that lawyers are not judged for their clients. They are not identified with them personally, professionally, monetarily or romantically and there's a million rules in place to prevent all that, because we want to preserve the absolute independence of counsel. If anyone has a problem with that, take it up with the last 1500 years of developing jurisprudence.
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 20:36
|
|
shaming Weinstein out of private counsel would be good for him because he'd get a more effective PD.
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
twodot posted:Too bad? It's not any sort of argument to say "A long time ago someone said not to do that". I'm going to do it anyways, if you want to argue it's bad you need to point at some sort of harm I'm causing and not the fact that lawyers managed to form a guild that decided lawyers are immune from judgment. I don't need to do anything of the sort. I said it is a fundamental tenet of a justice system, and as such it is extremely easy to read up about. I don't think I'm obligated to even attempt to condense it all down to several pages of post on the off chance you'll actually accept anything I write in good faith (which you won't, because let's face it you're not gonna), when really the onus is on you to go out and pick up a book. The question the OP posed has an answer. twodot posted:No one is being denied representation, so I have no idea what people keep repeating "Everyone deserves representation", a fact that everyone agrees with. Why is it short sighted? What long term goal am I sacrificing? Why is it immoral, what harm am I personally causing? I don't really care to contest if it's childish. As far as I can gather the point of the lawyer shamers itt, that is exactly the consequence of your view that blarzgh is talking about. I don't think he needs to repeat himself any further, because he's absolutely correct.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:You think the proper remedy to a person who can't find private representation is to hold them in contempt indefinitely until they manage to find another monster that wants to be employed by a monster? Ok cool. No, HA doesn't. Didn't say so either. I guess you're pretty much conceding every position or idea you've posted about for your last 50 posts itt by virtue of being reduced to counterfactually misrepresenting the positions of the posters who have engaged with you. I won't, you're just a nutcase and your position is worthless to the topic of the thread. I can't understand why anyone would spend time on you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
That's amazing. Can't wait for the "so what your position is is that rape of underage baby seals is okay and that's something I a virtuous and good debater oppose". Should be any minute now. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:21
|
|
