-
Posts
39679 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by TwiceHorn
-
Well, the other major thing is the failure to hold Trump to account.in the criminal cases, save one, which is not yet final/subject to appeal. Setting aside for the moment SCOTUS dilatory review and pretty fucked up immunity decision, the biggest problem with the criiminal cases was the delay, which was unfortunately entirely predictable even without Trump's notorious stalling tactics. And yes, you can actually set aside the immunity decision, because I think Smith secures convictions even despite it, had the delay not been such a factor, and of course the supervening fucking 2024 election. Goddamn.
-
You're a lawdog IIRC? The Bar has some decent stuff on tech, including some trial and demo software. Can google around for it. https://sbot.org/techbytes/ https://www.texasbarpractice.com/law-practice-management/practice-technology/
-
But the rule is as follows. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_3_reporting_professional_misconduct/ No duty to root out corruption, just report it. No duty to follow through after reporting.
-
Well, you know, it's actually Bozo that's trying to engraft some extra nobility onto lawyers by constantly citing the barriers to entry and the lofty goal of "upholding legal process." On the other hand, I am explaining the nuts and bolts of lawyering. And how the more dramatic some scenario appears to be, it might not actually be so dramatic. I am not one that has a particularly rosy view of lawyers. A lot of us are utter greedy shitheads. Some are ethically compromised. Our system works reasonably well in much of the workaday legal world, but has the problems noted continuously here and elsewhere. Many of those problems are foisted on the system by politicians and voters. Some, notably the pay to play, is inherent.
-
Tracking Trump Administration and Cabinet picks
TwiceHorn replied to PenelopeWitherspoon's topic in Cloak Room
I really don't mind it. Thought I would, but don't. Of course, I am only start/stopping a 2L fourbanger. Might be more intrusive with a bigger engine. Somewhat surprisingly, in start/stop city driving, it saves about 10% on gas consumption. https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/do-stop-start-systems-really-save-fuel.html But this is red meat for idiots. -
Well, yeah, that's why I said it. In response to the allegation that the legal profession, in particular, is in some sort of crisis, implicitly one that didn't exist at some other time.
-
Which wrong is that? Yes, they're hiding behind strained interpretations of Supreme Court emergency orders, but when pressed on whether those orders, or their own interpretation of foreign policy or national security powers gives them the ability to ignore court orders or outright defy them; they flinch.
-
I mean, doesn't he have some obligation to root out corruption and incompetence in the profession and stay after the Bar to make sure the defendant is adequately sanctioned? That's another practical problem with lawyer discipline. One of the first levels of discipline is not the Bar, but the trial courts where misconduct occurs. All too often, opposing counsel move for sanctions from the court not for a real professional ethics violation, but for an overblown allegation made to secure a tactical or strategic advantage. Courts get sick of it and become even less inclined to sanction lawyers on their own, or on motion of an opponent. I made the mistake of thinking your "crisis" allegation had more current applicability than your general gripe that lawyers don't police themselves adequately. I thought it extended to some conception that if that were the case, the Sidney Powell s of the world wouldn't exist. And maybe the Uncle Ruckuses and Guido Alitos.
-
Well, there will be some sort of pimpadelic gold-plated monument thing called a library and filled with Trumpian gimcracks and bullshit. NFTs, memecoins, trading cards, sneakers, guitars, etc.
-
I can't prove it, obviously, but Trump I's USTR, Robert Lighthizer, had been a GOP trade guy for a long time. Although he is by reputation a trade hawk, it seems he kept Navarro and some of Trump's worst instincts tamped down, like a lot of people in Trump I. This guy was Lighthizer's number 2, which I guess means isn't the same guy but maybe close. Fairly obviously, he didn't have Navarro and Trump tamped down. He looks pretty young/junior to me. Although I'm pretty sure I hate Bessent, the fact that he and this guy seem to be dominating the discussion these days may be a positive sign for the rationals. That's one of the best posts I've ever seen from Empty wheel, though. The clips of the legal briefs show that review of a president's declaration of emergency for tariff purposes may be unreviewable. Congress needs to get off its ass and take back tariff power ASAP.
-
He's a savant at the above. Generally speaking, he's a moron.
-
Of course the major driver of this is that asshole has to have the newest toys. Probably pimped out in gold leaf.
-
Well that is certainly a more pointed statement than "the legal profession is in crisis," which implies that at one time it was not in crisis and doesn't really give a clue as to what the crisis might be. I didn't intend to make you defend a straw man. Your premise, in keeping with your more pointed statement immediately above, was that rich and powerful law firms, or more accurately their constituent lawyers are rarely disciplined for acts like "defrauding the courts." I submit that rather than being a result of their being rich and powerful, it's because they don't regularly defraud courts or commit other professional violations. Sure, they do unto others, but well within the letter of the law the vast majority of the time. One other factor relating to my practical considerations post above. Rich clients (eg corporations) tend not to file malpractice suits, or grievances on lawyers, they just fire them. Despite its presence in the Model Rules (and preambles are typically regarded as surplusage anyway), it's still a near- or completely meaningless phrase, aspirational rather than enforceable. See, e.g. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and scads of other gobbledygook in legal prose from the Constitution on down.
-
That's not the issue. The issue is disciplining lawyers for filing unpopular lawsuits, no matter how justifiable is that lack of popularity, is highly problematic, because it is often unpopular or sketchy-looking cases that are the vehicle by which the law is improved. Or, take away discipline entirely, curtailing the ability of lawyers to file unpopular lawsuit and proceedings is similarly problematic. Take tort reform. Although the narrative was a) largely false and b) highly promoted by moneyed interests, it was a popular narrative because everyone knows someone that was sued in a "bullshit lawsuit." We curtailed the ability of lawyers to file injury lawsuits, medical malpractice in particular, on the basis of a popularity contest. Bad business. But just because the un/popularity is based on true or accurate facts, or is justifiable, doesn't make this good business. A real example. It is, indeed, very difficult to find medical experts to testify against their brethren in civil medical malpractice suits. A friend of mine, now an orthopedic surgeon, reviewed malpractice cases for a plaintiff's law firm (but did not and could not testify, as he wasn't actually a doctor yet). But he was super hush-hush on the QT about that whole thing lest it affect him professionally. You will find no shortage of lawyers willing to testify against their brethren in malpractice cases or any other kind of professional discipline thing. The reason bars and medical associations have problems with discipline is two-fold, or three-fold. First, unlike a CPA license or many other professional credentials, it is absolutely necessary to practice (an accountant can still count beans quite lucratively without a CPA license, for example). For many docs and lawyers, their license is a ticket to wealth and personal self-regard and they're not going to let it go without a helluva fight. This is related to the second, or 1(a): many lawyers and doctors will fight like hell, are reasonably or unreasonably wealthy, and willing and able to fund a stout defense. The third, or second independent reason, is State Bars and Medical Associations aren't particularly wealthy or well-funded and they cannot attract or retain (ie pay) top flight lawyers to oppose these stout defenses, and they are also spread too thin and overworked in most cases.
-
Taken on it's face, it's price controls. That thing they were so made at Kamala about. And, at some point, he was all hot and bothered about tariffing imported drugs, which is a whole lot of them.
-
As to the first point, I don't believe the richest and most powerful law firms often defraud courts. Do they do other possibly unsavory things within the letter of the law, sure they do. So do the poorest and dumbest lawyers. Is Susman Godfrey a rich and powerful law firm? What about Perkins Coie? Williams & Connolly? I don't know what "uphold legal process" means. Obey the rules of Civil Procedure? Criminal Procedure? Someone's interpretation of the Constitution? Never try to change the laws? Never make an argument that goes against or is unsupported by existing precedent? Never file a lawsuit that is skimpy on facts and relies on discovery to establish the facts to support it? Only file lawsuits that someone determines "support democracy" or some other halcyon notion of righteousness? The most glaring recent example of a lawyer that tried to "defraud" a court was Sidney Powell and her Kraken bullshit. She was sanctioned in one court where the opponent asked for sanctions, she was not in other courts because the opponent didn't ask for it. The State Bar of Texas acted on one or more grievances, and brought disciplinary "charges" that failed basically because the Bar lawyers were incompetent. So, the legal profession then, temporally, has always been in crisis. Marbury v. Madison is now considered a foundational principle of this country, but there were actually people arguing against the judiciary's power and duty to declare what is the law. So, I guess those opponents were so unamerican, or undemocratic, or anti-judicial-review, combined with the fact that their dispute made it to the Supreme Court that the legal profession has been in crisis in this country basically from the outset. Worth noting that Marbury is Calvinball. And John Marshall, as Adams' Secretary of State, should have recused himself. I think what you and many are trying to argue is a more sophisticated version of "criminal lawyers are scum because they represent criminals." There's a lot of actual scum running around these days and they're getting representation, as tends to be their right. But, they're also being opposed and the opposition is winning at a handy rate. The composition and decisions of the current Supreme Court, and some of the Courts of Appeals are worrisome to a crisis extent, but that's a product of political processes, not the legal profession or system itself.
-
It's really not yet blatant. They're pussyfooting around it in court and seem actually to have backed down in AARP. I'm not counting the ejaculations of clowns like Leavitt and Miller here.
-
If they actually defraud the court, there's usually a remedy, notwithstanding bad bar lawyering. And those convicted of violating laws are routinely disbarred. But then you resort to "upholding the law," whatever that means. But anyway, you've been bitching about that for a decade or more, so that can't be the crisis in the profession.
-
I raised factually analogous situations relating to your opinion that the legal profession is in crisis. An opinion that I don't believe I share. I didn't ask you to do fact-finding, I asked you about your opinion. But I'm willing to entertain non-conclusory argument. Problems with the legal profession/system: Politically corrupt/incompetent judges (longstanding problem, possibly more acute today). Delay in the system (also longstanding problem, no more acute today than the last 50 years or so, at least). The "pay to play" nature of the system (longstanding, virtually inherent to any legal system), One problem that I don't really see as a problem is parties arguing for popular or unpopular positions based on strained or "interstitial" constitutional arguments. If you somehow quash those cases before they start, then you don't get Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Counties, Reed v. Reed, and countless others. You seem also to tie the crisis to incompetent lawyers that are not disbarred or otherwise disciplined, sometimes equating "political" incompetence with plain ol' incompetence. I'll accept for purposes of argument that the bar is perhaps not zealous or competent in disciplining incompetent lawyers. But I think political incompetence is far too subjective to be a basis for discipline/disbarment. And once you open that can of worms, like "wEApoNiZation," it's too easily turned on the good guys.
-
Of course I don't. I don't think half the shit my opponents dredge up is valid at all. But you see, Bondi's opinion sidesteps the existence and enforceability of the Emoluments Clause by claiming that it's a) a gift not to Trump but to USAF and b) to Trump's library post-office. It of course ignores that Trump is the beneficiary or beneficial owner of the aircraft completely and at all times. And the ludicrousness that it isn't conditioned on an official act. But as we have seen from prior cases, without a statutory enactment from Congress implementing the Emoluments Clause, it's difficult to enforce. But, if we disbar or discipline or whatever all the lawyers that make shitty arguments, like "frivolous tort lawsuits," we're gonna have a problem. I'm not addressing or defending in any way the shitass arguments and positions of Trump and Trump lawyers. But again, if we disbar every lawyer that makes a shitass argument, it's gonna be a problem. I'm addressing Bozo's contention that the legal profession is somehow in a greater crisis than ever before. Is there a crisis in this country? Yes, absolutely. Is it somehow more acute for the legal profession? I'm not really seeing it. The larger proportion of the legal profession on the front lines of this stuff is fighting it and winning. I mean, you have a couple hundred lawyers doing shit legal work in support of a shit regime. The greater balance of lawyers oppose it. You have several thousand legislators sitting idle or actively passing unconstitutional and "UnAmerican" legislation. Even the ones ostensibly on our team can't get off their ass. You have 50 million American voters voting for lies or hatred or some combination of both.
-
Did the profession stop being in crisis during the Clinton and Obama administrations? Was it in crisis when FDR was pulling his stunts? Should the government lawyers defending Korematsu have been disbarred? How about when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional consent? Should he have been disbarred? There are two sides to every dispute. One ends up being wrong most of the time. Sometimes they're more wrong than other times. In some cases, they actually advocate an unconstitutional position. Gasp. Does that make them un-American? Or does it depend on HOW unconstitutional it is? Who's the arbitrator of that? How do you solve this alleged crisis? Do you disbar every lawyer that advocates an unconstitutional position? Or one that isn't actually supported by facts (short of actually lying to the tribunal)? What if a lawyer brings a righteous civil rights case that's borderline frivolous in view of settled law, or requires development of facts in discovery and the fact don't develop? Disbarred or disciplined if they lose? Or is it the purity of the motivation that matters?
-
And also that it wasn't "conditioned on an official act." Mhm.
-
Yep. And when it comes to actually spending money, like on one of his projects, he seems to be a colossal cheapskate, even though it's not his money. No or less spending means Trump richer. No consideration whatsoever for what the spending purchases or its value. If he's spending, it means someone's getting over on him. The zero-sum, transactional nature of that fucking guy. That's why he loves licensing his name more than anything else. He doesn't come out of pocket at all.
-
His first bit of analysis here was that before income taxes, tariffs were a or the primary revenue source of the US Government. So, more tariffs = no income tax. Someone else told him that tariffs can also be used to incent domestic purchasing and manufacture. That's about all the analysis he's ever done.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!