Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    55195
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    337

Everything posted by Brisketexan

  1. I have slightly better suits. But I have used the term "whiskey tango foxtrot" in federal court. I knew the judge, so I wasn't getting too far over my skis. It got a chuckle.
  2. The word "supplicant" already exists.
  3. Oh....there are some stories there. We were co-appellate counsel on a series of cases. We had....differing approaches to how to tackle the key issue. We fought about it, sometimes contentiously on a series of calls that required other co-counsel to referee. We reached a point of detente eventually. He took the lead on one of the cases, including the argument. The court of appeals ended up ruling our way, but based on the issue and approach I advanced, not the one he hung his hat on. After that, we got along fine. Oh, and I argued the remainder of the cases. Go toe-to-toe with him and stand your ground and show that you know your shit, he'll respect you. Which is the foundation of any decent relationship with him. And, the process sure gave us good insight into how he thinks. I mean, I'm not going to be tailgating with him on Friday or anything, but he may be invited to our frito pie shindig.
  4. Yep. Worked a case with DOJ as co-plaintiff 25 years ago (was one of the largest environmental cases in US history, till the BP blowout came along). Some of the most important work I've ever done, we did a damned good job. And my peers at DOJ had resumes that involved things like having clerked at the DC Circuit court of appeals. Now, some of them were super-heady and academic, and didn't get the real nitty-gritty of trial work (had a judge give us some evidentiary rulings and he made it clear how he was going to go, I came back to the office and said "okay, he wants both parties to stipulate to all of these objections being overruled, because this is a bench trial." Colleague whined "but they don't follow the rules of evidence!" As I explained "those rules are what the judge says they are, and he says he doesn't give a damn here." Fortunately, the phone rang a couple minutes later, and it was opposing counsel saying "okay...so the judge wants us to waive everything - what do you say?"). But still, super smart and very competent. Nowadays? Those people have been run off, and no new competent folks are being hired.
  5. Counterpoint: titties is titties.
  6. Y'all remember way back when Elmo acquired Twitter, his crusade was to eliminate bot accounts and fake accounts? I remember. The man is a laughable joke of a human being, and the day he chokes on his own ketamine-fueled vomit and goes cold will be one of the most important days in modern history.
  7. Let's put it this way. Imagine that the DOJ is one of the nation's largest law firms (spoiler: it actually is that thing). For my entire life, it's been a very well-regarded and respected law firm. DOJ lawyers by and large knew their shit, and did good, skillful work. In the case of several divisions (e.g., antitrust), if one of your law school peers got a job there, you were as impressed as if they'd gotten hired on at one of the most prestigious private firms. And the DOJ's credibility wasn't in question. Yes, of course there were always individual lawyers here and there who weren't super great, and some that even may have played fast and loose with the truth, but they were outliers. Now? That same law firm? It's name is mud. If you're a judge or opposing party, you need to assume that the DOJ team is potentially incompetent (depends on whether this is a low-level garden variety case, staffed by holdover career DOJ people -- in that case, you may be ok) and potentially dishonest. That is, when the DOJ is on the pleadings, you cannot assume they they will follow the obligation of candor to the tribunal. It's actually fucking amazing to see an institution so completely wrecked so quickly. If I was in a hotly contested matter with the DOJ on the other side, and there was any issue on which the court should otherwise treat their representations as truthful, I would have a duty to remind the court that this entity has demonstrated that it does not respect the duty of candor, and has demonstrated so consistently. No representation they make should be trusted unless verified. To a similar extent (although I have yet to see the lack of candor issue in any dramatic way), the same thing has happened with the Office of the Attorney General in Texas. At least the drumming out of competent people and replacing them with loyalists and true-believers in several divisions. Again, used to be one of the better, respected "law firms" around. And that reputation has taken a beating.
  8. Goddamn motherfucking toilet flush valve assemblies. Nowadays, they are all like this: And....one element or another of these cheap plastic pieces of shit ends up breaking after 5 years or so. So, you have to replace it, often requiring replacing the whole assembly, or most of it. Whereas in our parents' era, "toilet technology" was simple, and fucking durable. A few simple brass parts, a rod, a foam float, a flapper. And I don't recall my parents EVER having to replace it. At present, I have my house and my dad's old house. Three toilets currently need a new internal valve assembly, so that will be part of my holiday fun. Because it's too easy and cheap to do for me to hire a plumber. But it's just enough of a pain in the ass to do that it's annoying, and is going to take up an hour and a half of my day at some point to fix all three and go back and forth between houses. Just make shit simple. That will work, and that will last. Fucking hell.
  9. I haven't had a PIA case go on appeal to a court of appeals since the 15th started up, but I sure think it would. Any case in which the state is a party goes to the 15th, and PIA cases are dec actions vs. the AG, so that's where it goes. With my practice, the 15th has become my primary appellate court these days (used to be the 3rd, but there ya go). At least I'm friends with all the judges on it.
  10. I always love a defense of "have you seen us? NOBODY would be stupid enough to listen to us."
  11. That remains a disputed matter.
  12. Asked him what prompted this epiphany. He and his wife have been involved in refugee assistance for many years. They are conservative and a bit bible-y, but they do walk the walk. He’s a moral guy, so he never had any good feeling for Trump, has always thought he’s scum. But this is a turn for him.
  13. Interesting timing, just got an out-of-the-blue text from one of our cousins (married into wife's side of the family). He's military academy-educated, served as an officer, and has worked in defense-adjacent fields for 20+ years (no, I don't know exactly what he does, he can't tell us). My reply was because his text followed an OLD exchange about, well, dinner. This cousin has long been a "I know it's bad, but it's not THAT bad" guy. He's smart as hell, an engineer, and on the conservative end. He bailed on the GOP a while back, but reluctantly.
  14. Trump will just gargle the appropriate Saudi balls, hand them half the value of the Venezuelan oil business, and all will be well. Stop thinking like a world leader, and start thinking like a criminal. Then all of this shit makes perfect sense.
  15. Also....follow the law! Respect borders! Right, MAGA? https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/man-detained-near-mexico-border/501-ac708c99-4413-4339-a60e-81e0b60e2edf?tbref=hp "You come to our country, you have to respect our borders and our laws." Right, MAGA? Oh, and "detained near Mexico border".....fuck that namby-pamby misleading bullshit. He was detained IN MEXICO, ON THEIR SIDE OF THE BORDER.
  16. An entire ecosystem run by Nathan Thurms:
  17. Well, in the near term, won't it make oil prices go up? A war would likely shut down much of Venezuela's oil production and shipping, right? One thing is for sure: figure out the best insider trading options on this play, and watch them for movement. Sharp movement will tell you that regime insiders are using their information to profit before imminent military action goes down. That's a 100% guarantee.
  18. But you earned your "tipped the stripper" badge long ago....
  19. Just light a match near any Surly poster's ass at a tailgate, and you'll get similar performance.
  20. Cool. OH THE FUCKING IRONY.
  21. There's a whole manual out there. For real. Like, particular rules and procedures for peaceful demonstrations, designated persons in safe positions with a roster of participants (so all can be accounted for). They will even hand out color-coded wrist-bands for those who are okay with being arrested, those who will leave on being told they will be arrested, etc. Resources are available online, and you would be well-served by consulting with them, and/or participating with an organized group (there are many civil and social justice organizations actively involved).
  22. From your lips to Satan's ears.
  23. But, I mean....she gets to keep her "Alabama Teacher of the Year" title, and deservedly so.
  24. I mean, the source problem here is that Kash is solely a sub-par sycophantic social media influencer who was suddenly put in charge of one of the most complex apparatuses in the world -- a challenging mix of legal, intelligence, and law enforcement functions/challenges. And the often unrecognized fault with such people is that they are SO incompetent that they've never had access to real power (or wealth) before, so when they are handed the keys to the kingdom, they can't HELP but abuse it and loot it for personal gain, like an undisciplined kid given the keys to the candy store. And in terms of running a complex system, it was like putting a monkey at the stick of an F-35; it was always going to crash, it's just a question of when and how. The fantastic thing is that the rest of Trump's "hires" are little better. Kegbreath, Bondi, Homan. Incompetents and grifters. Literally the only thing they bring to the table is complete, slavish loyalty to Trump. Which, not coincidentally, is the only attribute on the planet that he values. I will stick with the source yiddish, thank you very much.
  25. I mean, that gal sounded exactly like the measured, sane, rational MAGA types we all know and love. But I quibble very, very strongly with one thing. She said Gretchen Whitmer has an ugly butt. I strongly disagree. From what I can tell, she has a lovely and tasteful age-appropriate tuchus. So, that was just uncalled for.
×
×
  • Create New...