Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30851

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I really don't know what you're talking about.  I can show you the Texas Bar Journal, which every month publishes the list of lawyers who have been disbarred, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for ethical lapses.  It's pretty clear evidence that members of the legal profession do face consequences for unethical or illegal acts.

There are nine people who are not subject to those ethical constraints.  That's it.  Nine.  And if you want to enforce some ethical constraints on them, then you need to petition your Congressman to do that.  It's not the legal profession's job (or within its ability) to enforce standards the Constitution hasn't created.

Seventeen practitioners got their peepees whacked in November and December, alone, see pp. 110-113 https://lsc-pagepro.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?m=21412&i=780103&p=46&ver=html5

People are generally miffed about my explaining that disbarring Sidney Powell and her ilk is a more nuanced question than "she undermined democracy" and therefore isn't a slam dunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

sidis
sidis

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 20596

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seventeen practitioners got their peepees whacked in November and December, alone, see pp. 110-113 https://lsc-pagepro.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?m=21412&i=780103&p=46&ver=html5

People are generally miffed about my explaining that disbarring Sidney Powell and her ilk is a more nuanced question than "she undermined democracy" and therefore isn't a slam dunk.

Count Me In GIF by James Bond 007

Readily agree that's me.  I saw so much fucking around by Powell and her ilk w/ very little finding out.  All the time it seemed excuses were being made for them at every turn.  Perhaps just my perception but it's frustrating as fuck. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30851

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Count Me In GIF by James Bond 007

Readily agree that's me.  I saw so much fucking around by Powell and her ilk w/ very little finding out.  All the time it seemed excuses were being made for them at every turn.  Perhaps just my perception but it's frustrating as fuck. 

Given that the State Bar of Texas has seen fit to initiate discipline against her, that's a good sign.  But the case is assigned to a Texas state judge of at least nominally GOP credentials, which is probably a bad sign.

She has fairly legitimate defenses in 1) first-amendmenty things and 2) the notion that lawyers get some latitude in filing "far fetched" lawsuits.  Subjectively, I think it's fairly clear that her lawsuits and related communications were a bridge too far on that far fetched spectrum.  But the courts are probably going to be concerned with objectively drawing a line between Powell's conduct and more legitimate or socially useful far fetched lawsuits, and that may be somewhat difficult to do and as a result may cause her to "escape justice."

The other thing is lawyers are rarely subjected to bar discipline for filing shitty lawsuits.  That's usually the court where the shitty lawsuit is filed that deals with that and the Bar probably gets some notice of it and considers the court sanctions sufficient.  Therefore, I am not sure what level of discipline is appropriate for this, from the Bar perspective.  I'm not sure it is a full-on disbarment case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17309

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

So Thomas buys into the cockamamie pseudo-legal religion of "originalism" whole hog.  Seems like Kavanaugh and Roberts were happy to mug for the cameras as "originalists" but have taken he more Scalia-esque approach of, "I'm an originalist but I'm not nuts."  

I've been reading Chemerinsky's new book on this and it's interesting.  I imagine a lot of folks in this thread would enjoy it. 

416NHAQdftL.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
MC Fresh Breath

MC Fresh Breath 4074

Posted
Posted
Quote

NEW YORK (AP) — The Supreme Court is meeting Tuesday to hear two cases challenging President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. At stake: forgiveness of up to $20,000 in debt for more than 40 million Americans. Nearly half of those people could have their federal student debt wiped out entirely.

https://apnews.com/article/2128da75fc27ff3bcc0c3804ebd98aa7

 

welp.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
CTC2

CTC2 2658

Posted
Posted
On 2/2/2023 at 10:06 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Given that the State Bar of Texas has seen fit to initiate discipline against her, that's a good sign.  But the case is assigned to a Texas state judge of at least nominally GOP credentials, which is probably a bad sign.

She has fairly legitimate defenses in 1) first-amendmenty things and 2) the notion that lawyers get some latitude in filing "far fetched" lawsuits.  Subjectively, I think it's fairly clear that her lawsuits and related communications were a bridge too far on that far fetched spectrum.  But the courts are probably going to be concerned with objectively drawing a line between Powell's conduct and more legitimate or socially useful far fetched lawsuits, and that may be somewhat difficult to do and as a result may cause her to "escape justice."

The other thing is lawyers are rarely subjected to bar discipline for filing shitty lawsuits.  That's usually the court where the shitty lawsuit is filed that deals with that and the Bar probably gets some notice of it and considers the court sanctions sufficient.  Therefore, I am not sure what level of discipline is appropriate for this, from the Bar perspective.  I'm not sure it is a full-on disbarment case.

If it’s not a disbarment case that’s evidence of the problem. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 25903

Posted
Posted
On 2/1/2023 at 4:11 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Seventeen practitioners got their peepees whacked in November and December, alone, see pp. 110-113 https://lsc-pagepro.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?m=21412&i=780103&p=46&ver=html5

I love this lawyer magazine so hard how did I miss this post and can i subscribe
 

image.thumb.png.d7fbfb2f8b91b15524f0fc475e744a0f.png

 

The award for excellence in misplaced modifiers goes to

 

image.thumb.png.8cd0ac5157dff16ebff1dcad4cc29396.png

 

(No! ...it's gotta be your bull)

image.thumb.png.6e505df5a6b42f6589b682aa28c717c2.png

uh

image.thumb.png.4caee93d1f006abde472f18c1f61ac5e.png

many ways to computer over to the Bar association

image.thumb.png.9e3d78389e4d1e9c0c1495c0d1892e93.png

I never thought this would happen to me. I am a student as a small liberal arts college. One day as I was studying there was a knock at the door. I opened it and there was Inga and Katerina - the two gorgeous identical twins from upstairs. Their shower was being fixed and they
 

image.thumb.png.4a8012a2312af8e5a77c08a91a39cddf.png

shot
image.thumb.png.f23a74aa7cfc9aa0c663d0fa09c3a42d.png

chaser, two pages later
image.thumb.png.ef8caad8b5608eddb5225123a14c55e9.png

inspire! With stock photos
image.thumb.png.bf33c22d4096d2817a763c6e286a72db.png
yo dawg we heard you were a lawyer who likes golf so we got you a lawyer so you can golf while you lawyer
image.thumb.png.e222d6550401f65d47f91c9ecb6dbf6d.png
 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 103653

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Yup.  The ONLY gun restriction I could see them supporting is a ban on open carry within the Supreme Court.  Otherwise… “will not be infringed!!!”

Yeah....who the fuck knows?  They set a standard....that is utterly illogical....and that they won't/don't even follow, so the rule is ACTUALLY SCOTUS Calvinball:

Quote

Instead, the court ruled that the constitutionality of gun laws will be based almost exclusively on the “plain text of the Second Amendment.” To prove its case for regulation, the court ruled that henceforth, “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition” of gun laws in the United States.

This is a decision prone to massive abuse. The Second Amendment was written at a time when cutting-edge firearms were flintlocks. Magazine-fed, semi-automatic weapons were not even a fantasy dream in the 18th century.

Even worse is the court’s reference to a “historical tradition” of firearms regulation. This is a highly contested area, even among historians. Is the American tradition a total lack of restriction, or is it Tombstone under the Earp Brothers, where all firearms had to be surrendered at the town limits? And how many of the lower-court judges know about this history, let alone have read about it extensively? The Supreme Court has expedited the road to radical interpretations.

And that is exactly what has happened.

It's as fucking dumb as the 5th Circuit's "qualified immunity" as applied to law enforcement: "yes, there is already a case that says a cop walking up to a black guy, yelling "die, n----r!" and shooting him in the face is indeed a violation of the victim's constitutional rights.....however, that case was in reference to an event that happened on a Tuesday, and the case at hand happened on a Wednesday, so we have no choice but to find that there is no "clearly established authority" holding that walking up to a colored fella and shooting him in the face on a Wednesday is unconstitutional.  The officer has qualified immunity, plaintiffs' claims are dismissed."

The fact that the "historical tradition" of gun laws didn't fucking account for MODERN weapons is as fucking dumb as if they'd said "the government can only regulate interstate and international aviation to the extent that it was historically regulated at the time of ratification of the Constitution."  It's asinine, dishonest reasoning applying a nonsense "standard."  In other words, right in the wheelhouse of the current SCOTUS.  

It's gonna get a LOT worse.  Wait till Griswold, Lawrence v. Texas, etc. are challenged before the Supremes.  It won't be long before they've established that the ONLY individual rights are 1) the right to own, carry, and brandish all and whatever type of weapon you want, and 2) the right to impose your religious beliefs on others (because that's what the meaning of "Congress shall make no law..prohibiting the free exercise of religion" means -- it means that the authorities can't stop you from forcing your beliefs on others, including by legislative act of the majority -- trust us, it seems circular and silly, but it makes perfect sense to the MAGA SCOTUS).  Enjoy!

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7890

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
On 3/24/2023 at 11:18 AM, Chad Fuck said:


Great. More taxes for the poverty to prison pipeline.

Jon Stewart’s latest episode on Apple TV focused on on the prison to poverty backend of that pipeline. Felons are completing sentences, and leaving jail owing tens of thousands of dollars to the state, for “rent” and health care, etc. Couple that with the restrictions placed on their release, like being excluded from health insurance and housing, and add the non existence of job opportunities while surviving in a culture flooded with guns. It is to the point where former felons who aren’t recidivists are the outliers. It is all so immoral it is no wonder it has become a powerful, and firmly entrenched, industry

The USA, as Stewart states, jails four times the number of its citizens in comparison to Australia, which was literally conceived of as a prison colony.

100 million US citizens have a criminal record.

Black and brown students end up in jail for skipping school. 
 

If we claim to believe in redemption, we are obligated to give these people an actual second chance. 
 

 

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17309

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Jon Stewart’s latest episode on Apple TV focused on on the prison to poverty backend of that pipeline. Felons are completing sentences, and leaving jail owing tens of thousands of dollars to the state, for “rent” and health care, etc. Couple that with the restrictions placed on their release, like being excluded from health insurance and housing, and add the non existence of job opportunities while surviving in a culture flooded with guns. It is to the point where former felons who aren’t recidivists are the outliers. It is all so immoral it is no wonder it has become a powerful, and firmly entrenched, industry

The USA, as Stewart states, jails four times the number of its citizens in comparison to Australia, which was literally conceived of as a prison colony.

100 million US citizens have a criminal record.

Black and brown students end up in jail for skipping school. 
 

If we claim to believe in redemption, we are obligated to give these people an actual second chance. 
 

 

You should know by now, that in the USA, redemption is for rich white peoples.

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 25903

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, dcbc said:

 

I love the annual make fun of Super Lawyers ads day in my end of the office.  So many interesting choices are on display.

Maersk, you bitches. Get ready for John H. Hickey, the top rated admiralty and maritime super lawyer of Buda

image.thumb.png.0eb9a0e7cc2dfaecaaf1cdb1cf1f4573.png

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 26927

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Welp, this will end up in front of the 5th and then the Supreme Court . Not sure how anyone can celebrate this ruling ….

 

Preeclampsia is no joke, it nearly killed my sister when she had her second kids. Maternity and natal care in this country is a bad joke. 

But hey, at least those health """insurance""" vampires can send their kids to the nice private schools!

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9473

Posted
Posted

"Judge Reed O'Connor's ruling means people could face sky-high deductibles—leading them to not get adequate care, get sick and die. "

 

One just needs to understand that the GOP intent is for poor to middle income  people to not get adequate care, get sick and die is THE prime intention, not just a unfortunate side effect.  This is absolutely the society that they want and it drives every policy position that they hold. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 26927

Posted
Posted (edited)

Chuckie beat me to it - here's the link to the article:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

And it was a lot more than just trips too: 

“In 2011, The New York Times reported on Crow’s generosity toward the justice. That same year, Politico revealed that Crow had given half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas, which also paid her a $120,000 salary. But the full scale of Crow’s benefactions has never been revealed.”

Edited by Captainant
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


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!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...