You're proving my point. We've turned into such a country of petty beancounters. No sense of grandeur, no sense of the big, dramatic fights. Unless you're 90 years old or chronically ill healthcare should not be the obsessive focus of your life.
No, you're missing it; see, I didn't disagree that we would be in Afghanistan, but I pointed out we certainly wouldn't be in Iraq. You apparently accepted the slight change in the topic of conversation by raising that laughable argument that the neocons did not use 9/11 as an excuse for Iraq. So you're saying now that I shouldn't have changed the topic of conversation.
But, are you objecting to me changing the topic of conversation, or are you objecting to the fact that I provided a link that refutes your argument?
Actually we to kill health care "reform" because it takes away the individual right to choose and represents a frightening expansion of Government.
Good grief, I just don't get this. I actually AGREE that it's probably unconstitutional. But "frightening"? In the grand scheme of history "healthcare" has never been considered the kind of fundamental right that everyone on both sides says it it now. Freedom of speech, religion, conscience--those are the things that great minds have debated for millenia. Bureaucratic disputes over healthcare? THAT'S what you're trying to make our civilization's defining battle? Try to have a sense of perspective.
The economy is improving DESPITE his policies because of it's inherent strength. It would REALLY improve if they would cut taxes
Oh lord...earth to right-wingers: cutting taxes is not the cure to every economic ill. That's been proven time and time again, yet the anti-tax fanatics refuse to learn from history.
"Wait, which war was started ten years ago again?"
I'm sure there's a reason you keep repeating that statement. I'm sure there's a reason you think it's a particularly witty response to what I said. But for the life of me I don't know what your point is.
Not only that GWB has a MBA from Harvard. 0 has kept his records closed, why is that do you suppose? Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"? What was his SAT/ACT score I wonder?
He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.
If anyone but Bush and maybe a handful of neocon politicians had been in office, we would not have gone to war in Iraq. It took active fraud and a bizarre and paranoid worldview to think that it was a good idea; 99% of Republicans and 100% of Democrats would have refrained from invading Iraq.
We're not in Iran. Libya is not a war in the sense that Afghanistan and Iraq is. He's wrongfully kept too many of GWB's policies, but he hasn't instituted any new breathtaking stupid ones. That was the problem with GWB and Cheney, just when you thought they couldn't do anything worse than what they already came up with they'd come up with some new insanity.
Nope, completely wrong; the left wing die hards have been criticizing him for a while. It's the moderates who like him. I'm a little disappointed in how he's done, though even now he is still head and shoulders above GWB, or how McCain would have been.
Yep I remember installing it on a 486DX-50 with 6 mb of RAM, and it still was able to run multiple desktops with animated backgrounds. Too bad that the linux kernel and the general desktop distributions have become so bloated, used to be a small, fast OS.
That's because they only usually think taxes are too low for *other* people.
Don't know about that, the limousine liberals who right-wingers and slashdotters like to excoriate frequently are advocating for tax increases for their own tax bracket.
If the statute says NECA is law, then NECA becomes part of the statute by reference. Try again. And now you seem to be claiming that courts shouldn't interpret the law, which basically means courts shouldn't hear cases. You are hopelessly confused.
Ah. So your reasoning for lawyers being infallible is from the experience of being a lawyer
Complete strawman. Nothing I said even implies that I think lawyers are infallible. My point was simply that as a policy matter, just because a lawyer took a certain legal argument in a case or cases does not mean the lawyer is incapable of adjudicating cases where that argument will come up. Many judges have certain legal viewpoints, for example many are pro-defense, but unless there is a specific conflict of interest concerning the parties involved, it makes no sense to keep them from ruling.
At least with lawyers, I know how to shut them up. All it takes is pointing out that case law is unconstitutional and one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated in a civilized society and even the anti "activist judges" (who are really quite pro-activist judges, just for those that agree with their opinions) declare that it's somehow sane to have the vast majority of law being excluded from the law books.
Considering case law is implicitly recognized by the Constitution (see the Seventh Amendment), that most state law books explicitly recognize common law and state that it is valid unless it conflicts with statutory law, and that many of the drafters of the Constitution were common law lawyers who made an express decision not to throw out the common law system when creating the Constitution, I don't think your argument is going to "shut . . . up" any reasonably competent lawyers who hear it. Perhaps the ones you tell that to just don't feel like arguing with you. And for someone who in your prior post boasted about your connection with lawyers, you seem to suddenly have a low opinion of them.
In any event, in a human history that has seen such terrible acts of violence by their governments, saying that using a common law system that, like statutory law, is intended to apply equally to whoever is in court does not really seem like "one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated in a civilized society."
Finally, your argument that the "vast majority" of law is excluded from the books is just not accurate. Most of what lawyers deal with is statutory law, not common law. While certain areas, namely contract law and property law have certain common law aspects, those are still mostly statutory, and in any event the "common law" rules have in many cases been codified.
Career prosecutors don't make a career prosecuting one and only one criminal
Some of them will spend most of their career dealing with drug cases, or murder cases, so kind of. And again, just because this woman was a lobbyist for a few years does not mean she spent her CAREER doing this.
and my best friend is a lawyer. My mother, while not a lawyer, spent more time in court than most career lawyers. And you are really going to tell me what I do and don't know about lawyers, implying that your opinion is somehow better than mine?
Of course I'm going to tell you my opinion is better than yours. That's the definition of an opinion. If you didn't think your opinion was better than mine I would be a little confused over what you were doing.
What real-world exposure do you have to lawyers?
Well, mostly from being one. And since my work deals exclusively with Federal courts, and I spend a good chunk of my time reading and analyzing judicial opinions, I like to think I have a fairly good idea about how Federal judges approach things.
From the description people only have rights if they have the money to pay for them; in other words, you only have rights you can pay for, thus only the consumer has rights.
I don't think in this case she made a "career" out of it. If she had that still would not be grounds for recusal. Career prosecutors, and career defense attorneys, are appointed all the time to the bench. What you don't understand is that attorneys don't have the kind of emotional investment in arguments that you think they do. That's why prosecutors can spend 20 years throwing people in jail, then leave the district attorney's office and start their own criminal defense firm (it's actually quite common).
Uhh, then, are RIAA members parties in the cases? I reject entirely the idea that you should exempt yourself from entire areas of the law because you once represented someone who had an interest in that area.
Slashdot Mirror
And so does Harvard Law School. Just give it up.
You're proving my point. We've turned into such a country of petty beancounters. No sense of grandeur, no sense of the big, dramatic fights. Unless you're 90 years old or chronically ill healthcare should not be the obsessive focus of your life.
No, you're missing it; see, I didn't disagree that we would be in Afghanistan, but I pointed out we certainly wouldn't be in Iraq. You apparently accepted the slight change in the topic of conversation by raising that laughable argument that the neocons did not use 9/11 as an excuse for Iraq. So you're saying now that I shouldn't have changed the topic of conversation. But, are you objecting to me changing the topic of conversation, or are you objecting to the fact that I provided a link that refutes your argument?
Actually we to kill health care "reform" because it takes away the individual right to choose and represents a frightening expansion of Government.
Good grief, I just don't get this. I actually AGREE that it's probably unconstitutional. But "frightening"? In the grand scheme of history "healthcare" has never been considered the kind of fundamental right that everyone on both sides says it it now. Freedom of speech, religion, conscience--those are the things that great minds have debated for millenia. Bureaucratic disputes over healthcare? THAT'S what you're trying to make our civilization's defining battle? Try to have a sense of perspective.
The economy is improving DESPITE his policies because of it's inherent strength. It would REALLY improve if they would cut taxes
Oh lord...earth to right-wingers: cutting taxes is not the cure to every economic ill. That's been proven time and time again, yet the anti-tax fanatics refuse to learn from history.
The affordable housing act couldn't have taken down the whole economy if not for deregulation of the entire financial industry.
Don't fall for the lie. The Community Reinvestment Act didn't take down the economy. Anyone who tells you that is either ignorant or dishonest.
Only a profoundly dishonest person would characterize a tax on cigarettes as one of the taxes Obama said wouldn't go up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
"Wait, which war was started ten years ago again?"
I'm sure there's a reason you keep repeating that statement. I'm sure there's a reason you think it's a particularly witty response to what I said. But for the life of me I don't know what your point is.
The Fair Housing Act had no effect on the current economic instability.
Not only that GWB has a MBA from Harvard. 0 has kept his records closed, why is that do you suppose? Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"? What was his SAT/ACT score I wonder?
He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.
smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union
Come on, it's TEXAS. Being intelligent is considered a character flaw there.
If anyone but Bush and maybe a handful of neocon politicians had been in office, we would not have gone to war in Iraq. It took active fraud and a bizarre and paranoid worldview to think that it was a good idea; 99% of Republicans and 100% of Democrats would have refrained from invading Iraq.
We're not in Iran. Libya is not a war in the sense that Afghanistan and Iraq is. He's wrongfully kept too many of GWB's policies, but he hasn't instituted any new breathtaking stupid ones. That was the problem with GWB and Cheney, just when you thought they couldn't do anything worse than what they already came up with they'd come up with some new insanity.
Nope, completely wrong; the left wing die hards have been criticizing him for a while. It's the moderates who like him. I'm a little disappointed in how he's done, though even now he is still head and shoulders above GWB, or how McCain would have been.
Yep I remember installing it on a 486DX-50 with 6 mb of RAM, and it still was able to run multiple desktops with animated backgrounds. Too bad that the linux kernel and the general desktop distributions have become so bloated, used to be a small, fast OS.
That's because they only usually think taxes are too low for *other* people.
Don't know about that, the limousine liberals who right-wingers and slashdotters like to excoriate frequently are advocating for tax increases for their own tax bracket.
If the statute says NECA is law, then NECA becomes part of the statute by reference. Try again. And now you seem to be claiming that courts shouldn't interpret the law, which basically means courts shouldn't hear cases. You are hopelessly confused.
So is Steve Jobs going to throw a tantrum and terminate Sony like he's done before when a component maker lets something slip?
Ah. So your reasoning for lawyers being infallible is from the experience of being a lawyer
Complete strawman. Nothing I said even implies that I think lawyers are infallible. My point was simply that as a policy matter, just because a lawyer took a certain legal argument in a case or cases does not mean the lawyer is incapable of adjudicating cases where that argument will come up. Many judges have certain legal viewpoints, for example many are pro-defense, but unless there is a specific conflict of interest concerning the parties involved, it makes no sense to keep them from ruling.
At least with lawyers, I know how to shut them up. All it takes is pointing out that case law is unconstitutional and one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated in a civilized society and even the anti "activist judges" (who are really quite pro-activist judges, just for those that agree with their opinions) declare that it's somehow sane to have the vast majority of law being excluded from the law books.
Considering case law is implicitly recognized by the Constitution (see the Seventh Amendment), that most state law books explicitly recognize common law and state that it is valid unless it conflicts with statutory law, and that many of the drafters of the Constitution were common law lawyers who made an express decision not to throw out the common law system when creating the Constitution, I don't think your argument is going to "shut . . . up" any reasonably competent lawyers who hear it. Perhaps the ones you tell that to just don't feel like arguing with you. And for someone who in your prior post boasted about your connection with lawyers, you seem to suddenly have a low opinion of them.
In any event, in a human history that has seen such terrible acts of violence by their governments, saying that using a common law system that, like statutory law, is intended to apply equally to whoever is in court does not really seem like "one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated in a civilized society." Finally, your argument that the "vast majority" of law is excluded from the books is just not accurate. Most of what lawyers deal with is statutory law, not common law. While certain areas, namely contract law and property law have certain common law aspects, those are still mostly statutory, and in any event the "common law" rules have in many cases been codified.
Palestinians hadn't thrown their hat in with their Arab neighbors during the 6 day war...then Israel wouldn't need to have war criminals?
"Throwing their hat in" meaning what? Fleeing their homes because they didn't want to get caught in a war?
Career prosecutors don't make a career prosecuting one and only one criminal
Some of them will spend most of their career dealing with drug cases, or murder cases, so kind of. And again, just because this woman was a lobbyist for a few years does not mean she spent her CAREER doing this.
and my best friend is a lawyer. My mother, while not a lawyer, spent more time in court than most career lawyers. And you are really going to tell me what I do and don't know about lawyers, implying that your opinion is somehow better than mine?
Of course I'm going to tell you my opinion is better than yours. That's the definition of an opinion. If you didn't think your opinion was better than mine I would be a little confused over what you were doing.
What real-world exposure do you have to lawyers?
Well, mostly from being one. And since my work deals exclusively with Federal courts, and I spend a good chunk of my time reading and analyzing judicial opinions, I like to think I have a fairly good idea about how Federal judges approach things.
From the description people only have rights if they have the money to pay for them; in other words, you only have rights you can pay for, thus only the consumer has rights.
I don't think in this case she made a "career" out of it. If she had that still would not be grounds for recusal. Career prosecutors, and career defense attorneys, are appointed all the time to the bench. What you don't understand is that attorneys don't have the kind of emotional investment in arguments that you think they do. That's why prosecutors can spend 20 years throwing people in jail, then leave the district attorney's office and start their own criminal defense firm (it's actually quite common).
Furthermore, we do not all live in a yellow submarine.
Uhh, then, are RIAA members parties in the cases? I reject entirely the idea that you should exempt yourself from entire areas of the law because you once represented someone who had an interest in that area.