• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

DistrictDeacon said:
“Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal,” Hubbard wrote. “She has never examined a witness. Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition. She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter.”
Click to expand...

in this day and age there are YouTube instructional videos for everything. I'm sure she'll be fine.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
“Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal,” Hubbard wrote. “She has never examined a witness. Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition. She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter.”
Click to expand...

SHHHHHHHHHH...don;t let the facts get in Junebug's rant.
 
Liberal privilege, lol. Conservative law students have a demonstrably easier path to judicial clerkships, jobs, and eventually appointments on the bench. It's science
 
wakephan09 said:
Liberal privilege, lol. Conservative law students have a demonstrably easier path to judicial clerkships, jobs, and eventually appointments on the bench. It's science[/QUOTE]

WRONG!!! To conservatives, science is a liberal plot.
Click to expand...
 
I appreciated Justice Roberts scolding the participants on both sides yesterday.
 
Junebug said:
The funny thing is, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Have you ever come across a federal judge you'd classify as a bootlicker?

But don't let me being right get in the way of your fun.
Click to expand...

Bootlicker, not really. Folks who are completely unprepared to be a judge, absolutely. And to a person (#smallsamplesize) they have been federalist society nominees.

To be clear, I don't handle political matters. So this isn't based upon rulings related to any real or perceived difference in political philosophy. I'm just talking about the nuts and bolts of running a case.
 
The greatest con ever pulled in the judiciary was Rehnquist and Scalia convincing an entire generation of young, primarily white lawyers that originalism was the only interpretive method that could result in “objective” results. Doesn’t matter how much evidence to the contrary has arisen over the last 40-50 years, originalism is still clung to like a babe to the teat. It’s easy to manipulate to get results you want and it requires nearly no analytical thinking, perfect for a group of average legal minds whose primary purpose with legal opinions is to make sure minority groups do not get too close to equity in the law.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
The greatest con ever pulled in the judiciary was Rehnquist and Scalia convincing an entire generation of young, primarily white lawyers that originalism was the only interpretive method that could result in “objective” results. Doesn’t matter how much evidence to the contrary has arisen over the last 40-50 years, originalism is still clung to like a babe to the teat. It’s easy to manipulate to get results you want and it requires nearly no analytical thinking, perfect for a group of average legal minds whose primary purpose with legal opinions is to make sure minority groups do not get too close to equity in the law.
Click to expand...

Not really a con if that's what they are looking for -- not too hard to convince a privileged conservative and very average white dudes that they can keep the status quo and not think too hard adopting the method. Also unlikely they ever really cared whether it was actually "objective" or not, only that they can tell people it is.
 
When I was in school they taught that the beauty of the constitution was that it was intended to be a living, breathing document. Now they want to dust it off and pretend nothing has changed in 230 years.
 
I thought we couldn't determine wealth or that it was too hard to do that so we couldn't tax based on it. Maybe we can take the wealth computation from immigration to the tax office.
 
1dwd1f.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top