Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39355
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Or a freedumb eagle gun patriot concerned with muh rights.
  2. Kind of a fun Ted 'toon on why cats are the way they are. There's also a book called "The Lion In The Living Room" that elaborates the fairly universal behaviors of cats big and small.
  3. I think the legal scenario here is the move of the closing date is a breach of the contract by you. If the seller would rather hold you to it than just see what happens. The damages to the seller would be hard to prove, but they're theoretically entitled to your earnest money. If that scenario was to take place (seller accuse you of breach), you would certainly have a claim against the lender. If the seller agrees to modify the closing date, you pretty much got nothing.
  4. It's an interesting phenomenon. Most of those refugees from formerly communist countries also lived under a non-communist monarchy or other dictatorial or authoritarian regime and they're happy to go back to that as long as it isn't communist. Of course the main problem with communism is the authoritarian aspects that quickly swallow up the economic ones.
  5. Yeah, elaborating a bit: every time a publisher or author applies for a copyright in a book or other work, they are required to deposit two copies of the best edition of the work upon publication, thus stocking the LoC with just about everything.
  6. I don't think I disagree. But if we want to pretend that there is some universal code of ethics that isn't tempered or altered by the situation, or the interests of the client, then I guess there was an ethical crisis in the legal profession around 1861-1862. Fun note, although the ruling that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional came from the Chief Justice of the United States, it was clearly not a ruling of the nine justices of the entire Supreme Court. It seems it was roughly analogous to a Court of Appeals decision. On this basis, much like Trumpco, some at the time and later justify his actions as not contrary to a final decision of SCOTUS. And his action was later "justified" by Congress. In the absolutest or strictest sense, Lincoln ignored the orders of the federal courts. FDR stopped just short of ignoring the orders of the federal courts, but engaged in a lot of executive overreach with poorly drafted and obviously unconstitutional orders, just like you-know-who. FDR and Lincoln proved to be on the right side of history, for the most part, Trump will be proven to be on the wrong. But they did the same shit, objectively.
  7. I'll say it again, this team after the loss of Spencer seems to be eerily reminiscent of the 2022 team after Witt went down.
  8. tl/dr As much as we hate #bothsides, there are actually usually two sides to a legal dispute. One side is usually wrong, the other right. I like to understand the #bothsides, if for no other reason than to figure out why the wrong side won. Although corruption may supply the answer to that, it's often more nuanced.
  9. Is placing the ability to suspend habeas corpus in some kind of legal historical context useful or not? Like the Emoluments Clause, the Constitution literally provides: That's in Article I, relating to the powers of Congress, and Section 9, powers denied to Congress. Does the denial to Congress then vest that power in the executive? Or does it reserve the power to Congress, but only in "Cases of Rebellion or invasion"? This is, to a greater or lesser degree, a legitimate question. The Constitution clearly contemplated suspension of the right. The question becomes by whom and when. The only time in US history a President unilaterally suspended habeas corpus, it was Abraham Lincoln. And when the courts ruled that unconstitutional, Lincoln ignored them. Ethical crisis? Should all of Lincoln's lawyers have been disbarred? Should he? Or does his being on the right side of the Civil War make it all ok? There are two sides to every legal dispute. No matter how wrong Bozo thinks one side is (and I agree), some lawyer somewhere is gonna take that case. Same as it ever was. Even if the answers are more obvious and the stakes much higher (those are, after all, subjective not objective). Should losing lawyers be disbarred every time they lose on a case with constitutional dimensions? After all, they were representing a side that was ultimately found to be advocating an unconstitutional position, thus an "anti-American" position. And their clients might actually be shitheels, or maybe not. It's not one side or the other that produces "democracy" or the American way or whatever, its the putting of the dispute to the adversarial system, which tends to require representation of both sides. And that's before you get to the political/legislative influences on the system at the peripheries and the "top-down." Would it be kinda cool if all the lawyers refused to represent Trumpco? Yeah, probably. But what about other heinous criminals who are obviously guilty? Maybe less cool. Are the lawyers that take Trumpco cases ethically compromised? The answer to that question is not provided by the "barriers to entry" to the legal profession, or the literal text of ethics rules.
  10. He's such a dolt. Always throwing in phrases from other contexts that he thinks sound cool or businesslike or something. One of these days, he's going to bust out a "govern yourself accordingly" (that was a conclusion to a cease-and-desist letter a client got probably 25 years ago and sent by an aging lawyer from, IIRC South Carolina. The legal lingo in the original 13 colonies tends to be especially archaic.
  11. The profession encompasses a shit ton of lawyers, and most of us don't feel we're in any sort of crisis not applicable to the population at large. The DOJ is in a crisis, for sure. I suppose the problem is that, closely related but actually external to the legal profession is politics. Laws come mostly from legislatures these days. The ultimate interpreters of those laws and the "common" ones that don't originate from legislative bodies, that is, SCOTUS and the courts of appeal to a lesser extent, are and always have been political creatures making basically political decisions that filter through varying degrees of legal analysis. Because the politics are corrupt and craven, so too are their mostly political decisions.
  12. Bit of perspective, for whatever it's worth. Although the Constitution (Art. 1, s. 9, cl. 2) provides for suspension of habeas corpus in times of invasion or rebellion, both times it has been suspended in the US were pursuant to acts of Congress providing the president with authority to do so. Lincoln's attempt to suspend it without Congressional authorization was ruled unconstitutional by Chief Judge Taney of the Supreme Court in a procedurally oddball decision. Also, the Phillipine thing was kind of a one-off, it was authorized by the governing body of the Phillipines at the time. Similar situation in Hawaii. Neither was a presidential suspension of the writ. So, despite the language of the Constitution, there's no precedent for it. That, of course, means jack shit, but still. And yes, it is an hideous threat of a dictator, Lincoln notwithstanding.
  13. Probably one big caveat here. A lot of the time biglaw clients are ostensibly some big-name partner's clients. But in some cases, a more junior partner or senior associate is doing the real work and interacting with the client, along with a herd of other juniors. So, sometimes a partner leaves and not all or not that many of his clients go with him/her, staying instead with the more junior person that actually does their work. To avoid this, partners and groups of partners will take most of a "section" or "practice group" with them when they leave.
  14. He might think it easier to get something done with the dumbass simply because he's not Congress and he's malleable as hell. But likely anything emanating from the executive on this is going to be damn near useless and unenforceable.
  15. What is probably true is that non-capitulating firms are using this to harvest clients. So, even if a GC or BoD isn't inclined to question it on their own, they're being seriously prodded by competing law firms to do so. Yes.
  16. Worse still, that's one of the firms that capitulated without ever being targeted. And, AFAIK no reason to be targeted.
  17. The more recent Caddys have a) touchscreens b) buttons that do all the frequently used functions and c) the rotary dial/wheel thing for scrolling and selecting on-screen options. Pick your poison, but it's a decent way to do it. And yeah, I'm not sure I like replacing the gauge cluster with a free-standing screen.
  18. She's an interim or acting. Not sure that means he's going to put her up for the post on a permanent basis. But make no mistake, he values those "high ratings" about as much as anything except maybe wealth.
  19. I guess then de minimis would have exempted small purchases. Not quite sure how that would work.
  20. Nah, Campbell. I was familiar with his oilpatch exploits and Tceh bagman, not sure why I'm surprised he's Tim Dunn, Jr. And I guess he's ackshually a big shit.
  21. I flew/drove my MIL from Vegas to Ridgecrest CA last June to visit her dying sister. Turns out I drove right by Yermo, didn't notice. That whole area of the Mojave makes west Texas look like a verdant rainforest with infinite variation in topology and geology. God Almighty, that drive was hallucinatory.
  22. No imports at all! NIAA! Fuck your coffee, your Scotch and Irish whiskey, your krautwagens and British loudspeakers.
  23. From what I can tell, "functional medicine" is a broad and vague term that does indeed encompass quite a bit of quackery. The basic notion of metabolic health seems sound. This Means quack would be a lot more credible if she'd studied endocrinology or a similar field.
  24. If the de minimis exception was helping you out, Austin, your business was a pile of shit.
  25. At least it appears not to be one of those overgrown electronic switches.
×
×
  • Create New...