Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39397
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Did the profession stop being in crisis during the Clinton and Obama administrations? Was it in crisis when FDR was pulling his stunts? Should the government lawyers defending Korematsu have been disbarred? How about when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional consent? Should he have been disbarred? There are two sides to every dispute. One ends up being wrong most of the time. Sometimes they're more wrong than other times. In some cases, they actually advocate an unconstitutional position. Gasp. Does that make them un-American? Or does it depend on HOW unconstitutional it is? Who's the arbitrator of that? How do you solve this alleged crisis? Do you disbar every lawyer that advocates an unconstitutional position? Or one that isn't actually supported by facts (short of actually lying to the tribunal)? What if a lawyer brings a righteous civil rights case that's borderline frivolous in view of settled law, or requires development of facts in discovery and the fact don't develop? Disbarred or disciplined if they lose? Or is it the purity of the motivation that matters?
  2. And also that it wasn't "conditioned on an official act." Mhm.
  3. Yep. And when it comes to actually spending money, like on one of his projects, he seems to be a colossal cheapskate, even though it's not his money. No or less spending means Trump richer. No consideration whatsoever for what the spending purchases or its value. If he's spending, it means someone's getting over on him. The zero-sum, transactional nature of that fucking guy. That's why he loves licensing his name more than anything else. He doesn't come out of pocket at all.
  4. His first bit of analysis here was that before income taxes, tariffs were a or the primary revenue source of the US Government. So, more tariffs = no income tax. Someone else told him that tariffs can also be used to incent domestic purchasing and manufacture. That's about all the analysis he's ever done.
  5. It's a weird thing they do. They're good hunters and that's fairly obviously not conducive to stealth. They only seem to do it when they're indoors and birds outdoors, or birds are clearly beyond reach, like in a tree if the cat is outdoors.
  6. I have been keeping an eye on it and have identified some of the Trumpkin advocates. There's too much workaday, apolitical work in the US Attorneys offices and they're largely staffed with longtime civil servants and I bet that won't change too much even if the USAs wind up being pieces of shit like Ed Martin and Judge Jeannine. For example, Chad Meacham, USA ND Tex was appointed by Biden for part of his term and re-appointed by Trump as acting. Not sure if he's up for the full appointment. He's been there at least 20 years. SD Tex seems to have a bit of a hack, but has been there a long time. Main justice is getting a lot of turds for sure. It's gonna need a high colonic.
  7. Well, we are talking mostly TREC contracts, and it looks like Bevo's contract may be in Montana, and you're in Cali, so the sort of standard terms may not be so standard, elsewhere. But, you're right, approval does not necessarily equal funding. And the form provisions (as opposed to something the realtors or parties make up) only addresses approval. So, a buyer could receive the requisite approval but the financing doesn't fund on closing for whatever stupid reason. The buyer then is technically in breach of the contract and would probably have a claim against the financing entity. But in the real world, in 99/100 cases, the closing date isn't that critical and everyone would rather move it a few days than go through the hassle of a lawsuit. Or if it's that big a deal, fucking rescind the contract altogether.
  8. I mean by the cat. They make funny little noises when they see birds, at least small ones.
  9. Excellent point. DOJ lawyers keep the feebs on their toes. And notwithstanding Trumpco, AUSAs and other DOJ lawyers are pretty head-and-shoulders above most other agency lawyers, and state prosecutors, for that matter. Threadjack a little. I have read this guy's, Robert Dugoni's, crime fiction for a while. It's decentish, like a lot of other sort of pulpy crime fiction. But he was an actual lawyer, and wrote this non-fiction account of an early EPA environmental case and the politics, small p, among federal agencies and how the EPA really was quite a bit of a bastard in the early going.. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743246527/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=bsio-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=0743246527
  10. Kind of wonder if White is maybe overly sensitive to the chemistry issue given the disaster that the UO gals apparently wrought.
  11. Good analysis, I think. All LEO have a tendency to suffer self-righteousness and becoming true believers in whatever harm or crime they are directed against and to cultivate contempt for those they arrest, and probably a goodly number of those they don't. It takes some intelligence, empathy, and higher-order thinking to restrain that tendency. Education and training don't guarantee any of that, but probably help and I think FBI is the leader in the clubhouse on those things.
  12. Well fair point, but not every contract. Those with a third-party financing addendum, with certain boxes checked.
  13. Fun article, in a sad way. Not necessarily eating faces, but eating nonetheless. https://www.buzzfeed.com/meganeliscomb/trump-tariff-receipts-may-2025
  14. I don't actually think the buyer has the right to exit the contract if the seller won't agree to a new closing date. Technically speaking, if you aren't funded on the closing date, you're in breach. But the damages are probably going to be small and not worth the headache of the lawsuit that will be filed by the title company/escrow agent if a breach is declared. Therefore, as a practical matter, a new closing date should be agreed to and yeah, the buyer's agent should have been proactive on that so the closing date doesn't pass unfunded, thereby creating a breach.
  15. Although they're all cops, I think the feebs are by and large a significant cut above most DHS agents in education, training, and sense of their role in government. It's probably unlikely across the board, but much more likely in the FBI than other federal law enforcement.
  16. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/newark-mayor-arrested-at-ice-facility-in-new-jersey-where-he-was-protesting-prosecutor-says Somebody's lyin.
  17. Or a freedumb eagle gun patriot concerned with muh rights.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...