Reply With Quote
Slovenly nerdy people.
I looked it up.
So people with more hair on their face than neck are well kept GQ types.
What is a neckbeard?
As a person, not as an actual neckbeard...
Slovenly nerdy people.
I looked it up.
So people with more hair on their face than neck are well kept GQ types.
Also, please tell me why trial attorneys with primarily federal practices should have their credibility questioned too
Because I think that campaign contributions to jurists is de facto corruption. I don't really care what political en y they use on the accounting or how they decide to organize. If anything that just broadens the scope and furthers my point.
You're not doing a good job convincing me its not a clear and obvious conflict of interest that is sop in Texas.
So lemme get this straight. You have no evidence whatsoever of a) succesful litigators' (whatever that means) amount of campaign contributions -- if any -- to specific judges or b) the amount of favorable decisions they've received from said judges that c) can be directly attributed to the amount contributed to the judge. You're just butthurt that judges are elected but have nothing to say about a lawyers credibility. And that's saying nothing of the fact that juries -- who receive no money from lawyers -- typically are the triers of fact. Or the fact that a judge may have received the same amount of cash from the plaintiffs and defendants attorneys.
So there's no evidence of all civil litigators' lack of credibility -- just the say so of a mouth breather hiding behind a computer screen.
Ladies and gentlemen, the boognish strikes again.
If you sit in on meetings where the budget for contributions is decided and have a vote then it is what it is.
You again with the generalities. In logic iden ies don't go both ways when you are talking about collective things. The English language is particularly bad about it. For example, Michael Jordan being a basketball player does not mean basketball players are Michael Jordan.
Because of this amateurish mistake your original premise is still flawed for the same reason it was the first time I pointed it out. You do seem emotional though.
wtf are you talking about. You do realize that not only does this have nothing to do with my question, but not all succesful trial attorneys are involved with, or even make, donations to judges' campaigns
This has got nothing to do with what I posted. If you're what passes for "smart" these days, this country is ed.
I dumbed it down and you still don't get it. I never said all were; keep arguing it though. I think it's a fair question to ask any litigator offering services or running for political office. I am not interested into prying into the private lives of others for as much as you are determined to make this about you.
Clearly you don't know what the word anyone means. You made a gross generalization and are backtrackingn from it now. But please, make more irrelevant references to logic, they're really helping your cause.
Sorry but 'anyone who succeeds should be questioned' does not follow that everyone who succeeds should answer in the affirmative.
You are not disputing that the practice exists or even that it is pervasive. I'm not backtracking; you just are not very logical.
What aren't you getting? Just because someone is succesful doesn't automatically trigger questions about their credibility. Some don't engage at all in the activity you question.
Just because a lawyer doesn't work for the ACLU doesn't mean they are subject to questions about their credibility. You've clearly never interacted with a couple, let alone, some members of the bar. , I doubt you've even interacted with a trial lawyer.
Now you are making a new argument.
I am more than comfortable moving the scope to all lawyers who file in courts where the judge receives campaign contributions.
As I said, it's de facto corruption.
Lol no I'm not. I've said that a lot of attorneys are not subject to questions of their credibility because they don't contribute to judges. You're just now getting it dunbass
So now you've expanded the lack of cred argument to public defenders? You know they file pleadings in courts too. They're such horrible people.
I have hired lawyers twice. I have a couple that are friends. I have had discussions with them all on this issue.
If you plan on taking on your own clients and want to be this ing naive when asked about it then go ahead.
Your concession is noted. I'm so happy to be a part of your fan club.
your blacklist
I haven't argued your strawmen if that is what you mean. You picking another word? You tried the "I don't know anything about lawyers' when it seems to me you are pretty ignorant of things outside the federal courthouse but before that you were failing hard at picking words to take issue with. We have gone over the words 'should' as to how it relates to a verb and 'anyone.' What else?
There is no concept more abused or casually thrown around on here than straw man. I honestly question whether you know what it means.
You made a gross over generalization -- that all succesful civil litigators have questions surrounding their credibility.
There were specific facts that directly exposed why this generalization was not only stupid, but also showed how ignorant and out of touch with reality you are (i.e., law firms not lawyers make most contributions, not all successful lawyers donate, federal prac ioners, etc.). We've gone over this, and you doubled down on your stupidity by saying all lawyers are questionable. I haven't seen a response, just your usual drivel about logic and fallacies and straw men. There's a reason why you're of no significance in the real world -- you're ing idiotic. You're just too convinced of your own (absent) intelligence to see it, much less articulate a response when someone picks apart the tired bile you spew.
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/18/rick...s_perspective/It is bad for democracy when parties that have lost elections try to overturn the results in the courts. That’s what the Republicans have done, by impeaching Bill Clinton, by installing the loser of the 2000 election as president with the help of Republican Supreme Court justices, and by suing and threatening to impeach Barack Obama. Are Democrats now going to try to use corruption charges, including far-fetched ones, to depose Republican governors they don’t like?
why not? Give Repugs a good dose of their own toxic medicine. But extorting an elected official out of office by threatening to defund completely the official's function seems to have good basis in TX law. CC hiding behind "line item veto" bull as the ONLY point to consider
more balls than brains. a prosecutor who brings charges that can't be sustained in court risks undermining his/her own office. if Perry had simply kept his mouth shut and vetoed PIU's budget, this thread wouldn't exist.
Pretty sad to be at a point where it's okay to do something that is perfectly legal and moral...as long as you don't tell anyone about it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
