Dems CNN Debate Thread

[spurraider21]

I have family members that are lawyers. Good poeople, tbh. I just don't know why that profession continues to use tortured, obfuscated English in their daily work.

a lot of time its the statutes/codes with outdated language that attorneys are forced to use when referring to them. same goes for legal standards that were set in supreme court cases decades/centuries ago which are still applicable governing law.

for instance, it might be easier to say, and make more sense when you hear something like a "motion to dismiss" but in some states that same process is called a "demurrer"... which you might say is tortured, obfuscated english (lol using the word obfuscated when complaining about tortured word choices), but thats simply the term that a state may use.

I did my own divorce in the late 90's, with no lawyer, using some boiler plate forms. There are definitely times when you need an experienced lawyer, but some things you can do yourself.

good job. you so smart. law school just a money grab, you dont learn anything that you cant just google or find on legalzoom!

[spurraider21]

The two individuals on this forum that I know are lawyers could school me, no doubt, but legal opinion is still an opinion.

If not, the supreme court would always have unanimous opinionion. No?

This is why we make arguments.

yes and no, tbh

first, ive never argued with somebody about the law here and then said "im right because im an attorney and you're not and therefore your opinion is wrong." usually when i argue about the legality of something, i will post a statute or a snippet from a supreme court or appellate case where the court outright states the applicable rule to back up what i'm saying.

you are correct that legal opinions are subject to disagreement and interpretation. but you cant (for example, i'm not saying you hold this position) just assert that "its my legal opinion that abortion is 100% illegal." the established case law says otherwise. your opinion might be that "it should be illegal" but thats more of a personal/political opinion and not a legal one.

of course, at moments notice, the supreme court can overturn a previous decision, though it usually requires a heightened showing to overturn established precedent. of course, clarence thomas is completely against the notion that precedent should be held in high regard, but thats how the court has operated for 200+ years. thats why we always operate under the assumption that previous SCOTUS rulings are law and binding on all other courts.

[clambake]

antichrist darrin with the self-divorce pity me.

prepare to be shat on

[Spurtacular]

antichrist darrin with the self-divorce pity me.

prepare to be shat on

More blakisms. You're not even smart enough (or capable) of having a different personality to sell your cuck alt.

[DMC]

The two individuals on this forum that I know are lawyers could school me, no doubt, but legal opinion is still an opinion.

In a way. It's like saying a doctor's opinion is still an opinion but would you ask your friend whether or not you should have open heart surgery if your friend was a plumber? Of course not you would ask a doctor and then you may go get a second opinion from a doctor who also runs tests and comes to a conclusion. But it's still an opinion because it's still telling you what you should or shouldn't do. There's no right answer there only someone's advice.

[CosmicCowboy]

When my son went to Michigan Law school I was somewhat shocked to realize they didn't really teach law in law school but rather "how to think like a lawyer".

[Spurtacular]

Doubt Chumpettes have much to say about this clown show, tbh.

[koriwhat]

Doubt Chumpettes have much to say about this clown show, tbh.

just from that screenshot there's at least a lesbian, a corpse, and a gay dude there. 2/3 to rep the alphabet gang.

[Spurtacular]

This moderator argues like Chump.

[Reck]

derp spending all night disecting videos thinking about his ST love, Chump.