It is currently Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:20 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Amazed Jeff Sessions
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 34265
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-sessions-amazed-that-island-judge-could-block-travel-ban/

(that last line tho' ... :lol: :lol: ... wait for it)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday seemed to describe Hawaii as if it weren’t part of the U.S. (or possibly a lesser part) and expressed outrage that a federal judge had the ability to block the Trump administration’s travel ban.

“We are confident that the president will prevail on appeal and particularly in the Supreme Court, if not the Ninth Circuit. So this is a huge matter,” Sessions, a former Republican senator from Alabama, said in an interview with radio host Mark Levin, surfaced by CNN on Thursday.

I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power,” he added.

Sessions complained that the “very, very liberal Ninth Circuit” that has been “hostile” to the order.

The two Democratic senators from Hawaii were quick to pounce on the remarks as they circulated on social media Thursday.

Mr. Attorney General: You voted for that judge. And that island is called Oahu. It's my home. Have some respect. https://t.co/sW9z3vqBqG
— Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) April 20, 2017

Hey Jeff Sessions, this #IslandinthePacific has been the 50th state for going on 58 years. And we won’t succumb to your dog whistle politics
— Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) April 20, 2017


A federal judge in Hawaii put President Trump’s revised travel ban on hold last month and later extended the order at the end of March.

Hawaii became the 50th state in 1959. It is also technically an archipelago and not an island.

_________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been ... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
- Isaac Asimov


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Denied.

It was a clumsy attempt at framing the scale of the impropriety that is a judge up ending stare decisis and ignoring precedent not just from the Supreme Court, but from the appellate court in his own circuit, and instead using regressive injunctive powers to block an action clearly and unequivocally delegated to the President by Congress.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
So let me get this straight. We have a fucking attorney general who doesn't know Article III?

Holy fuck...

If there is one official of the Trump Administration I want gone today, it's this fucking guy.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Denied.

It was a clumsy attempt at framing the scale of the impropriety that is a judge up ending stare decisis and ignoring precedent not just from the Supreme Court, but from the appellate court in his own circuit, and instead using regressive injunctive powers to block an action clearly and unequivocally delegated to the President by Congress.

Articles III and VI grant the judiciary the right to review laws. If Trump doesn't like the ruling, he can appeal all the way up to SCOTUS and their ruling will be the law of the land. It's pretty simple.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
I expect little else from a bigot from a state vying for the titles of the most illiterate and irrelevant state of the Union. Alabama's motto should read: Bless their hearts and thank God for Mississippi!

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
I will add that I lost a lot of respect for Rand Paul when he didn't block Sessions. Between his views on asset forfeiture, the war on drugs, etc. there were a lot of things to justify blocking this asshole's nomination. I guess Rand Paul is only a shadow of what his great father was.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 34265
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Denied.

It was a clumsy attempt at framing the scale of the impropriety that is a judge up ending stare decisis and ignoring precedent not just from the Supreme Court, but from the appellate court in his own circuit, and instead using regressive injunctive powers to block an action clearly and unequivocally delegated to the President by Congress.

You're way too try-hard as of late. Pump the brakes a bit perhaps.

_________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been ... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
- Isaac Asimov


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Denied.

It was a clumsy attempt at framing the scale of the impropriety that is a judge up ending stare decisis and ignoring precedent not just from the Supreme Court, but from the appellate court in his own circuit, and instead using regressive injunctive powers to block an action clearly and unequivocally delegated to the President by Congress.

Articles III and VI grant the judiciary the right to review laws. If Trump doesn't like the ruling, he can appeal all the way up to SCOTUS and their ruling will be the law of the land. It's pretty simple.


No, they don't. Judicial review was a power bootstrapped into usage by SCOTUS in Marbury v. Madison. Not that it is a bad concept, mind you, nor that the framers didn't intend for the courts to have this power, but it just isn't expressly granted to the courts via the Constitution.

Regardless of all that, The Supremes and their lessers have been ruling on the power of the Executive to unilaterally enact immigration mandates, even discriminatory ones, for over 30 years. This area of law has been decided: courts are to show deference to the Executive decisions on matters such as these, and in the event review is warranted, the rational basis test applies, not strict scrutiny. Both of those things--one of which was decided by the appellate court in this judge's circuit--disqualify an attempt to get a preliminary injunction, as they diminish any likelihood of succeeding on the merits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
JLN, stop trying to dogpaddle in deeper,swifter waters than you're rated for

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
JLN, stop trying to dogpaddle in deeper,swifter waters than you're rated for


I don't know to what you are referring, but thank you for your input.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:15 pm
Posts: 5538
Location: Crenshaw
pizza_Place: Dino's
Regular Reader wrote:
Alabama's motto should read: Bless their hearts and thank God for Mississippi!

I will be there in approximately 24 hours. I am almost looking forward to losing my fair share of golf balls, so I can replenish by visiting a Wal-Mart in Alabama. Thinking about bringing up your motto suggestion at the checkout.

_________________
Sex isn't dirty, sex isn't a crime. It's a loving act between two or more consenting adults.

-Hank Kingsley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
JLN, stop trying to dogpaddle in deeper,swifter waters than you're rated for


I don't know to what you are referring, but thank you for your input.


Your discussion of article 3 is baffling and your discussion of the appropriate standard of review isn't exactly accurate

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
JLN, stop trying to dogpaddle in deeper,swifter waters than you're rated for


I don't know to what you are referring, but thank you for your input.


Your discussion of article 3 is baffling and your discussion of the appropriate standard of review isn't exactly accurate


It's news to you that Article III doesn't specify judicial review? And yes, I am correct in identifying rational basis as the review standard for these kinds of things:

Quote:
The importance and continuing applicability of the framework set out in Mandel and applied in Fiallo and Din has been recognized in circumstances remarkably similar to the Executive Order. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Attorney General instituted the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. That program required nonimmigrant alien males (residing in the United States) over the age of sixteen from twenty-five countries—twenty-four Muslim-majority countries plus North Korea—to appear for registration and fingerprinting. One court referred to the program as “enhanced monitoring.” See Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 433–34, 439 (2d Cir. 2008) (describing the program).7 The aliens subject to the program filed a series of suits in federal courts across the United States. They contended that the program unconstitutionally discriminated against them on the basis of “their religion, ethnicity, gender, and race.” Id. at 438. Similar to the claims here, the petitioners argued that the program “was motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims.” Id. at 439. Citing Fiallo and applying the Mandel test, the Second Circuit held that “[t]he most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review.” Id. at 438 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The court then found “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for” the registration requirements because the countries were “selected on the basis of national security criteria.” Id. at 438–39. The court rejected as having “no basis” the petitioners’ claim of religious animus. Id. at 439. The court observed that “one major threat of terrorist attacks comes from radical Islamic groups.” Id. It added:

Muslims from non-specified countries were not subject to registration. Aliens from the designated countries who were qualified to be permanent residents in the United States were exempted whether or not they were Muslims. The program did not target only Muslims: non-Muslims from the designated countries were subject to registration.

Finally, the court refused to review the program for “its effectiveness and wisdom” because the court “ha[d] no way of knowing whether the Program’s enhanced monitoring of aliens ha[d] disrupted or deterred attacks. In any event, such a consideration [was] irrelevant because an ex ante rather than ex post assessment of the Program [was] required under the rational basis test.” Id. The Second Circuit thus unanimously rejected the petitioners’ constitutional challenges and “join[ed] every circuit that ha[d] considered the issue in concluding that the Program [did] not violate Equal Protection guarantees.”


You're just all kinds of wrong in this thread, eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
JLN, stop trying to dogpaddle in deeper,swifter waters than you're rated for


I don't know to what you are referring, but thank you for your input.


Your discussion of article 3 is baffling and your discussion of the appropriate standard of review isn't exactly accurate


It's news to you that Article III doesn't specify judicial review? And yes, I am correct in identifying rational basis as the review standard for these kinds of things:

Quote:
The importance and continuing applicability of the framework set out in Mandel and applied in Fiallo and Din has been recognized in circumstances remarkably similar to the Executive Order. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Attorney General instituted the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. That program required nonimmigrant alien males (residing in the United States) over the age of sixteen from twenty-five countries—twenty-four Muslim-majority countries plus North Korea—to appear for registration and fingerprinting. One court referred to the program as “enhanced monitoring.” See Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 433–34, 439 (2d Cir. 2008) (describing the program).7 The aliens subject to the program filed a series of suits in federal courts across the United States. They contended that the program unconstitutionally discriminated against them on the basis of “their religion, ethnicity, gender, and race.” Id. at 438. Similar to the claims here, the petitioners argued that the program “was motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims.” Id. at 439. Citing Fiallo and applying the Mandel test, the Second Circuit held that “[t]he most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review.” Id. at 438 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The court then found “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for” the registration requirements because the countries were “selected on the basis of national security criteria.” Id. at 438–39. The court rejected as having “no basis” the petitioners’ claim of religious animus. Id. at 439. The court observed that “one major threat of terrorist attacks comes from radical Islamic groups.” Id. It added:

Muslims from non-specified countries were not subject to registration. Aliens from the designated countries who were qualified to be permanent residents in the United States were exempted whether or not they were Muslims. The program did not target only Muslims: non-Muslims from the designated countries were subject to registration.

Finally, the court refused to review the program for “its effectiveness and wisdom” because the court “ha[d] no way of knowing whether the Program’s enhanced monitoring of aliens ha[d] disrupted or deterred attacks. In any event, such a consideration [was] irrelevant because an ex ante rather than ex post assessment of the Program [was] required under the rational basis test.” Id. The Second Circuit thus unanimously rejected the petitioners’ constitutional challenges and “join[ed] every circuit that ha[d] considered the issue in concluding that the Program [did] not violate Equal Protection guarantees.”


You're just all kinds of wrong in this thread, eh?


You have no idea what the Federalist society help you blindly cite means nor how your application of it fits. Hint: it doesn't work in the real world. It really looks like the intellectual acrobatics it really is. And save the specific Article 3 cites, only theoretical conservatives go that crocodile tears route

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 34265
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ... :lol:

_________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been ... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
- Isaac Asimov


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Don Tiny wrote:
A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ... :lol:


And completely arguing that the Constitutional Article that creates the federal judiciary essentially confers it impotent.

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 11875
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
Regular Reader wrote:

You have no idea what the Federalist society help you blindly cite means nor how your application of it fits. Hint: it doesn't work in the real world. It really looks like the intellectual acrobatics it really is. And save the specific Article 3 cites, only theoretical conservatives go that crocodile tears route


Pasting from judicial yahoo answers is awesome.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
JLN, stop trying to dogpaddle in deeper,swifter waters than you're rated for


I don't know to what you are referring, but thank you for your input.


Your discussion of article 3 is baffling and your discussion of the appropriate standard of review isn't exactly accurate


It's news to you that Article III doesn't specify judicial review? And yes, I am correct in identifying rational basis as the review standard for these kinds of things:

Quote:
The importance and continuing applicability of the framework set out in Mandel and applied in Fiallo and Din has been recognized in circumstances remarkably similar to the Executive Order. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Attorney General instituted the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. That program required nonimmigrant alien males (residing in the United States) over the age of sixteen from twenty-five countries—twenty-four Muslim-majority countries plus North Korea—to appear for registration and fingerprinting. One court referred to the program as “enhanced monitoring.” See Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 433–34, 439 (2d Cir. 2008) (describing the program).7 The aliens subject to the program filed a series of suits in federal courts across the United States. They contended that the program unconstitutionally discriminated against them on the basis of “their religion, ethnicity, gender, and race.” Id. at 438. Similar to the claims here, the petitioners argued that the program “was motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims.” Id. at 439. Citing Fiallo and applying the Mandel test, the Second Circuit held that “[t]he most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review.” Id. at 438 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The court then found “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for” the registration requirements because the countries were “selected on the basis of national security criteria.” Id. at 438–39. The court rejected as having “no basis” the petitioners’ claim of religious animus. Id. at 439. The court observed that “one major threat of terrorist attacks comes from radical Islamic groups.” Id. It added:

Muslims from non-specified countries were not subject to registration. Aliens from the designated countries who were qualified to be permanent residents in the United States were exempted whether or not they were Muslims. The program did not target only Muslims: non-Muslims from the designated countries were subject to registration.

Finally, the court refused to review the program for “its effectiveness and wisdom” because the court “ha[d] no way of knowing whether the Program’s enhanced monitoring of aliens ha[d] disrupted or deterred attacks. In any event, such a consideration [was] irrelevant because an ex ante rather than ex post assessment of the Program [was] required under the rational basis test.” Id. The Second Circuit thus unanimously rejected the petitioners’ constitutional challenges and “join[ed] every circuit that ha[d] considered the issue in concluding that the Program [did] not violate Equal Protection guarantees.”


You're just all kinds of wrong in this thread, eh?


You have no idea what the Federalist society help you blindly cite means nor how your application of it fits. Hint: it doesn't work in the real world.


That was actually from an opinion of a 9th Circuit judge (are they "justice" at that level?) on the court's denying an en banc hearing after a panel upheld the injunction of the travel ban.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Don Tiny wrote:
A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ... :lol:


Ahh, there is the appeal to authority I've been waiting for. Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 34265
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ... :lol:


Ahh, there is the appeal to authority I've been waiting for. Thank you.


Jesus you're dumb.

I'm appealing, as you put it, to someone who knows what the bloody hell he's talking about over some 'iamverysmart' wanna-be.

But you tell 'em, horseshit ... you've been on the road.

_________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been ... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
- Isaac Asimov


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 8488
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
Don Tiny wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ... :lol:


Ahh, there is the appeal to authority I've been waiting for. Thank you.


Jesus you're dumb.

I'm appealing, as you put it, to someone who knows what the bloody hell he's talking about over some 'iamverysmart' wanna-be.

But you tell 'em, horseshit ... you've been on the road.

Is JLN a law student?

_________________
Nas wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if Johnson pushed hard for civil rights just so he could whip his dick (named Jumbo) out and slap it all over Bobby.


I think it was bigger than that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ... :lol:


And completely arguing that the Constitutional Article that creates the federal judiciary essentially confers it impotent.


Then explain the significance of Marbury v. Madison, because I must be missing something. If the power of judicial review is explicitly granted by Article III, what is the significance of inferring such a power from the text and the intent of the framers?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Don Tiny wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ... :lol:


Ahh, there is the appeal to authority I've been waiting for. Thank you.


Jesus you're dumb.

I'm appealing, as you put it, to someone who knows what the bloody hell he's talking about over some 'iamverysmart' wanna-be.

But you tell 'em, horseshit ... you've been on the road.


"bloody hell" and "'iamverysmart'"...a reddit neckbeard? A "niceguy" even?

But really, are lawyers never wrong?

And no, you're treating the authority conferred by a, admittedly prestigious, postgraduate degree as the deciding factor of the merits of a particular argument. That's a rather common fallacy.


Last edited by Juice's Lecture Notes on Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 34265
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Jbi11s wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ... :lol:


Ahh, there is the appeal to authority I've been waiting for. Thank you.


Jesus you're dumb.

I'm appealing, as you put it, to someone who knows what the bloody hell he's talking about over some 'iamverysmart' wanna-be.

But you tell 'em, horseshit ... you've been on the road.

Is JLN a law student?

He's clearly smarter and more well-informed than a career lawyer.

I wonder if it's also an appeal to authority if I decide to ignore the dry-cleaner's opinion on how to deal with a cough and instead believe the learned opinion of a physician.

_________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been ... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
- Isaac Asimov


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Don Tiny wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ... :lol:


Ahh, there is the appeal to authority I've been waiting for. Thank you.


Jesus you're dumb.

I'm appealing, as you put it, to someone who knows what the bloody hell he's talking about over some 'iamverysmart' wanna-be.

But you tell 'em, horseshit ... you've been on the road.

Is JLN a law student?

He's clearly smarter and more well-informed than a career lawyer.



Who posts on this board...

Quote:
I wonder if it's also an appeal to authority if I decide to ignore the dry-cleaner's opinion on how to deal with a cough and instead believe the learned opinion of a physician.


Are physicians never wrong, either? I wonder what all that med mal is about, then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 6765
pizza_Place: Giordano's
And Don Tinio, I thought we were getting along better? I had your back in the Tourney, why you gotta be so harsh? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 24036
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
I disagree with a good deal of what JLN says, and I'm a big fan of Reader, but I can promise that just "being" a lawyer doesn't automatically mean that that individual is more knowledgeable than an amateur. Same goes for pretty much any profession. Reader happens to come off as a well-informed and thoughtful lawyer, but that's a different argument. I deal on a daily basis with lawyers who are braindead morons. I also talk to them IRL. :)

_________________
312player wrote:
More weird jews..smh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 8488
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
leashyourkids wrote:
I disagree with a good deal of what JLN says, and I'm a big fan of Reader, but I can promise that just "being" a lawyer doesn't automatically mean that that individual is more knowledgeable than an amateur. Same goes for pretty much any profession. Reader happens to come off as a well-informed and thoughtful lawyer, but that's a different argument. I deal on a daily basis with lawyers who are braindead morons. I also talk to them IRL. :)

But where do you rank hockey playing Jewish lawyers on your competence scale?

_________________
Nas wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if Johnson pushed hard for civil rights just so he could whip his dick (named Jumbo) out and slap it all over Bobby.


I think it was bigger than that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 24036
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
I don't think Robert Shapiro plays hockey.

_________________
312player wrote:
More weird jews..smh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 8488
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
leashyourkids wrote:
I don't think Robert Shapiro plays hockey.

Image

_________________
Nas wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if Johnson pushed hard for civil rights just so he could whip his dick (named Jumbo) out and slap it all over Bobby.


I think it was bigger than that.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group