'Who the hell submitted this?''It was Freddie, the new intern in Mark's office.''Well, it makes all the talking points we want to, but my God, the writing is all kinds of crap. What do we do with it? We don't have time to rewrite it!''Hey, I know, Steve Calabresi is away for a few days, let's slap his name on it before we publish it! He'll never know and people will pay more attention to it!''Okay, but I'm still firing Freddie.'
are we sure that obscenity prosecutions haven't made a comeback?
btw, my favorite pro-se litigant in the Eastern District of Virginia/United States District Court for the Fourth Circuit is a Moorish sovereign citizen type who uses the name Metaphyzic Ectromagnetic Supreme-El - while his complaints are basic Moorish Sovereign Citizen i give him extra points for the creative (and creatively spelled) name
this is what happens when you make the obvious mistake of going to a law school that is willing to name themselves after a rich donor
in all seriousness, my favorite professor in law school was also a Federalist Society/ex-Scalia Law Clerk type. Part of their danger is that fact that on an individual basis they can be quite charming.
I'm sure someone downthread has already pointed this out, but for all the whinging about "overturning the results" of an election, that sure seems to be what morans like this dude seem to be trying to do when they demand that "the voters should 'punish' House Democrats in the 2020 elections by electing a Republican House majority."
Don't get me started on it, either. I spent this very afternoon editing a document written by someone who evidently admires the passive voice with every fiber of his being. Pity the sorrows of the poor, beleaguered technical writer.
But I just popped in to say the phrase "well-regulated" refers to the Article I, Section 8 requirement that militias should be trained "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
As Tallyrand supposedly said (under somewhat different circumstances), "I wonder what he meant by that?"
First of all, I suspect that the piece in question was written, not for lawyers, or even for persons with an interest in the law, but for Trump voters (a somewhat different group, by and large).
More significantly, embedded within the article, or letter, or whatever the thing is supposed to be (but unwritten), is also the idea that *the law doesn't actually matter.* This is a very powerful idea, and one that, unfortunately, the Democrats haven't quite grasped yet. But, sooner or later, they will.
If this is the head of the Federalist Society, we're deeply, thoroughly and terminally fucked in the dark by having dozens of clowns clones of his rampaging through our legal system posing as judges.
law professor calabresi got to where he is by nepotism. so sorry you have been forced to admit you were so young and naive as to think he was brilliant.
many people also think scalia was brilliant!
ideological certainty is easily confused with brilliance if you don't have your own understanding of things
there's a fine line between brilliant and totally full of bullshit, especially in the law...
Better - and more reflective of reality...
'Who the hell submitted this?''It was Freddie, the new intern in Mark's office.''Well, it makes all the talking points we want to, but my God, the writing is all kinds of crap. What do we do with it? We don't have time to rewrite it!''Hey, I know, Steve Calabresi is away for a few days, let's slap his name on it before we publish it! He'll never know and people will pay more attention to it!''Okay, but I'm still firing Freddie.'
are we sure that obscenity prosecutions haven't made a comeback?
btw, my favorite pro-se litigant in the Eastern District of Virginia/United States District Court for the Fourth Circuit is a Moorish sovereign citizen type who uses the name Metaphyzic Ectromagnetic Supreme-El - while his complaints are basic Moorish Sovereign Citizen i give him extra points for the creative (and creatively spelled) name
this is what happens when you make the obvious mistake of going to a law school that is willing to name themselves after a rich donor
in all seriousness, my favorite professor in law school was also a Federalist Society/ex-Scalia Law Clerk type. Part of their danger is that fact that on an individual basis they can be quite charming.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
I'm sure someone downthread has already pointed this out, but for all the whinging about "overturning the results" of an election, that sure seems to be what morans like this dude seem to be trying to do when they demand that "the voters should 'punish' House Democrats in the 2020 elections by electing a Republican House majority."
Or do they not think that 2018 was an election?
Everyone has faced something yucky like that in their lives.
I, for example, twice served breakfast to G. Gordon Liddy.
Don't get me started on it, either. I spent this very afternoon editing a document written by someone who evidently admires the passive voice with every fiber of his being. Pity the sorrows of the poor, beleaguered technical writer.
But I just popped in to say the phrase "well-regulated" refers to the Article I, Section 8 requirement that militias should be trained "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
As Tallyrand supposedly said (under somewhat different circumstances), "I wonder what he meant by that?"
First of all, I suspect that the piece in question was written, not for lawyers, or even for persons with an interest in the law, but for Trump voters (a somewhat different group, by and large).
More significantly, embedded within the article, or letter, or whatever the thing is supposed to be (but unwritten), is also the idea that *the law doesn't actually matter.* This is a very powerful idea, and one that, unfortunately, the Democrats haven't quite grasped yet. But, sooner or later, they will.
Thanks for the reference.
https://www.documentcloud.o...
In addition to Charles and David, the Donors Trust is controlled by the Koch BrothersAll contributors are ultra right-wing
If this is the head of the Federalist Society, we're deeply, thoroughly and terminally fucked in the dark by having dozens of clowns clones of his rampaging through our legal system posing as judges.
law professor calabresi got to where he is by nepotism. so sorry you have been forced to admit you were so young and naive as to think he was brilliant.
many people also think scalia was brilliant!
ideological certainty is easily confused with brilliance if you don't have your own understanding of things
there's a fine line between brilliant and totally full of bullshit, especially in the law...
What is this "current Supreme Court case law" he refers to? I'm not a lawyer, never even played one on TV, but this sounds like made up BS.
Dear Email, are you referring to John Bolton's calling Trump's maneuver a "drug deal"?
Dershowitz.