Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

    Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
    It's all mush at this point. Utah is fighting a losing battle.
    "The year was 2014. The Liberal Plague ravaged the continent, it was the hour of the infamous, Auto de fé where, for public amusement, Christians and Bible believers would be tortured in a carnival like atmosphere; and it was guided by the most fearful specter to ever sit in judgment over good and evil. The Grand Inquisitor, Barackobama."

    Comment


    • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

      Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
      "The year was 2014. The Liberal Plague ravaged the continent, it was the hour of the infamous, Auto de fé where, for public amusement, Christians and Bible believers would be tortured in a carnival like atmosphere; and it was guided by the most fearful specter to ever sit in judgment over good and evil. The Grand Inquisitor, Barackobama."
      This is actually the plot of half the Christian movies that play at our local multiplex. "And the money kept pouring in..."
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

        Why is it not a conflict of interest for a legislator who also is an attorney to be actively practicing law?

        If I say to a legislator, "I'll give you $50,000 to vote on a law that favors my company," I am committing bribery, no?

        Yet if I say to a legislator who also is an attorney actively practicing law, when there is a vote coming up on a bill that will affect my company, "I'm going to give your law firm a $250,000 retainer to represent me" this action is perfectly legal? In substance the two transactions are identical, are they not?
        "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

        "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

        "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

        "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

        Comment


        • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

          Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
          Why is it not a conflict of interest for a legislator who also is an attorney to be actively practicing law?
          Same reason campaign contributions aren't illegal bribes. The people who make the laws are the people who derive the benefit.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
            Why is it not a conflict of interest for a legislator who also is an attorney to be actively practicing law?

            If I say to a legislator, "I'll give you $50,000 to vote on a law that favors my company," I am committing bribery, no?

            Yet if I say to a legislator who also is an attorney actively practicing law, when there is a vote coming up on a bill that will affect my company, "I'm going to give your law firm a $250,000 retainer to represent me" this action is perfectly legal? In substance the two transactions are identical, are they not?
            Yes, because clearly nothing like that ever happens with non-attorney legislators...



            Besides, you're all in favor of money = speech; you've defended the Citizen's United ruling repeatedly. It's a little late for you to be criticizing anything regarding campaign financing.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by unofan View Post
              Yes, because clearly nothing like that ever happens with non-attorney legislators...



              Besides, you're all in favor of money = speech; you've defended the Citizen's United ruling repeatedly. It's a little late for you to be criticizing anything regarding campaign financing.
              But not ethics.
              CCT '77 & '78
              4 kids
              5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
              1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

              ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
              - Benjamin Franklin

              Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

              I want to live forever. So far, so good.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by joecct View Post
                But not ethics.
                The two are inherently intertwined. He's made his position clear. And it's only a matter of time before someone uses Citizens United's logic to challenge bribery laws. Not sure even this court would go that far, but the challenge will surely be made.

                I'm curious what specific example brought his latest "musing" (right wing talk radio talking point) to this board. I'm also curious why he singled out attorneys.

                Comment


                • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                  Originally posted by unofan View Post
                  The two are inherently intertwined. He's made his position clear. And it's only a matter of time before someone uses Citizens United's logic to challenge bribery laws. Not sure even this court would go that far, but the challenge will surely be made.

                  I'm curious what specific example brought his latest "musing" (right wing talk radio talking point) to this board. I'm also curious why he singled out attorneys.
                  Since attorneys are the intermediary between the public and the state, one would wonder how a practicing attorney who IS the state can serve the needs of a person(s) he/she is representing before the state.

                  Should cops write the laws that they enforce? Should referees write the rules they are enforcing?
                  CCT '77 & '78
                  4 kids
                  5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                  1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                  ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                  - Benjamin Franklin

                  Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                  I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by joecct View Post
                    Since attorneys are the intermediary between the public and the state, one would wonder how a practicing attorney who IS the state can serve the needs of a person(s) he/she is representing before the state.

                    Should cops write the laws that they enforce? Should referees write the rules they are enforcing?
                    You don't think police officers lobby hard for certain laws, perhaps their union even writing it up for a legislator to introduce? You don't think referees provide substantial input into any rules changes? There used to be at least one division one athletic director who was also a d1 basketball referee (and a good one at that - he worked ncaa tournament games).

                    Many state legislators are considered part time. How is a practicing attorney any more conflicted than the rural farmer sitting on the ag committee or the banker sitting on the commerce committee?

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                      Originally posted by unofan View Post
                      You don't think police officers lobby hard for certain laws, perhaps their union even writing it up for a legislator to introduce? You don't think referees provide substantial input into any rules changes? There used to be at least one division one athletic director who was also a d1 basketball referee (and a good one at that - he worked ncaa tournament games).

                      Many state legislators are considered part time. How is a practicing attorney any more conflicted than the rural farmer sitting on the ag committee or the banker sitting on the commerce committee?
                      (a) Cops don't WRITE the laws. They may, just as you and I, lobby the legislature for laws that would make their lives easier, but their job is enforcement, not legislation.
                      (b) See (a), but USA Hockey's Rules Committee seems to breathe refs.
                      (c) If an attorney/legislator is practicing divorce law (family practice), and is writing laws / taking money from a lobbyist firm that affect families, is that a conflict? The judge would be passing the smell test.
                      CCT '77 & '78
                      4 kids
                      5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                      1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                      ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                      - Benjamin Franklin

                      Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                      I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by joecct View Post
                        (a) Cops don't WRITE the laws. They may, just as you and I, lobby the legislature for laws that would make their lives easier, but their job is enforcement, not legislation.
                        (b) See (a), but USA Hockey's Rules Committee seems to breathe refs.
                        (c) If an attorney/legislator is practicing divorce law (family practice), and is writing laws / taking money from a lobbyist firm that affect families, is that a conflict? The judge would be passing the smell test.
                        A city cop who is also in the state legislature would be writing his own laws. Most states prevent legislators from also being employed by another branch of that govt, but there's normally not anything preventing a city worker from running for state office.

                        And you didn't answer how an attorney is any different from the farmer or banker who likewise writes laws affecting their businesses.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                          Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                          Why is it not a conflict of interest for a legislator who also is an attorney to be actively practicing law?

                          If I say to a legislator, "I'll give you $50,000 to vote on a law that favors my company," I am committing bribery, no?

                          Yet if I say to a legislator who also is an attorney actively practicing law, when there is a vote coming up on a bill that will affect my company, "I'm going to give your law firm a $250,000 retainer to represent me" this action is perfectly legal? In substance the two transactions are identical, are they not?
                          From a "bribery" standpoint, I don't think your two examples are identical.

                          In the first you give the legislator $50,000. In exchange he agrees to vote how you want on a bill. That seems to be bribery and I would bet is against the law in most states.

                          In your second example, you agree to pay the legislator/lawyer a $250,000 retainer to represent you. Accordingly, there is at least an inference from your example that you are getting something in return -- $250,000 of legal representation.

                          If it could be proven that the lawyer did nothing for you for this "retainer", then I suspect a bribery charge could be made. However, if the lawyer did a substantial amount of legal work for you for which the $250,000 fee could be arguably justified, then I don't think there is any basis for a bribery charge.
                          That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                            Originally posted by unofun View Post
                            I'm also curious why he singled out attorneys.
                            No, you aren't. you know better and are deliberately pretending to be stupid.

                            According to the Congressional Research Service 170 members of the House and 60 Senators are lawyers.

                            Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers. 37.2% of the House of Representatives are lawyers.
                            and how many occupations have someone hired on retainer? I can think of three. The other two are not very prominent among legislators.
                            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                              Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                              The people who make the laws are the people who derive the benefit.
                              Yeah, that's the best explanation I've seen. So what if it is a conflict of interest, it's not an illegal conflict of interest.
                              "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                              "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                              "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                              "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                                No, you aren't. you know better and are deliberately pretending to be stupid.
                                Like anyone believes you randomly had this musing out of the blue when every other post you make is taken straight from the editorial pages of the WSJ, NY Post, or some other right wing website.

                                So what in particular prompted this one, Mr. Fark Independent (tm)?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X