What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Status
Not open for further replies.
unofan said:
Yes, because clearly nothing like that ever happens with non-attorney legislators...

:rolleyes:

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.
Click to expand...

But not ethics.
 
joecct said:
But not ethics.
Click to expand...

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

unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
joecct said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

unofan said:
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?
Click to expand...

(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.
 
joecct said:
(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.
Click to expand...

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

FreshFish said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

unofun said:
I'm also curious why he singled out attorneys.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

and how many occupations have someone hired on retainer? I can think of three. The other two are not very prominent among legislators.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
The people who make the laws are the people who derive the benefit.
Click to expand...

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. :(
 
FreshFish said:
No, you aren't. you know better and are deliberately pretending to be stupid.
Click to expand...

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)?
 
SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

And depending on the state, the lawyer would not have access to the retainer anyway. Many (most, all?) states have curtailed or otherwise limited retainers in the oldest sense of the word, namely paying purely for the attorney's availability. The vast majority of modern "retainers" are simply advanced payments of fees and must be placed in the client trust account until such times as the fees are actually earned. The unearned portion remains refundable to the client.
 
Posner eviscerates same sex marriage bans in his opinion, out just a week after oral arguments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top