|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 27 2018 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:
What do all these top lawyers have to lose? Do lawyers of that caliber only accept jobs that are a slam dunk? I'm curious what would make every single firm stay away.
Trump's reputation of not paying people, going against lawyer advice, lying to lawyers etc.
If you have to have two lawyers in every meeting with Trump because he lies so much, that's a bit of a problem.
|
On March 27 2018 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:
What do all these top lawyers have to lose? Do lawyers of that caliber only accept jobs that are a slam dunk? I'm curious what would make every single firm stay away.
A client that doesn't listen.
Likely to incriminate himself.
Constantly lies.
History of failing to pay.
Top lawyers are wanted by a lot of people, they can get way better cases then this nightmare of a client.
Its not about wanting 'slam dunks', its about not being a child creche nurse.
|
On March 27 2018 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:
What do all these top lawyers have to lose? Do lawyers of that caliber only accept jobs that are a slam dunk? I'm curious what would make every single firm stay away.
the simplest answer is money: trump is notorious for stiffing people, and sometimes tries to do that to his lawyers iirc.
it's also a question of what they have to gain; firms of that caliber have plenty of well-paying work as it is. why take on a huge headache when you're already well enough known in your field and making plenty of money?
|
On March 27 2018 00:22 farvacola wrote:
Actual outcome possibilities aside, many lawyers and firms are strongly turned off by picking up representation mid-case. In many cases, having to come in and pick up pieces already set by prior lawyers is a recipe for complicated conflict of interest and ineffective assistance of counsel problems. On that latter note, word is that Trump is flirting with hanging his hat on the IAC rack, which is even more reason for lawyers to be wary about what they're getting into.
IAC?
|
On March 27 2018 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:
What do all these top lawyers have to lose? Do lawyers of that caliber only accept jobs that are a slam dunk? I'm curious what would make every single firm stay away.
I figure he's a liability to them. Trump has a reputation for lying and not listening to advice, to the point where lawyers felt the need to go in pairs so they would have someone to corroborate what they discussed with him.
|
On March 27 2018 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 00:22 farvacola wrote:
Actual outcome possibilities aside, many lawyers and firms are strongly turned off by picking up representation mid-case. In many cases, having to come in and pick up pieces already set by prior lawyers is a recipe for complicated conflict of interest and ineffective assistance of counsel problems. On that latter note, word is that Trump is flirting with hanging his hat on the IAC rack, which is even more reason for lawyers to be wary about what they're getting into. IAC?
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
|
There are a lot of jokes about crooked attorneys, but the reality of work in law is you can’t lie as an attorney. You can omit things or not respond, but you can’t outright lie. A lawyer can’t tell the court one thing and have their client to the exact opposite of that thing. It isn’t possible to represent someone effectively if they do that. The court will rightly assume that the attorney does not speak for their client, by extension, isn’t being completely honest. And once that happens, its hard to come back from that.
The other thing to remember is that a lot of attorneys are in front of the same judges or courts for years at a time. Attorneys are not going to ruin their reputation with a court for any single client, even the President. Especially if they are not sure they will get paid to boot.
|
United Kingdom10025 Posts
On March 27 2018 00:31 Plansix wrote:
There are a lot of jokes about crooked attorneys, but the reality of work in law is you can’t lie as an attorney. You can omit things or not respond, but you can’t outright lie. A lawyer can’t tell the court one thing and have their client to the exact opposite of that thing. It isn’t possible to represent someone effectively if they do that. The court will rightly assume that the attorney does not speak for their client, by extension, isn’t being completely honest. And once that happens, its hard to come back from that.
The other thing to remember is that a lot of attorneys are in front of the same judges or courts for years at a time. Attorneys are not going to ruin their reputation with a court for any single client, even the President. Especially if they are not sure they will get paid to boot.
Yeah but this has forced attorneys to figure out other ways around the truth, hence the reputation. You can lie without lying.
|
On March 27 2018 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 00:31 Plansix wrote:
There are a lot of jokes about crooked attorneys, but the reality of work in law is you can’t lie as an attorney. You can omit things or not respond, but you can’t outright lie. A lawyer can’t tell the court one thing and have their client to the exact opposite of that thing. It isn’t possible to represent someone effectively if they do that. The court will rightly assume that the attorney does not speak for their client, by extension, isn’t being completely honest. And once that happens, its hard to come back from that.
The other thing to remember is that a lot of attorneys are in front of the same judges or courts for years at a time. Attorneys are not going to ruin their reputation with a court for any single client, even the President. Especially if they are not sure they will get paid to boot. Yeah but this has forced attorneys to figure out other ways around the truth, hence the reputation. You can lie without lying.
The truth is subjective. Evidence is also subjective. That is why standards of proof never require 100% certainty, because the court system is built around the concept that the truth is not obtainable. But my point was that good lawyers cannot function when their client operates the way Trump does.
|
On March 27 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 27 2018 00:31 Plansix wrote:
There are a lot of jokes about crooked attorneys, but the reality of work in law is you can’t lie as an attorney. You can omit things or not respond, but you can’t outright lie. A lawyer can’t tell the court one thing and have their client to the exact opposite of that thing. It isn’t possible to represent someone effectively if they do that. The court will rightly assume that the attorney does not speak for their client, by extension, isn’t being completely honest. And once that happens, its hard to come back from that.
The other thing to remember is that a lot of attorneys are in front of the same judges or courts for years at a time. Attorneys are not going to ruin their reputation with a court for any single client, even the President. Especially if they are not sure they will get paid to boot. Yeah but this has forced attorneys to figure out other ways around the truth, hence the reputation. You can lie without lying. The truth is subjective. Evidence is also subjective. That is why standards of proof never require 100% certainty, because the court system is built around the concept that the truth is not obtainable. But my point was that good lawyers cannot function when their client operates the way Trump does.
And the impression I get is big law is all about reputation; having the President as a client is good, unless you then get dragged into near-certain losses. Not to mention I'm sure all the top lawyers know each other fairly well and word of mouth on Trump can't be good.
A lot of lawyers seem to think Trump's in some form of trouble, even if it isn't the sort that'll end a Presidency. Add on that to everything else, plus the high likelihood that he won't share something important, I can see why a lot of lawyers would have second thoughts.
|
There's also the thing where many of the firm's have younger interns and so on that are openly hostile towards Trump. Pretty hard to justify killing your talent pool just for a case.
|
On March 27 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 27 2018 00:31 Plansix wrote:
There are a lot of jokes about crooked attorneys, but the reality of work in law is you can’t lie as an attorney. You can omit things or not respond, but you can’t outright lie. A lawyer can’t tell the court one thing and have their client to the exact opposite of that thing. It isn’t possible to represent someone effectively if they do that. The court will rightly assume that the attorney does not speak for their client, by extension, isn’t being completely honest. And once that happens, its hard to come back from that.
The other thing to remember is that a lot of attorneys are in front of the same judges or courts for years at a time. Attorneys are not going to ruin their reputation with a court for any single client, even the President. Especially if they are not sure they will get paid to boot. Yeah but this has forced attorneys to figure out other ways around the truth, hence the reputation. You can lie without lying. The truth is subjective. Evidence is also subjective. That is why standards of proof never require 100% certainty, because the court system is built around the concept that the truth is not obtainable. But my point was that good lawyers cannot function when their client operates the way Trump does.
I know this is US politcs thread but i feel that i need to step in. The US court system is build like that. It ain't necessarily so, for example our (polish) court system stirive to establish objective truth about the matter. The judge is tasked with this.
|
On March 27 2018 01:02 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 27 2018 00:31 Plansix wrote:
There are a lot of jokes about crooked attorneys, but the reality of work in law is you can’t lie as an attorney. You can omit things or not respond, but you can’t outright lie. A lawyer can’t tell the court one thing and have their client to the exact opposite of that thing. It isn’t possible to represent someone effectively if they do that. The court will rightly assume that the attorney does not speak for their client, by extension, isn’t being completely honest. And once that happens, its hard to come back from that.
The other thing to remember is that a lot of attorneys are in front of the same judges or courts for years at a time. Attorneys are not going to ruin their reputation with a court for any single client, even the President. Especially if they are not sure they will get paid to boot. Yeah but this has forced attorneys to figure out other ways around the truth, hence the reputation. You can lie without lying. The truth is subjective. Evidence is also subjective. That is why standards of proof never require 100% certainty, because the court system is built around the concept that the truth is not obtainable. But my point was that good lawyers cannot function when their client operates the way Trump does. I know this is US politcs thread but i feel that i need to step in. The US court system is build like that. It ain't necessarily so, for example our (polish) court system stirive to establish objective truth about the matter. The judge is tasked with this.
I never said that the court doesn’t seek the truth. Just that it won’t get there in a most cases for a variety of reasons. Courts rule incorrectly. Juries do it a lot. It is an imperfect system that people want to provide easy answers to what it true and what isn’t. I think it is really dangerous to view the court as some objective truth seeker, rather than a flawed system of administrating justice.
|
On March 27 2018 01:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 01:02 Silvanel wrote:On March 27 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 27 2018 00:31 Plansix wrote:
There are a lot of jokes about crooked attorneys, but the reality of work in law is you can’t lie as an attorney. You can omit things or not respond, but you can’t outright lie. A lawyer can’t tell the court one thing and have their client to the exact opposite of that thing. It isn’t possible to represent someone effectively if they do that. The court will rightly assume that the attorney does not speak for their client, by extension, isn’t being completely honest. And once that happens, its hard to come back from that.
The other thing to remember is that a lot of attorneys are in front of the same judges or courts for years at a time. Attorneys are not going to ruin their reputation with a court for any single client, even the President. Especially if they are not sure they will get paid to boot. Yeah but this has forced attorneys to figure out other ways around the truth, hence the reputation. You can lie without lying. The truth is subjective. Evidence is also subjective. That is why standards of proof never require 100% certainty, because the court system is built around the concept that the truth is not obtainable. But my point was that good lawyers cannot function when their client operates the way Trump does. I know this is US politcs thread but i feel that i need to step in. The US court system is build like that. It ain't necessarily so, for example our (polish) court system stirive to establish objective truth about the matter. The judge is tasked with this. I never said that the court doesn’t seek the truth. Just that it won’t get there in a most cases for a variety of reasons. Courts rule incorrectly. Juries do it a lot. It is an imperfect system that people want to provide easy answers to what it true and what isn’t. I think it is really dangerous to view the court as some objective truth seeker, rather than a flawed system of administrating justice.
I may be misremembering, but the whole thing is different in that they don't use the adversarial style but inquisitorial. It leaves room for bias with the judge but your wealth influences the outcome less (at least directly)
So the judge is seeking the truth, not to rule on who was able to present a better case.
|
Well yeah i agree with that. Reality is on thing, the goal is another. I just thought You are saying that US court system is like that by design.
|
On March 26 2018 13:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 12:28 Toadesstern wrote:On March 26 2018 11:44 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 09:52 Toadesstern wrote:On March 26 2018 09:38 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 09:14 Nyxisto wrote:On March 26 2018 07:59 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 07:43 Nyxisto wrote:On March 26 2018 07:24 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2018 07:20 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
That's precisely the argument we're making. Being religious isn't a good excuse to deny the rights of others. Being religious isn’t a good enough reason to forfeit your free speech and free expression rights. Apparently, you’re allowed to have them as long as you’re a hypocrite or don’t seek gainful employment. I really didn’t expect such a callous approach. The problem is honestly not discrimination in some ethical sense but the fact that we'd be living in a clown car of a society if everybody who doesn't like each others ethics or religion would express that through the marketplace. Commercial cake-selling in a publicly licensed business should never be an issue of speech. Imagine if liberals would never hire conservatives or don't sell any goods to them because of their political orientation or vice versa. We'd constantly wage cultural war by economic means. It's better too keep that stuff apart. That’s why we should cut it off at artistic expressions for historically religious events. That’s why I’m not suggesting they have any right to put a No Gays sign in front of their store or asking somebody’s religion before selling them cookies. If you can’t separate things of particularly religious significance, the problem is your understanding of religion. Ignorance of rights is not an excuse to trample on them outright. but it's not really arstistic expression, it's a commercial business that prdouces a product on demand. If you want to be a cake artisan in your free time I don't really think that's much of an issue, but if you operate under a normal business license it shouldn't matter what the people are buying your cakes for. The commercial business produces a custom designed product after a sometimes lengthy consultation with a client. The remaining products are different and “not really artistic expression.” That’s the difference that isn’t present in your post. They could’ve walked out of their with any number of premade cakes, and t wouldn’t matter if it was for a bar mitzvah or gay wedding. That’s a fact. To you and igne above: and what if the standard product doesn't cut it for them? Software is usually the same thing. Long discussions with your client to figure out what he wants and yet that wouldn't be covered in this (from last page)? What about consulting an architect because you want to open a business somewhere and need some place to make your goods? Is there a "standard" factory to choose? No its going to be 100% custom. So you can turn that down if the factory were to make sextoys and you don't like them for religious reasons? What if there's an awful lot of people religious that way and it takes you forever to find someone willing to do it, if at all? I just don't see this argument between standard goods versus custom ones tbh If the standard product doesn't cut it for them, then choose any number of nonreligious or other-religious-beliefs cakeshops in the area. I'd have to see a software free-speech case to talk about compelled speech in software coding. I can think of a number of architects that might refuse to draft an arch with "Fuck the Mormons," in which case I wouldn't want to be on the side that says he must create that design. Sry im not really knowledgeable on Mormons as that's only a thing in the US I think. Are you talking about (not) drafting an arch because that's related to mormons and the reasoning being "fuck the Mormons" or are you talking about a design that literally has that phrase in it somewhere? If it's the 2nd you can easily turn that down on basis of not being an asshole. If it's the first... How is a "generic" arch related to mormons? I'm not really following that o.O The thing about other cakeshops is that you don't really know if there are others around depending on how rural you go, don't you? At what point does it became unreasonable to ask them to search for another shop? After being to 3 and the next being a 30min drive? A 60min drive? Do you want to put that into law? It's fine to refuse the job as long as there's other people close by (whatever that is) willing to do the job? What if you're being send on a fools errand wasting hours to prove that noone else is willing to make that cake for you because you're in some mighty backwards place? Is that burden really on you or should you be protected from that? I'm pretty sure that's all hyperbolic and as stated before I do agree that just getting someone else to make it would have been the easiest solution for everyone involved but what's easiest to get a cake isn't at the heart of this discussion. If we're in the business of forcing business owners to create art that violates their religious beliefs (because core, sincerely held religious beliefs are insufficient for any discrimination), then you can make your own example. The architect could be asked to design the lettering "Jesus Christ is Lord" or "Muhammed is a false prophet of God" (or a ceiling actually depicting Muhammed in cartoon form). I'm a little interested in your opinion if these all can be forced. I heard much more argue that religion was never a factor in compelled speech for businesses, rather than custom cakes aren't art. In my view, at least six posters here present logic that equally applies to force architects and muralists and bakers to produce these things that offend their religious beliefs (note: I'm not implying that they actually follow their internal logic in discussions, and I don't think any to date have taken up why other religious&nonreligious Colorado bakers were protected by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in refusing other creations). Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 12:31 IgnE wrote:
I think what we really need is a federally funded program to ensure that every citizen in the country has access to custom-designed cakes within a 15 mile radius. We can't have people in backwards places without access to customized cakes. IgnE's onto the right idea (and I'll use a little tongue in cheek myself here). If you respect the rights of religious bakers to refuse an artistic commission for a cake, but are still confronted with underserved communities with only Christian bakers of that particular persuasion and possessing at least one homosexual couple wanting a marriage with custom designed cakes, then ask for donations from the community, or plead with your state/locality to subsidize cakeshops in these communities. It's the easiest solution for everyone.
Sry, had to go to sleep at some point so couldn't answer. If you happen to find it I at least want to answer that since you asked me directly.
I'd say someone is going to get screwed over no matter what. You either end up with someone being told to sell towards people they don't want to sell their stuff (or services) for, or you end up with someone standing somewhere and having goods or services denied due to their sexual orientation.
In that case I'd personally lean towards forcing the shop rather than force the customer to go elsewhere if just for the difference in power between a single customer and a shop that, in most cases, isn't going to be a one-man show.
Now obviously in 99.999% of the cases I'd say don't be an asshole, don't confront people who you know to be devout christians and rub it into their noses by forcing them to make a cake but instead just find yourself another bakery if one's around.
But if push comes to shove I'd side with the customer in this case. So yeah, if a muslim architect was asked to build a church I'd probably want him to politely inform his client that he has no idea how churches are built, has no idea about the religion, is probably the wrong person for the job and give some hints about who might be a better architect for the job but again, if push comes to shove suck it up. As long as we're not talking about things you can simply turn down for other reasons like a giant "suck my dick, *insert whoever*" statue.
And as I've already stated previously, I'm somewhat a fan of the idea to offer compensation to get around the problem tbh. If you want a cake for your gay marriage and the bakery turns you down because he can't stand that, have some kind of receipt or whatever stating that that was the case and then get some kind of compensation for having to drive another 30minutes until you get to the next one.
Wether that's from the state or from the bakery who's refusing the guys I'm kind of open about. And if the city (in case it's the city handing out that money/tax break/whatever) is losing lots of money maybe that's a sign that something should be done about that situation in that specific city.
On the other hand, probably way more complicated than that. I wouldn't want someone to just show up at some place 5 times a week "so btw, how about some cake NOW?" because he knows the owner will refuse and the guy asking isn't even looking for cake in the first place.
|
A word from Mitch McConnell is as a trustworthy as a four dollar bill. It also shows that Kentucky's economy is trending towards Hemp cultivation.
Mitch McConnell will introduce legislation to allow states to regulate their own hemp industries, a move that could be a boon to the Senate majority leader should he pursue reelection in 2020.
The Kentucky senator announced on Monday he will pursue a bill that would make states the primary regulators of hemp, in consultation with the Department of Agriculture. Hemp growth was once outlawed in the United States, but McConnell worked in 2014 to write a new law allowing pilot programs for it. Since then, Kentucky has become the state with the third-most acres of hemp growth.
“Hemp has played a foundational role in Kentucky’s agricultural heritage, and I believe that it can be an important part of our future,” McConnell said on Monday at an event at the state Department of Agriculture in Frankfort, Ky. "I believe that we are ready to take the next step and build upon the successes we’ve seen with Kentucky’s hemp pilot program.”
Hemp is an agricultural product with a myriad number of uses, from fabric to paper. But federal law does not allow its cultivation other than for research because of its similarity to marijuana, though hemp cannot be used as a drug.
McConnell's move to relax regulations on hemp production comes as his colleagues increasingly believe the Kentucky Republican will seek a seventh term in 2020, when he is next up for reelection. In interviews last week, several GOP senators said privately that they believe McConnell is far more likely than not to run again.
The majority leader is set to introduce the bill with Democratic senators and junior Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the coming days. Congress must pass a farm bill by the end of September when current law expires, and McConnell's hemp proposal could be included. As majority leader, McConnell is in prime position to enact his priorities, and he also still serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee.
A spokesman said McConnell will be looking at "all available options" to get the bill signed into law.
Source
|
The best hand moisturizer I ever met was hemp based
I don't get the bit about McConnells word being worthless, are you saying this this will or will not happen?
|
There is going to be a movie about this now, holy shit. As if the FBI didn't need to give critics any ammo to begin with.
|
It's just to get votes for 2018, but finally, the old guy does something good for the Americans. I wouldn't doubt he has his pockets lined already anyways with this bill. Currently Kentucky is testing the hemp industry anyways. They were one of the largest hemp producing states before prohibition...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
