This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - loki13
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 40
« on: July 13, 2015, 10:12:50 AM »
"This election will come down to who garners the most enthusiasm and like howard dean and Barack Obama right now only sanders is lighting any fires. "
How did that work for Howard Dean, anyway? Or for McGovern? Or for Ron Paul? Or for [insert name here]?
You do know that Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008, not by "enthusiasm," but, rather, by exploiting the difference between primaries and caucuses (and proportional / winner takes all). In other words, Obama carefully considered the effects of delegates (and the early disqualified Florida race that year)- Clinton won the popular vote. It's weird how "just so" stories can take hold, isn't it?
And the "Reagan" revolution isn't all that. His vote totals reflect, guess what, running against a deeply unpopular incumbent, with a moribund economy (one might call it a malaise, ahem), with a fresh foreign policy disaster before the election (Iran). The so-called "Reagan Democrats" are nothing more than the realignment started by Nixon- you might want to look up his state's right speech in Mississippi. Yes, he continued and solidified the process of winning the south, but (and there is some irony here) also continued the process of losing the West and NE.
The "enthusiasm" angle is invariably kicked around by people who want you to contribute to their campaign with time and money. Yes, it can affect the margins, but so-called enthusiasm is not the cause of a campaign- it is the product of other factors. Put more simply, McGovern was going to get hosed, no matter how enthusiastic his supporters were.
« on: July 12, 2015, 05:10:39 PM »
"but it contains links to the individual polls themselves. "
If you look at the subtabs of the CNN poll, you can see that what Breitbart breathlessly reported was, in fact, so-called Democratic independents shifting support to Sanders.
If you believe that people that are currently supporting Sanders won't vote for Clinton in the general, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
The sun will rise, the sun will set, I will have lunch, and the election won't come down to so-called independents, or loss of enthusiasm (really, do you remember 2012?) or any of those other factors. It just gives people pointless things to talk about in the meantime.
« on: July 12, 2015, 01:20:50 PM »
"In each of these states, Clinton polls badly among independents. "
I have to call BS. There are very few independents. Instead, there are (for the most part) partisans that call themselves independents. See, inter alia, http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/americans-arent-becoming-more-politically-independent-they-just-like-saying-they-are/
Pull quote- "According to the American National Elections Study (ANES), 92 percent of Democrats voted for President Obama in 2012 — just a tad higher than the 88 percent of Democratic-leaning independents who did so. Ninety-two percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Republican-leaning independents voted for Mitt Romney."
The election will come down to the economy at the time (relative to expectations) and the general partisan extremism of the candidate (relative to the partisanship of the party), with the second factor being much less important. And general get out the vote efforts.
We like to tell ourselves "just so" stories after an election, which are almost always untrue. Telling ourselves "just so" stories prior to an election is even more of a fool's errand.
« on: July 10, 2015, 02:53:00 PM »
Guy who got 14 years was Beatty Chadwick.
WRT the yahoo article, first, never, ever, ever trust news reports of trial court proceedings.
That said, while I certainly don't approve of the judicial action, without learning more, you can read between the lines on this one- a "high conflict" divorce for over 5 years- this is going to your alienation-case. I am surprised that it isn't (one of the) parents going to jail. Maybe a misguided attempt to get them to pay attention? I don't know.
But this, right here, is why I would never practice family law.
« on: July 10, 2015, 12:38:02 PM »
"The Supreme Court declared practicing law is a fundamental right so it is not routine rational basis. "
No, no no no no. You have the right to represent yourself (as we all know from our wonderful pro se encounters). In certain contexts, you have the right to appointed counsel. But there is no more "fundamental right to practice law," than there is a fundamental right to be a bricklayer.
This is a simply misreading of the case by Citylawyer. Here, let's see how it's done-
The lawyer's role in the national economy is not the only reason that the opportunity to practice law should be considered a "fundamental right." We believe that the legal profession has a noncommercial role and duty that reinforce the view that the practice of law falls within the ambit of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
But wait- notice how fundamental right is in quotation marks? Why? Because of nn. 10 & 11. Read them. There, the Court describes the 1825 "fundamental right" / "natural rights" P&I test, and then state that it is no longer used (in terms of natural rights). Cf. Corfield. But they still use the categories. So when they use "fundamental right," there, they mean that it falls under the Corfield test, not that it is a fundamental right.
« on: July 10, 2015, 12:21:38 PM »
Seriously, stop digging your hole. In the first case you cite, you don't actually cite, you know, the case. It was done through the approved method of going through the Bar (every bar ends up at the State Supreme Court) for an exemption. That's it. For one person- not a general rule. This petitioner showed that he, individually, should be admitted.
The other case is a classic taught in most law schools, that you have failed to comprehend. But, sure, let's quickly raise to the challenge since you are unable to fine a single (!) case:
DC v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)- dealing with the exact issue you keep raising. If you're unable to follow it, see also Zisse v. Fla. Bar, 747 F.Supp.2d 1303 (2010). Hint- there's an interplay between Rooker-Feldman (as I noted) and the constitutionality/lack thereof.
Next, what is the general rule? You might find the case discussion in MSL at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n, 107 F. 3d 1026 (3d Cir. 1997) enlightening. Really. What? Too long ago? How about 2012- there's another decision in E.D. Tenn.
Seriously. This isn't hard.
« on: July 10, 2015, 10:25:17 AM »
Different jurisdictions have slightly different rules for contempt. First, as a general proposition, there are differences between direct and indirect contempt (behavior in the courtroom or otherwise directly "in front of" the judge, and behavior that would require an evidentiary hearing). Then there's the difference between criminal and civil contempt.
Also, there's often the concept that the contumacious party has the "keys to the jailhouse" for certain types of contempt- that they can purge the contempt provision by simply performing as the court requires. This is where things can get a little tricky re: time limits and due process. In a famous example, there was a man held for over 14 years in a divorce proceeding because, despite being a millionaire, he claimed that he had no assets.
« on: July 10, 2015, 09:11:51 AM »
Also, re: the Maintain issue, if you actually look at South Dakota's requirements, they will allow a non-ABA accredited (or foreign law school grad) to take the bar exam, provided they are licensed in another state and upon a showing of good cause.
Again, most states have some sort of "catch-all," which usually involves a petition of some kind, or standard rules (almost invariably meaning you "domesticate" your non-ABA degree in the state that allows it by passing the bar there). Some are hard (like Florida, that doesn't like out of state practitioners coming in, and requires you to show that you practiced successfully for a long period of time), some appear easy (like South Dakota, with a "good cause"). None are unconstitutional.
Again, this is different if there is a relevant federal law (such as the ADA), or an actual constitutional provision (such as PandI), but simply alleging that a state's licensing scheme creates a barrier to entry to the profession doesn't cut it.
« on: July 10, 2015, 08:42:02 AM »
Groundhog is right. In addition, there are Rooker-Feldman issues.
Seriously, I can't believe we're having this conversation. This is some basic issue spotting- some issues are different than other issues, and a person can't just say, "But now we have SSM, therefore anything is possible," to overcome them. Fin.
« on: July 09, 2015, 04:44:32 PM »
" but in this day and age if you push a licensing agency to litigation they would probably just ask for a fee and that you pass the test. "
No. You fundamentally misunderstand the PandI (discrimination against out-of-staters) with the issue of reasonable licensing requirements applied across-the-board.
If some state (let's keep picking on Florida) mandates that the educational requirement must be fulfilled by either graduation from an ABA-accredited law school, *or* by 10 years practice + permission, that applies equally to Florida- and non-Florida residents. Nothing impermissible about it.
Where the issue has come up before is the "state privilege" still given in Wisconsin; while there was litigation over this issue, AFAIK, the state privilege remains.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 40