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 - Maintain FL 350
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 87
« on: July 12, 2015, 03:53:56 PM »
Obviously, any prognostications this far out are bound to be fraught with unknown variables. The economy, foreign policy crises, scandals, you name it.
It's sort of irrelevant what your personal definition of "independent" is, however. What matters is how they are accounted for in polling data. I agree with you that most independents skew either left or right, and the better polling data accounts for this by distinguishing between Democratic and Republican leaning independents. I also agree (and stated in my previous post) that Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican.
Here's the difference I see between 2016 and 2008/2012. In most battleground states Obama did pretty well among independents. He even did well in Colorado, where independents skew right.
The most recent polling data from ABC and CNN suggests that Hillary Clinton does not enjoy the same popularity among those designated as "independents". In states like Colorado and Ohio where the margin of victory could be as low as 2-3%, this is potentially impactful.
So, if 90% of Republican leaning independents vote for a Republican (as opposed to the 86% in 2012), and there is lower than 2012 minority turnout, you could see a much tighter race. That's all I'm saying.
« on: July 12, 2015, 12:57:12 PM »
Distill this upcoming election own to it's essential facts, and here's what you're left with:
Regardless of primary season infighting, both Dems and Reps will coalesce around their candidate. A few diehards may not show up and vote because their unhappy with the candidate, but historically these numbers are low.
Democratic turnout will be a little lower, as Obama is not running.
The election will be decided in a handful of states: Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.
In each of these states Dem/Rep registration is very close. Independents will decide the election.
In each of these states, Clinton polls badly among independents.
Like I said before Clinton still has a good shot, but this could be much closer than 2008 or 2012 as long as the Reps don't nominate a nut.
« on: July 10, 2015, 03:45:56 PM »
BTW, as a father I would have gotten on my knees and begged the judge to NOT send my kids to juvenile detention. In fact, I would voluntarily relinquish my claim if it could only be supported by sending my kids to a system well known to be rife with abuse and corruption.
« on: July 10, 2015, 03:06:05 PM »
I have some experience with family court, and can tell you that there is rarely a good and a bad guy. The reason that these situation end up in need of adjudication in the first place is because the parties are incapable of coming to reasonable terms.
It could be that the mother is manipulating the children by poisoning their minds against the father, and it could also be true that the father doesn't care about the kids beyond their utility as a way to pester the mother. Who knows.
However, I have never, EVER even heard of a judge sending a nine year old to detention because they refuse to comply with court ordered visitation. Even if the kids are being unreasonable and are being manipulated, this is a crap way of handling it.
« on: July 10, 2015, 12:21:52 PM »
The Supreme Court declared practicing law is a fundamental right so it is not routine rational basis.
What level of scrutiny is used, then? Admittedly, I haven't read the cases you linked, but have courts actually articulated a modified form of rational basis review? That would be interesting.
« on: July 10, 2015, 11:27:40 AM »
I'm not arguing that this is an easily overcome issue, or that the hypothetical plaintiff has a great case, etc. Rational basis review is as low as you can go, and it's pretty easy to establish.
I'm pointing out an angle that simply challenges whether the state's actions are in fact rationally related to a legitimate interest. Personally, I don't think they are but I concede that the state would win anyway.
« on: July 09, 2015, 08:18:56 PM »
I have to generally agree with Groundhog and Loki insofar as the courts almost always uphold bar admission requirements as long as they are reasonable.
How far does this right go and want state interest is served from preventing a San Joaquin College Law Grad from taking the South Dakota Bar, which is a state so desperate for lawyers that it is paying for lawyers to move there.
strikes me as a potentially successful angle of attack.
Think about the scenario. A lawyer shows up and says "I passed the toughest bar exam in the country on my first try, passed the C&F, passed the South Dakota bar on my first try (assuming you could sit for the exam first), and can demonstrate that my alma mater follows the standard ABA law school curriculum. We use the same books, take the same tests, and have similarly qualified professors."
argument can South Dakota make for keeping that guy out? Library too small? Not enough financial aid staff? ABA accreditation is based on many non-academic factors, but if the grad could demonstrate that the academics were substantially the same...I dunno, maybe.
With an online or correspondence course South Dakota may be able to demonstrate that the education is somehow deficient. But San Joaquin has a higher pass rate than some CA ABA schools. Seems like the San Joaquin student would at least have shot at winning.
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:27:18 PM »
Yes, I agree that ABA is certainly the surest (and sometimes only) path.
My question was playing off of Pie's comment, and pondering whether or not it would make sense to exclude non-ABA grads from federal practice. I don't think it would.
There are some courts which will require state bar membership, and a non-ABA is going to face an uphill battle. But for courts that don't require state bar admission, as long as a non-ABA grad has passed the CA bar (or one of the other few states that allow non-ABA degrees) and met the C&F requirements, I don't see the problem.
« on: July 08, 2015, 08:13:14 PM »
These are first time takers only, no repeaters. But yeah, schools like Berkeley had only a few takers. Others had 50+, though, so that's probably at least somewhat reflective of their overall performance.
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 87