Politics As Usual

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So he put panties on some people's heads. Big friggin deal.

This is what Kurtz did and the insurgency dried up in his sector. But your sort decided he had to go....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Let's not assume this means that therre's no activism going on in that heartland, OK?

No, no, no Gattigap.

When judges say that you have to protect land under particular statutes, that's judicial activism.

When judges open up land to industry and snowmobiles, that's observing Original Intent.

Did you sleep thru Con Law?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
pet peeve.

the guy who taught me would say get the crap produced and be done with it. a lawsuit has momentum. get your worst facts out early then turn it around. plus give it all up, then in response to 2nd round of requests you can say "you have all that."

So I tell clients let's get it over with, we're supposed to, plus it makes sense in the long run.

6 months later the client is saying why am I paying you to fight them to give up documents and why did I give them up?

then the cutest part is the magistrate deciding he hates both sides because you need to go in so often.

So what's your peeve? Fighting discovery or not fighting it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So what's your peeve? Fighting discovery or not fighting it?

the fight is supposed to at the boundaries, and in good faith. Litigation is fun, challenging, etc. when its about the issues. fucking pisses me off when I'm forced to move to get stuff that no one in their right mind would deny I'm entitled to.

motions to compel aren't particularly interesting, you know, then add in the pissed client and Judge. Someone told me its far worse behavior in patents than you see in other commercial lit, so maybe I just have a bigger plate of the shit part than most.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, no, no Gattigap.

When judges say that you have to protect land under particular statutes, that's judicial activism.

When judges open up land to industry and snowmobiles, that's observing Original Intent.

Did you sleep thru Con Law?

I like the way you guys argue:

Gatti: I hate GOP tactics
Club: It's both sides
Gatti: No its not.
Club: Yes it is, see judicial activism on left
Gatti: I win. The right engages in activism too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is what Kurtz did and the insurgency dried up in his sector. But your sort decided he had to go....

I'm sure you can find some neo-cons to tell you Allawi is a poet-warrior in the classic sense.

"Could we, uh, talk to Colonel Kurtz?"
"Hey, man, you don't talk to the Colonel. You listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll, uh, well, you'll say hello to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you, and he won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say do you know that if is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you -- I mean I'm no, I can't -- I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's, he's a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas -- I mean --"
"Stay with the boat."
"Hey, uh, don't go -- don't go without me, OK? I want to get a picture."

(spree: sound)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is what Kurtz did and the insurgency dried up in his sector. But your sort decided he had to go....

C'mon. You and I both know his methods were unsound.

eta dammit, Ty beats me, and with sound too.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I like the way you guys argue:

Gatti: I hate GOP tactics
Club: It's both sides
Gatti: No its not.
Club: Yes it is, see judicial activism on left
Gatti: I win. The right engages in activism too.

Is this really what you derived from our conversation?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Is this really what you derived from our conversation?

What I got out of it is that a strict construction of the framers' original intent can only be performed whilst riding a snowmobile in Yellowstone Park.



(l. to r.) Justices O'Connor, Souter, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia on the trial of some serious jurisprudence.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Is this really what you derived from our conversation?

now you understand. sidd and I are the only ones who really reach each other here.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Is this really what you derived from our conversation?

What I miss?

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, yes, Souter was a big fuckup. We know, we know, we know.

Yeah, if you're going to appoint the first gay to the Supreme court, you should at least get credit for doing it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What I miss?

Jesus Christ. I had hoped you were just joking.

********************************************

Gatti: Stripping Fed Jur. is a boneheaded GOP tactic. Having lost their attempts to pass a law or amend the constitution, they’re taking the ball and going home. They’re doing it just because they can, which is a stupid reason.

Club: Yeah, it’s a bonehaded move, but it’s really caused by years of liberals’ judicial activism.

Gatti: No, (1) that makes no sense – why didn’t you see stripping FJ during the Warren Court, and in any event (2) activism is just an epithet for results that politicians don’t like. See article describing how over last 30 years, trend has flipped back and forth, with people complaining about activist courts when they didn’t like the results.

Club: Well, as to (1) conservatives weren’t in the majority then. We are now.

Gatti: That’s the same as “because you can.” Dumb reason.

Club: It’s “political support.” Besides, if the courts have “thwarted the will of the people”, what choice do they have? 5 people in MA are deciding this for the country, and it’s unseemly.

Gatti: They have two choices. Pass a law that passes constitutional muster, or amend the constitution if you disagree with the court. Taking away Fed Jur. is neither of those things, it’s stupid and it’s shortsighted, and the GOP is pissed because they CAN’T GET the “political support” to use traditional paths successfully. And 5 people in MA haven’t decided this for the country. If someone declares DOMA unconstitutional, it’ll get to SCOTUS, and quickly.

Club: Yes, it’s shortsighted. Anyway, real problem is that the judges can’t reasonably interpret the words on the page.

Gatti: a “failure to reasonably interpret the words on the page" is more a political talking point, and a creature of political outlook, than anything else.

Club: Both parties do end runs. See advise and consent. Wasn’t the treatment of abortion another end run, done by the leftists?

Gatti: Yes, both parties do advise and consent. No, abortion was not an end run – proponents WENT TO COURT, and the court decided. Here, GOP wants to prevent people from going to court. THAT’s an end run. And stop talking about liberal activism – it’s really become an epithet for results that politicos on either side don’t like.

Club: Well, I just don’t think judges on either side of the aisle play fair. Both choose their conclusions and backfill to reach it.*

* To which I didn’t respond, but thought that as good a place to let it drop as any. Though you never chose to respond to my point that judicial activism is now a political epithet devoid of any real substance, at least (I thought) we had agreed that at least this decades-old, bipartisan whipping boy was a poor excuse for – TODAY – choosing to try and strip Fed Jur. from the courts. I was wrong.

********************************************

Later, separate conversation Sidd/Club

Club: The leftist pinko activist federal judges are on the coast, not in the heartland.

Gatti: Let's not assume this means that there’s no “activism”* going on in that heartland, OK? Add article about heartland Fed Judges removing fed regs to snowmobile through Yellowstone, etc.

*Forgot to add quotes here, because the point was not to acknowledge that activism allegations have substance, but instead that – again – they’re bipartisan in nature.

Club: Oooo! Oooo! You said “Activism!” You guys argue funny!

********************************************

I’m embarrassed to consider how much time I’ve invested over the last day or so in this conversation. I was under the impression that at least it was going somewhere. Fuck this. See ya, guys.

Gattigap

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the fight is supposed to at the boundaries, and in good faith. Litigation is fun, challenging, etc. when its about the issues. fucking pisses me off when I'm forced to move to get stuff that no one in their right mind would deny I'm entitled to.

motions to compel aren't particularly interesting, you know, then add in the pissed client and Judge. Someone told me its far worse behavior in patents than you see in other commercial lit, so maybe I just have a bigger plate of the shit part than most.

I agree with you. I just didn't understand your post.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Son, when you get this message in some pre-dawn hour later this evening, I'd appreciate it if you'd read the other observations people have made on the topic.

It's cute how liberals complain about disregard of the law -- only when their faves are disregarded. Just you wait till some liberal judge pisses off the republicans so bad that they disregard the filibuster rule, and start confirming judges in the face of filibusters.

Liberal judges are big boys. If they want to stick their dicks into light sockets, they assume certain risks.