(no subject)

[vicarz]

http://www.doommovie.com/ It looks horrible...perfect.

Miers? Was never a judge. It's sad that the amount of scrutiny for SCOTUS judges has merely resulted in picking un or under-qualified members to avoid having to answer questions about their judicial records.

The hot-button issue over and over again is abortion. Eventually Roe will fall or the law will have to change to add an explicit right to privacy. During this period of terrorist fear I doubt we'll see anything but a further constriction of freedoms, so if you want abortion better turn your views to state-level decisions. I think the battle will be lost in the states, as most people who care strongly are those that are zealously pro-life. It's one of those issues that doesn't affect a high enough % of people to affect policy, especially as people with money can always get abortions if they want. Apathy has many victims.

Speaking of Bush groupthink, are people seeing through this oil refinery scam?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20051004/us_nm/hurricanes_bush_refineries_dc_4
Bush is pushing to give money away, either directly, through public land donation (former military bases), removing EPA pollution restrictions, or giving tax breaks to the oil conglomerate. This is in a year that oil companies are posting record profits...is this what he means by smaller government? Will Haliburton build the refineries? I'm truly thrilled at the prospect of using taxpayer dollars to aid an industry that is reaping its own rewards already.

Comments

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Try as you do to walk me into a good argument, I just don't have one.

SCOTUS is an unusual beast, that is true. Sometimes I wonder what the judges actually do vs. their staff. It might be the world's easiest job!

You make a good argument that lawyering is similar to judging, but something in my gut doesn't accept it. I know you consider both sides of the argument before you present your client's best shot, but that seems different than selecting the better argument. Why? I suppose if you knew which argument was superior you'd just settle the case right away unless you were trying the case to damage the other party through legal expenses?

Most qualified vs. unqualified - if only I had nudged that earlier. Of course, I kind of liked the O'Connor surprise, but don't expect that to happen twice.

Nice bullshit call. I think you're winning / you won.

[anarcha.livejournal.com]

"I suppose if you knew which argument was superior you'd just settle the case right away"

Yes, except that usually it's not so black and white. It's rarely clear that one argument is "superior." There can be more than one "correct" legal interpretation.

For example, there's a case in the first circuit, U.S. v. O'Connell, 890 F.2d 563 (1st Cir. 1989). The text of this decision states "We hold that a corporation should be held liable under the False Claims Act for the fraud of an agent who acts with apparent authority even if the corporation received no benefit from the agent's fraud."

However, O'Connell was based on an appeal from a District Court decision addressing whether a corporation could be held liable under the FCA for the fraud of an agent who acts with apparent authority even if the agent did not intend for the corporation to benefit from his or her fraud.

So, does O'Connell hold only that the corporation can be held liable for the agent's fraud, even if the corporation did not benefit from the fraud (reading only the text of the decision); or does O'Connell hold that the corporation can be held liable for the agent's fraud even if the agent did not intend to benefit the corporation (including the background and practical effect of the case in the interpretation)?

The answer is: attorneys can make a great argument for each side.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I'm sitting in a class in which they say more than 90% of all cases settle, and notes that depending on how you split up discovery makes a negative value suit economically reasonable. The vague rulings, those that teeter on the fence, allegedly are a minority of cases - and of those the ones people pursue despite all the related expenses are even smaller.

Or so this guy says in Litigation and Dispute resolution theory. Not an exciting class, let me tell you...during class.

[anarcha.livejournal.com]

Oh, unquestionably 90% of all cases settle. But that's due more to the huge costs of electronic discovery than to the fact that the case should clearly and undeniably be decided one way or the other.

You can be certain that you'll win if you get an intelligent judge, and still settle simply because it costs less to settle than it does to win.

Also, don't forget that in our discussion, I've been oversimplifying by assuming that a case involves a single issue. In actuality, they hinge on 8-15 issues.