You see people throwing the disparaging term RINO all the time. I haven't heard the term DINO used but suppose it must exist and would be the same affliction.
What is so terrible about a representative that actually uses the grey matter that the good lord placed between their ears and thinks independently trying to do what is best and right for their constituents rather than for their party leaders.
Perhaps if our leaders were more independent thinkers trying to solve problems instead of walking in lockstep with their political party we might actually find solutions to our problems. Granted, the solutions would likely be compromises and thus imperfect in the eyes of most and heresy in the eyes of the ideological pure.
Nope, hardcore conservatives have it all figured out and have no use for debate or nuance. Anybody who deviates from the ordained platform will be marked, ostracized, and ridiculed as the scab they are.
The demand for dogmatic orthodoxy from conservative media and the far right is driving people out of the Republican Party, and will result in decades long irrelevance for conservatives.
I was a "RINO". Then I realized the wackos and the nutjobs were right- I really don't belong in Trump's Republican Party. So I left.
I could not be any more conservative. I at least respect Democrats for being true to their ideology as repulsive and immoral as I find it. Rinos are hypocrites and the worst sort of betrayers of the people they claim to represent. Also, people complain about ideological tourism but forget that practicality will never be pure and it is in ideology we seek purity. Although I'm sure many on blog will disagree, I feel conservatism does stand up to criticism of not being a coherent body of thought.
1:54, do you really expect everyone in your party to agree 100% on every single issue? The difficulty I have with your statement is that you seek purity in an ideology, but you assume there can only be set ideologies that are advanced by the major parties, or maybe a couple other strains. Any other thought process is irrelevant and impure.
Why can't people have their own "pure" ideology that mostly coincides with a party platform but deviates on certain issues based on your own thoughts and experiences. By your evaluation, that person is a hypocrite and is only trying to be "practical" when they might truly believe what they're espousing (see G.H.W.B. and Reagan's comments on immigration). That has nothing to do with being a betrayer or a hypocrite. It has everything to with, to quote an earlier post, using the gray matter between your ears rather than dogmatically following a pre-set platform established by a bunch of people you've never met.
1:54 here, thank you for your insights, I do respect differences of opinion and truly thank you for your comments, whether true or not I don't feel like most in politics want to have a conversation, I can be wrong, I can change, I will listen, i think I'm mostly right haha but u will get civility and at least an attempt at thought, I feel like Rinos just want whats best for themselves, sorry just venting while in line at the bank
I am tired of men who put their hands of women, fuck you. I am also tired of male attorneys who treat female attorneys like shit as well. Fuck you, too. It is harassment.
I have some shit going down on one case I am handling, female attorney here, I am documenting everything being done by opposing counsel, and will be following up concerning their actions. I also pack heat for my protection. I am smart and stealth. This is a sad state of affairs for female attorneys.
Bush 41, Carter and Obama are probably the only Presidents of my lifetime who were intellectually curious and who made a valiant, conscientious effort to live a virtuous, moral life (Reagan was moral, but not really intellectually curious). I hope that the services this week help our nation understand how much we've allowed our standards for leadership to erode. I don't see this changing in 2020. Sad times for our country.
Carter is the smartest recorded president with a 170 plus IQ. Obama and Bush not dumb men, but not even close in Carter's league. Carter and Bush served their countries, Obama did not.
I agree with the sentiment about how far our expectations and what we as the citizenry have eroded. We are losing the great beacons of what should be expected of citizens and public servants (e.g. President Bush (41), Sen. McCain, The servicemembers who have paid the ultimate price of freedom, etc.).
President Carter, while possibly not the most effective leader of our time, is certainly an honorable man and among the most intelligent presidents in our history. I agree he has a strong moral compass and has tried to lead a moral life. He was so troubled about having read (or being caught reading) a men's magazine that he felt compelled to confess having felt lust in his heart. Think how far we have moved on that continuum… from confessing feeling lust in his heart to paying hush money with NDA's to strippers in order to keep affairs secret…
Nice try 1:50 but I hope your legal research is better than your bias research. Carter was smart, probably in the mid 140's but never took an actual test. His score is estimated as part of a 2006 study. He was an idiot as a leader, much like a law review student who is too wrapped up in minutia to pass the bar exam. What Carter was, and which is not a common trait among most politicians of all parties, was a moral man and a devout Christian who did more than pay lip service to his faith to garner "those" votes. Still wrecked the economy by being a locked in social justice tax the rich liberal. Lived through it Nd hope we never see it again, though Obama did a pretty good job of going back there.
2:15 is a hack who can't discern effective leadership because s/he is so consumed by tribalism. You can criticize Obama fairly, but to say that what Obama did with the economy is similar to Carter is just embarrassing. You don't really believe that do you, 2:15? I mean, really?
I understand conservatives hating on Obama for a handful of things. Taxes being too high isn't one of them.
Guest
Anonymous
December 3, 2018 7:50 pm
Practice Tip: If you want to talk substantively about a file, don't call the partner at the top of the caption expecting answers. Call the person below the partner and talk about your case. Follow up the call with a detailed email to the attorney you spoke with about the case. That lawyer can then forward your email to the partner with a summary of what the partner should do next. You will save time and keep your file moving if you follow this approach.
Guest
Anonymous
December 3, 2018 8:20 pm
Along those line… If you need factual information about the matter, call the lowest listed name… they actually drafted the pleading and likely know the most factual information about the file.
Guest
Anonymous
December 3, 2018 10:33 pm
Hoping for an assist from the peanut gallery. I am preparing a negligence (car accident) complaint against a federal government employee. Is it proper to name the United States of America as a defendant, or the actual agency?
I felt like that at my last hearing in front of Jdge Cadish.
Guest
Anonymous
December 4, 2018 12:09 am
I really wish that the Discovery Commissioner's staff would explain exactly why a report and recommendations was rejected, rather than including a vague form in the hope that someone can figure out what arbitrary point bothered them. I never have orders rejected by judges, but I rarely have reports and recommendations get signed the first time. The "issues" are never substantive.
Be glad you didn’t live in the world of Biggar and his chamber of horrors at the old courthouse, where you had to literally walk through a room of cubicles to get there.
But that starts at the top. Biggar and Bulla were both sanctimonious and pompous and both encouraged their staff to do the same. Compare the ADR office under Beecroft who was content to be polite in the course of doing his job.
Guest
Anonymous
December 4, 2018 12:29 am
Seeing as the right/left chasm is alive and well, consider this one. Olivia Diaz, incumbent district 11, was recently reelected by crushing the token Republican and has just announced she will resign. RJ reports she may run for city counsel. Here is the red meat: should there be an investigation into colloooooooshun? Even though there is no evidence it seems odd to take money to run (unless she self funded) only to quit to run for a different job 30 days later. Now the County Commisssion will appoint her successor. What if she talked with party leaders back during the campaign and said I can win, candidate y cannot. I will win and then step down and you appoint them. Illegal? Likely not but maybe. All the folks above who are rabidly on one fence or the other may/will disagree based upon part affiliation. My two cents is 1) not illegal and 2) the Democrats could run anyone in that district and win. Go.
Ask Judge Bonaventure who ran for reelection and then retired 2 or 3 months after reelection.
Guest
Anonymous
December 4, 2018 12:39 am
I'm waiting for Boyd Law to bring in Pence or Cheney as a speaker. When that happens, or they bring in someone other than a Democrat/liberal, I may finally go to a dinner/event that has a speaker. As awesome as my law school experience was (Class of 2008), I just couldn't bring myself to sit in the same room listening to Uncle Biden.
I will support Boyd when they purge all the fake Americans like Harry Reid and Brian Sandoval and fill out the entire faculty with MAGA professors who know and love the Constitution!
Nothing but respect for 41, even though a strain of Rinoism ran through whole Bush family still lot of respect for achievements, MAGA
So, in other words, a small bit of disrespect.
Ya know, I never quite get it…
You see people throwing the disparaging term RINO all the time. I haven't heard the term DINO used but suppose it must exist and would be the same affliction.
What is so terrible about a representative that actually uses the grey matter that the good lord placed between their ears and thinks independently trying to do what is best and right for their constituents rather than for their party leaders.
Perhaps if our leaders were more independent thinkers trying to solve problems instead of walking in lockstep with their political party we might actually find solutions to our problems. Granted, the solutions would likely be compromises and thus imperfect in the eyes of most and heresy in the eyes of the ideological pure.
Nope, hardcore conservatives have it all figured out and have no use for debate or nuance. Anybody who deviates from the ordained platform will be marked, ostracized, and ridiculed as the scab they are.
The demand for dogmatic orthodoxy from conservative media and the far right is driving people out of the Republican Party, and will result in decades long irrelevance for conservatives.
I was a "RINO". Then I realized the wackos and the nutjobs were right- I really don't belong in Trump's Republican Party. So I left.
I could not be any more conservative. I at least respect Democrats for being true to their ideology as repulsive and immoral as I find it. Rinos are hypocrites and the worst sort of betrayers of the people they claim to represent. Also, people complain about ideological tourism but forget that practicality will never be pure and it is in ideology we seek purity. Although I'm sure many on blog will disagree, I feel conservatism does stand up to criticism of not being a coherent body of thought.
1:54, do you really expect everyone in your party to agree 100% on every single issue? The difficulty I have with your statement is that you seek purity in an ideology, but you assume there can only be set ideologies that are advanced by the major parties, or maybe a couple other strains. Any other thought process is irrelevant and impure.
Why can't people have their own "pure" ideology that mostly coincides with a party platform but deviates on certain issues based on your own thoughts and experiences. By your evaluation, that person is a hypocrite and is only trying to be "practical" when they might truly believe what they're espousing (see G.H.W.B. and Reagan's comments on immigration). That has nothing to do with being a betrayer or a hypocrite. It has everything to with, to quote an earlier post, using the gray matter between your ears rather than dogmatically following a pre-set platform established by a bunch of people you've never met.
1:54 here, thank you for your insights, I do respect differences of opinion and truly thank you for your comments, whether true or not I don't feel like most in politics want to have a conversation, I can be wrong, I can change, I will listen, i think I'm mostly right haha but u will get civility and at least an attempt at thought, I feel like Rinos just want whats best for themselves, sorry just venting while in line at the bank
1:54: "I find Democrat ideology to be repulsive and immoral."
Also 1:54: "I respect differences of opinion" and "u will get civility from me."
Might want to check your tone if you truly want to engage in thoughtful conversation with people.
Sorry the man died. I appreciate his service. However, he liked to grab women, and Clarence Thomas.
I am tired of men who put their hands of women, fuck you. I am also tired of male attorneys who treat female attorneys like shit as well. Fuck you, too. It is harassment.
If someone harasses you or puts their hands on you, report it to the police. The Bar and the other ethics agencies will not do shit.
I have some shit going down on one case I am handling, female attorney here, I am documenting everything being done by opposing counsel, and will be following up concerning their actions. I also pack heat for my protection. I am smart and stealth. This is a sad state of affairs for female attorneys.
I'm tired of women who make shit up 32 years later. Fuck them too
Im tired of people who are tired.
Spoken like two men found at a MAGA rally.
!:56, my thoughts are with you. Be safe, and have a second person with you when you deal with opposing counsel.
1:58, hi sexy. Give me a call. We can decorate the cranberry white house x-mas trees together.
1:58, call me on my Fisher Price phone.
Ponzi= State Bar of Nevada. Orientation is over, Bogs. Do your job.
318, that was funny.
Bush 41, Carter and Obama are probably the only Presidents of my lifetime who were intellectually curious and who made a valiant, conscientious effort to live a virtuous, moral life (Reagan was moral, but not really intellectually curious). I hope that the services this week help our nation understand how much we've allowed our standards for leadership to erode. I don't see this changing in 2020. Sad times for our country.
Carter is the smartest recorded president with a 170 plus IQ. Obama and Bush not dumb men, but not even close in Carter's league. Carter and Bush served their countries, Obama did not.
I agree with the sentiment about how far our expectations and what we as the citizenry have eroded. We are losing the great beacons of what should be expected of citizens and public servants (e.g. President Bush (41), Sen. McCain, The servicemembers who have paid the ultimate price of freedom, etc.).
President Carter, while possibly not the most effective leader of our time, is certainly an honorable man and among the most intelligent presidents in our history. I agree he has a strong moral compass and has tried to lead a moral life. He was so troubled about having read (or being caught reading) a men's magazine that he felt compelled to confess having felt lust in his heart. Think how far we have moved on that continuum… from confessing feeling lust in his heart to paying hush money with NDA's to strippers in order to keep affairs secret…
Nice try 1:50 but I hope your legal research is better than your bias research. Carter was smart, probably in the mid 140's but never took an actual test. His score is estimated as part of a 2006 study. He was an idiot as a leader, much like a law review student who is too wrapped up in minutia to pass the bar exam. What Carter was, and which is not a common trait among most politicians of all parties, was a moral man and a devout Christian who did more than pay lip service to his faith to garner "those" votes. Still wrecked the economy by being a locked in social justice tax the rich liberal. Lived through it Nd hope we never see it again, though Obama did a pretty good job of going back there.
2:15 is a hack who can't discern effective leadership because s/he is so consumed by tribalism. You can criticize Obama fairly, but to say that what Obama did with the economy is similar to Carter is just embarrassing. You don't really believe that do you, 2:15? I mean, really?
I understand conservatives hating on Obama for a handful of things. Taxes being too high isn't one of them.
Practice Tip: If you want to talk substantively about a file, don't call the partner at the top of the caption expecting answers. Call the person below the partner and talk about your case. Follow up the call with a detailed email to the attorney you spoke with about the case. That lawyer can then forward your email to the partner with a summary of what the partner should do next. You will save time and keep your file moving if you follow this approach.
Along those line… If you need factual information about the matter, call the lowest listed name… they actually drafted the pleading and likely know the most factual information about the file.
Hoping for an assist from the peanut gallery. I am preparing a negligence (car accident) complaint against a federal government employee. Is it proper to name the United States of America as a defendant, or the actual agency?
Oh, fuck, your poor client.
Name the United States of America, and be sure to serve their local counsel, Bivens, LLP.
Better look at the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The appropriate person to put next to the caption is your co-counsel who has been involved in a FTCA case before.
Read the FTCA, and make sure your fee agreement matches the maximum allowed by it.
I am playing PONG by myself, and there are multiple lawyers in the room.
I felt like that at my last hearing in front of Jdge Cadish.
I really wish that the Discovery Commissioner's staff would explain exactly why a report and recommendations was rejected, rather than including a vague form in the hope that someone can figure out what arbitrary point bothered them. I never have orders rejected by judges, but I rarely have reports and recommendations get signed the first time. The "issues" are never substantive.
Oh, Bonnie. I will take her over Gozalez on any day of the week.
Be glad you didn’t live in the world of Biggar and his chamber of horrors at the old courthouse, where you had to literally walk through a room of cubicles to get there.
And the passive aggressive attitude of the staff in the Discovery Commissioner's office too – that's an added bonus!
But that starts at the top. Biggar and Bulla were both sanctimonious and pompous and both encouraged their staff to do the same. Compare the ADR office under Beecroft who was content to be polite in the course of doing his job.
Seeing as the right/left chasm is alive and well, consider this one. Olivia Diaz, incumbent district 11, was recently reelected by crushing the token Republican and has just announced she will resign. RJ reports she may run for city counsel. Here is the red meat: should there be an investigation into colloooooooshun? Even though there is no evidence it seems odd to take money to run (unless she self funded) only to quit to run for a different job 30 days later. Now the County Commisssion will appoint her successor. What if she talked with party leaders back during the campaign and said I can win, candidate y cannot. I will win and then step down and you appoint them. Illegal? Likely not but maybe. All the folks above who are rabidly on one fence or the other may/will disagree based upon part affiliation. My two cents is 1) not illegal and 2) the Democrats could run anyone in that district and win. Go.
Ask Judge Bonaventure who ran for reelection and then retired 2 or 3 months after reelection.
I'm waiting for Boyd Law to bring in Pence or Cheney as a speaker. When that happens, or they bring in someone other than a Democrat/liberal, I may finally go to a dinner/event that has a speaker. As awesome as my law school experience was (Class of 2008), I just couldn't bring myself to sit in the same room listening to Uncle Biden.
I financially stopped supporting Boyd when Old Whisker Uncle Harry Reid and his troupe set up office there.
Ahem, GovernorSandovalnamedasdistinguishedfellowtoo. But see, supra, RINO discussion.
I will support Boyd when they purge all the fake Americans like Harry Reid and Brian Sandoval and fill out the entire faculty with MAGA professors who know and love the Constitution!
I will support Boyd when Wreck It Ralph with a bad suit is no longer working there is a prof.
I agree with 4:39 and 4:48
Who is Wreck it Ralph at Boyd?
This is potentially great news. Don't make me pay for leftwing nonsense to keep my right to make a living.
A GVR is hardly a victory; it's permission to litigate another day. The Goldwater Institute is reaching in that press release.