- Quickdraw McLaw
- 33 Comments
- 592 Views
- Settlement money makes overtime lawsuit against David Copperfield disappear. [RJ]
- The 2015 Nevada Legislature is starting to get physical. [Ralston Reports]
- Attorney and Nevada Senate Minority Leader Aaron D. Ford wants the State to help you with your student loans. [RJ]
- The Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt to gay marriages in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court order to the contrary. [Reuters]
Shit is gettin' real at the legislature.
Agreed, but I'm most bothered that the statement is missing an apostrophe in "you're."
Also, what good does meeting anyone in a stairwell do? Kind of like Alec Baldwin remarked in 30 Rock, "never follow a hippie to a second location."
If they have their way there will be alot of defense attorneys losing their jobs.
''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,'' -Dick the Butcher, ''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73. Sadly, we have more than a few Dick the Butcher's in Carson City right now. If Nevadans think they dislike lawyers, they'll hate the oligarchs and autocrats that replace us.
You should understand the context of a quote before trying to use it in a way opposite for which it was meant.
5:22 here,
I understand the context. My insult is to the state legislators, not attorneys and judges. Thanks for making me spell it out.
Fun quote for the day: Mark Twain — 'No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.'
Incidentally, Mark Twain was writing about the Nevada Territorial Legislature in 1859 as I recall. Further, the quote from Shakespeare was about the imposition of tyranny and killing all of the lawyers to accomplish that feat.
The Alabama side show could be especially interesting in light of Obama's position that he can use his executive powers in any way he pleases, including ignoring the laws of the land. As my kids learn in school, the legislative body passes the laws, the executive body enforces them and the judicial body interpret them. So, now that Alabama is refusing to follow the law as interpreted by SCOTUS, should Obama use his lawful powers to drop some Alabama ass? And how will that play to the national electorate that still consistently polls in favor of tight immigration laws and the old-fashioned man-woman type marital arrangements?
Amazing aint it? It's almost as if people see the President ignoring critical aspects of the constitution and think "why am I gonna obey if he won't." It feels real good for the first wave of folks, and maybe the second, but from the third wave onward, it's chaos. Short sighted idiots.
Oh, PLEASE can we turn yet another seemingly unrelated discussion back to how much some people don't like Obama? It's not as though this is a story with legally and intellectually interesting aspects of its own.
Defensive much? Whether you like or dislike the President, you have to admit what he is doing with executive power is wrong. Making express declarations that whole areas of law will not be enforced is unprecedented. When the executive refuses to execute the laws of the people, you have to know there will be consequences. One of those consequences are other branches using the same technique when their personal beliefs clash with their legal obligations.
How is it wrong? Seriously. All levels of government, on a daily basis, use discretionary immunity to determine where and how to allocate limited resources to enforce or not enforce the myriad of laws. Your local city uses that discretion to decide whether or not, or how much, to spend enforcing nuisance ordinance, traffic laws, etc., etc. Congress, State Legislatures, County Commissions and City Councils have this habit of passing more and more additional laws, without appropriating a penny towards the cost of enforcing those laws. Can't raise taxes… that's insane. But, we're going to pass a law that regulates the number of chickens an urban resident can have in their backyard. Now – no more money for chicken police, but damnit, we need a law. In this case, that's basically what the President did – and is his job to do. Congress has a myriad of laws. Congress, especially this Congress, is damn sure not going to give the President enough resources to enforce all of those laws. So, the President has to use his discretion allocate his scarce resources as he sees fit to enforce what laws he can. Now, did the President try to score some political points along the way – yeah, that's not debatable. But, the principle he used in making his decision is well established and used by every executive branch member or body every day.
Right, 6:32 – because it's more important to use those scarce resources to feed illegal immigrants, clothe illegal immigrants, house illegal immigrants, and provide healthcare for illegal immigrants than it is to use those same resources to enforce immigration laws. We are f*cked.
How DARE you use logic against the President's policy principles? Racist.
Not this crap again. Where was the crazed right wing-nut outrage when Reagan and Bush 41 signed executive orders on immigration?
Just to be clear, because Bush and Reagan did it and no one allegedly complained then it is right? That's brilliant.
@2:26,
I'm guessing you don't frequent lewrockwell.com. The opposition has always been there. It's just that in the last few years, it's become more organized, focused, and better able to get people elected. Thus, the voice has become louder and stronger. It's not because your guy has a deeper tan.
No sir (or ma'm), your argument that "Well, that does not make it right" is so thin as to be ridiculous.
It is not that it makes it right, it is that the wing-nuts had no issue when it was Reagan and Bush. Now suddenly it becomes a major issue for the whack jobs because it is Obama issuing the executive order. Just like the ACA, the Heritage Foundation and whole bunch of republican politicians backed an individual mandate from the federal government at least as far back as the early 90s. However, when it is espoused by Obama suddenly it is unconstitutional. So either conservatives were supporting a position they knew was unconstitutional for at least two decades, or they finally got around to actually reading the constitution they all claim to carry around in their pocket and coming up with their own interpretation that it would be unconstitutional to do so.
Yes, lewrockwell.com. The home for anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, creationism, and general lunacy. Who needs science and facts when they can peddle snake oil to the gullible wing-nuts?
Character assassination. Another brilliant reply from our friend who is smarter than the rest of us. Carry on. See you at whole foods where you spend your whole pay check working for a non profit that researches sex habits in dung beetles. Glad you feel good about making a difference.
I just want to say thank you for a fun thread. Thank you.
I will be at Whole Foods while you are on lewrockwell trying to figure out where all the FEMA camps are located. If you want I can pick up some tinfoil for your hat while I am there.
And I will be at Whole Foods reading lewrockwell.com on my iPad while sipping a smoothie as the wife spends my meager paycheck on real food.
Getting back to the question of executive power, this post is a good read, and it focuses on Bush, so even left wingers can get on board.
Does anyone have any idea when the Nevada Bar will update their website to include those who passed the July 2014 Bar exam?
Uh, you mean these results?
Sheena L. Christmas-Foster passed. I don't know her, but I wonder why she would ruin a perfectly good name like Christmas by hyphenating. I think Lloyd Christmas would be sad … "Suck me sideways!"
But really Mrs. Christmas, and the rest of you shmucks, congrats on passing the bar.
I think he/she means – when with the http://www.nvbar.org website list attorneys who passed the bar and obtained licensure subsequent to July 2014 so that their information is available under the 'Find a Lawyer' link.
The attorneys on the list aren't showing up under Find a Lawyer. How can the public determine if they are actually licensed attorneys?
Newly Minted Attorney, no I was not referring to the results of the bar exam. I was referring to including all of those attorneys in the NV Bar directory at http://www.nvbar.org/find-a-lawyer.
with=will
6:03… Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Thank You.
I just assumed they all failed C&F and we didn't have to worry about a new crop of attorneys.