- Quickdraw McLaw
- 21 Comments
- 148 Views
There’s no question that law and politics intertwine so frequently that it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. Despite the non-partisan nature of the bench, we consistently see political affiliation brought up when referencing judges–either their own affiliation or the party that nominated them. We even refer to the Supreme Court justices as being in certain ideological camps, if not a political party. How do you navigate the legal landscape without letting your politics interfere too much? Some of you mention contributing to judicial candidates on both sides just in case, but does that really do anything for you? Are any of you strategizing with you contributions and political activity as you angle for a spot on the bench in the future? Is political party affiliation via voter registration a strong indicator of what kind of judge someone will be? What else concerns you on this topic?
I read the Ukraine transcript. I read CNN's headline (the opposite of any reality I can see). I see nothing but hatred of President Trump at CNN. FoxNews seemed more down the middle. Politico, etc. seemed slight left. I miss Cronkite!
All cable "news" is pure shit and you are a fool for watching any of it or going to their websites.
Also, facts and law don't matter anymore.
Fox News = down the middle. Thanks, I needed a little levity in my morning.
Mother Russia, you can habe your President back. Now it's Ukraine's turn.
9:20, so a Prez suddenly (and without telling anyone, including Congress) withholding $400 million in military aid, then a week later calling the leader of that country and first stressing all the aid the US gives that country, saying that country doesn't, ahem, repay its debts, then asking that leader to investigate his political opponent is nothing? Sure if you read the transcript in isolation from the rest of reality there isn't anything concrete there. But, as is usually the case, context is everything. 45 is a master at sending messages without actually saying the thing – it creates plausible deniability. But you cannot ignore the timing of this and the implication that he was dangling that $400 million in exchange for help with his upcoming US election.
I'll be really interested to see what comes out about 45's decision to withhold that military aid. He may be able to come up with some plausible reason for it that doesn't equate to a shake down, but from what is out now it's suspect. I don't know what your reputation is in this town, but after the shit you tried to pull today, you can bet I'll be looking into you. Now the business we have heretofore you can speak with my aforementioned attorney. Good day gentlemen, and until that day comes, keep your ear to the grindstone.
@9:20
" I don't know what your reputation is in this town, but after the shit you tried to pull today, you can bet I'll be looking into you."
WOW?? 9:20's comment (quoted above) is just plain weird. Three martini breakfast, anger issues or other? I don't know the players but the comment seems over the top and out of context with the rest of his/her remarks.
@1:02
IKR! Those four sentences are the most interesting thing that has been posted on this blog in a long time. I will spend all day wondering who what where when why and how!
1:02,
11:58 is a genius. The kind of genius that is often found hunting down your will to live and executing it with on-fire references.
1:38, 11:58 is no genius. He couldn't even sniff getting into MIT, let alone working in their general counsel office. You're trying to make an apples to apples comparison when really the shrapnel in his ass is giving him chronic hemorrhoids Your move, Chief.
"…but from what is out now it's suspect. I don't know what your reputation is in this town, but after the shit you tried to pull today, you can bet I'll be looking into you. Now the business we have heretofore you can speak with my aforementioned attorney. Good day gentlemen, and until that day comes, keep your ear to the grindstone."
My God — Doesn't anyone remember the 90's anymore?? That quote is from Good Will Hunting — when Ben Affleck (a kid from Southy) goes to a high level meeting for a job in place of Matt Damon and acts like an idiot. Still makes me laugh!
@9:20 you read the memo summary that was released by the White House, not the actual transcript, right?
And where's the whistleblower report? If the President is sooooo innocent, release it and prove it!
The transcript and complaint do not matter because we live in a post-truth society. Before reading either document, minds were already set in concrete based upon tribal affiliation. The contents of those documents are meaningless, regardless of whether they condemn or exonerate. We should be honest about this and just forego the charade of pretending that we will, as a society, consider the merits on this.
https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/aaron-calvin/
#cancelculture puts head further up ass
I am sorry that ed Bernstein has cancer, but why is that news?
As far as the topic of judicial campaigns, as they say there is really no such thing as a non-partisan race. Judicial candidates often rely heavily on the support of the political party they are affiliated with.
But I believe that most good judges at the RJC don't let partisan philosophies unduly interfere with rulings.
And yes, if a judicial campaign seems reasonably close, often attorneys will hedge their bets and contribute to both.
As far as fund raising it is despicable that judge will solicit funds from attorneys ho appear before them. In fact, this is the primary source of the funding for judicial races. But as unseemly as that is, the judges are just dealing with the system in place, which involves contested judicial elections, which cost a great deal. Also, in fairness, a lot of judges deplore this element of the campaign while, admittedly, there are a few who relish it and have no problem consistently asking for money.
As to what an attorney receives for their contribution. I think in general no one buys themselves real preferential treatment before such judge. Generally, an attorney will not win a motion they clearly should lose simply because they made a contribution.
But I think it can buy a little bit of good will, and at least prevent the attorney form being treated too badly, and perhaps given the benefit of the doubt in something such as should the attorney's opposition being heard on the merits even though it was filed a few days late–accommodations like that, perhaps.
But basic problem with judicial elections is that the best campaigners and best politicians are the ones elected, or the ones with a pleasing name or a certain gender, etc. And none of this is at all connected to who is the most skilled and legally qualified.
Blah blah blah Eglet wins. Blah blah blah Eglet always wins Blah blah. Keep playing his games with your money blah blah blah.
12:00 here. How much does his firm tend to contribute to the average RJC election involving a judge assigned to a Civil Law department?
You cannot compare Cadish to Denton. Our firm alone donated 15k to her most recent campaign.
Who compared the two?
Which Vegas lawyer has had the most plastic surgery?
Male, Eglet or Jack Bernstein