Not surprising. If the law says you can't do something, or sue for something there's always a lawyer willing to argue that "prohibited argument X" is totally different than the exact same argument labelled "argument Y".
And why not? I just read about a case in New Jersey where their new red flag law was marked by their own attorney general as violating the Fourth Amendment with advice to state law enforcement to not use it, the judge in the case challenging it opened with "can we all agree this law is unconstitutional?" and yet the state defended it ultimately won.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take is absolutely part of how lawyers work, and they will throw out any argument in hopes of a win. Without any real penalties for this sort of thing, you would be doing your client a disservice if you practice self-restraint because a law clearly didn't support you.
Lol most law students are retarded. The ones that buy into this shit are the dumbest of the batch and they constantly make self defeating argument when pressed on their shit.
Anyone who doesn't have a lawyer job lined up before starting law school is a retard. The admissions process values DIE above all else and the state of the job market for lawyers makes for a horrible ROI.
Depends on where you live. My state gas a dearth of lawyers because they all go to fight over the limited market in other states and I'm fine with them continuing to do so.
Depends on where you live. My state gas a dearth of lawyers because they all go to fight over the limited market in other states and I'm fine with them continuing to do so.
My ex-wife became a lawyer before we broke-up and it taught her to be the most obedient toward the system. She 100% drank the kool-aid. Thought everything to do with the justice system was amazing and fully believed in laws like a good little obedient slave girl.
And the more I interact with the bums, whores, and reddit democrats, the more I think Ebenezer Scrooge was the hero before those damn commie spirits got him.
Not surprising. If the law says you can't do something, or sue for something there's always a lawyer willing to argue that "prohibited argument X" is totally different than the exact same argument labelled "argument Y".
And why not? I just read about a case in New Jersey where their new red flag law was marked by their own attorney general as violating the Fourth Amendment with advice to state law enforcement to not use it, the judge in the case challenging it opened with "can we all agree this law is unconstitutional?" and yet the state defended it ultimately won.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take is absolutely part of how lawyers work, and they will throw out any argument in hopes of a win. Without any real penalties for this sort of thing, you would be doing your client a disservice if you practice self-restraint because a law clearly didn't support you.
I had a lawyer explain it to me.
"My job is to defend my argument, not agree with it."
They're hired to defend an argument, and will do so until the money is gone.
Yep.
Best arguments money can buy.
Now extrapolate to Lawfare as a tactic employed by monied interests.
Welcome to why things are so fucked.
Same friend: lawyers exist because other lawyers exist.
Yeah, lawyers are happy to help you solve problems you wouldn't have without other lawyers. For $300 an hour.
I don’t see how a person could have any faith in our government after discovering the institution of lobbying.
Lol most law students are retarded. The ones that buy into this shit are the dumbest of the batch and they constantly make self defeating argument when pressed on their shit.
Anyone who doesn't have a lawyer job lined up before starting law school is a retard. The admissions process values DIE above all else and the state of the job market for lawyers makes for a horrible ROI.
Depends on where you live. My state gas a dearth of lawyers because they all go to fight over the limited market in other states and I'm fine with them continuing to do so.
Depends on where you live. My state gas a dearth of lawyers because they all go to fight over the limited market in other states and I'm fine with them continuing to do so.
It really depends on the person, school, etc...
My ex-wife became a lawyer before we broke-up and it taught her to be the most obedient toward the system. She 100% drank the kool-aid. Thought everything to do with the justice system was amazing and fully believed in laws like a good little obedient slave girl.
Let me guess, she became a prosecutor.
Insurance lawyer. She was highly materialistic. Though she worked in family law when she first started out.
Her dream job was working for the UN but then reality hit.
By abolitionist, pedos mean abolishing prisons.
The legal profession is among the very most pozzed. Of course it’s full of retarded leftists. Lawfare is their bread and butter.
a lot of laws are illegitimate and just have never been challenged. i'd wager most, in fact.
Imagine being retarded enough to agree with prison abolition
I'm in favor** of abolishing prisons.
If someone can be 'fixed', do it with physical punishment and/or monitored release.
If someone can't be fixed, long drop, short stop, and focus those resources on someone who can.
More canings, bring back the stocks, and build gibbets in every town square.
Locking someone up for thirty years is just kicking the can down the road until it's someone else's problem.
Works well enough for Singapore.
The Bible gives a lot of varied punishments for crimes.
None of them are prison.
Isn't that interesting?
Pre-industrial societies didn't do a lot of imprisoning. Too expensive, too resource-intensive, too ineffective.
Just like today. I agree.
Singapore still imprisons people
how many people are imprisoned for crimes that only impact the state's "dignity"?
And the more I interact with the bums, whores, and reddit democrats, the more I think Ebenezer Scrooge was the hero before those damn commie spirits got him.
We're totally fucked on a multi-generational level by all the law schools being captured by communists.