Agreed. This needs a definate unappealable decision.
I'm not surprised with the accelerated schedule, actually. Considering that other civil rights litigation took forever to wind through the court systems that adversely impacted millions of people, it's better to get it on an accelerated schedule and calendar.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
Prop 8 OverturnedFollow
#978Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 16 2010 at 8:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I gather from this that the "good" lawyers would argue any side? If so, that's very sad. Unless they don't care one way or the other, they should only support what they believe is right.
#979
Aug 16 2010 at 8:31 PM
Almalieque wrote:
I gather from this that the "good" lawyers would argue any side? If so, that's very sad. Unless they don't care one way or the other, they should only support what they believe is right.
/Pat.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
#980
Aug 16 2010 at 8:46 PM
They argue what they get paid to argue.
If lawyers only argued what they believed was right, then we wouldn't have any criminal defendants, now would we?
They're also a bit of fame-whores, especially trial lawyers of this caliber. The anti-prop-8 lawyers (Ted Olson and David Boies) were on opposite sides of Bush vs. Gore. Now they're together for this particular case. They're probably salivating at the thought of getting mentioned in freshman political science classes not once, but twice, for their work in the last decade.
Edited, Aug 16th 2010 10:47pm by catwho
If lawyers only argued what they believed was right, then we wouldn't have any criminal defendants, now would we?
They're also a bit of fame-whores, especially trial lawyers of this caliber. The anti-prop-8 lawyers (Ted Olson and David Boies) were on opposite sides of Bush vs. Gore. Now they're together for this particular case. They're probably salivating at the thought of getting mentioned in freshman political science classes not once, but twice, for their work in the last decade.
Edited, Aug 16th 2010 10:47pm by catwho
#981Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 16 2010 at 8:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well maybe you can enlighten me. I always thought that criminal defendants weren't necessarily arguing about innocence but also the degree of the penalty. I differentiate supporting a killer for a fair trial as opposed to supporting a killer for his/her innocence.
#982
Aug 16 2010 at 8:57 PM
It depends on what the defendant wants to argue. If they want to claim innocence, and the lawyer thinks that they have a good shot of winning, then they'll claim innocence, even if they privately confide to the lawyer that they're really guilty. The lawyer, even a state issued one, is still required to argue their defense to the best of their abilities, whether the party is guilty or innocent.
Now, a competent lawyer is probably going to do their best to convince a guilty party to accept a plea bargain if the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, but they're going to do their damnedest if the defendant says they're innocent.
You really honestly think OJ Simpson's lawyers believed he was innocent? Hell no. But they were getting paid a LOT of money to prove that he was, and they earned every penny of it.
And that's why lawyers are the scum of the earth.
Now, a competent lawyer is probably going to do their best to convince a guilty party to accept a plea bargain if the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, but they're going to do their damnedest if the defendant says they're innocent.
You really honestly think OJ Simpson's lawyers believed he was innocent? Hell no. But they were getting paid a LOT of money to prove that he was, and they earned every penny of it.
And that's why lawyers are the scum of the earth.
#983
Aug 16 2010 at 9:20 PM
Almalieque wrote:
I gather from this that the "good" lawyers would argue any side? If so, that's very sad.
The attorney's job is to represent your side to the absolute best of their ability because each person before the court should have every possible opportunity under the law to prove their case and not be hampered by their own inexperience or lack of understanding of the legal system.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#984Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 16 2010 at 9:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow, I really didn't know that.. I always thought that the lawyer had a choice in the matter. Thanks...
#985
Aug 16 2010 at 10:13 PM
They do have a choice. They can:
1. Work as a pro bono lawyer for the state, defending perps, for 2-3 years to get their student loans forgiven
2. Try to get a job as part of the DA's office to take down criminals for low pay (for a lawyer. Most DA lawyers don't break 100K/year when they're working for the state.)
3. Work as a for-pay trial lawyer, basically becoming a lawyer ****, to make enough money to pay back their student loans
Most lawyers with ethical qualms about defending guilty criminals will do #1 or #3 for just long enough to break even from 3+ years of pricey law school, then go for #2 in order to try to bring criminals to justice.
1. Work as a pro bono lawyer for the state, defending perps, for 2-3 years to get their student loans forgiven
2. Try to get a job as part of the DA's office to take down criminals for low pay (for a lawyer. Most DA lawyers don't break 100K/year when they're working for the state.)
3. Work as a for-pay trial lawyer, basically becoming a lawyer ****, to make enough money to pay back their student loans
Most lawyers with ethical qualms about defending guilty criminals will do #1 or #3 for just long enough to break even from 3+ years of pricey law school, then go for #2 in order to try to bring criminals to justice.
#986Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 16 2010 at 10:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh I see.. That makes sense.. See, I did learn something in this thread other than how to spell "reputation".
#987
Aug 17 2010 at 7:59 AM
Prosecuting innocent people is fine, though, obviously.
Honestly, this sounds a lot like that whole "terrorists don't deserve a fair trial" thing we had going on earlier. It's the same problem; this forum is full of utter fucktards who don't understand the slightest thing about the principles on which their justice system is founded. Also, their reasoning is circular. Let me talk you through it:
1) A fair trial is not a privilege. You cannot use a supposition of guilt to argue against giving someone a proper trial because that undermines the use of a trial to determine guilt in the first place.
2) The whole idea behind a free trial is that justice requires a rigorous debate and analysis of the evidence, and not just locking people up because 'they obviously did it'.
3) What Joph said. "[In a free trial,] each person before the court should have every possible opportunity under the law to prove their case and not be hampered by their own inexperience or lack of understanding of the legal system." Without an attorney, this is obviously not possible.
4) Defence attorneys are vital to the American justice system.
Honestly, this sounds a lot like that whole "terrorists don't deserve a fair trial" thing we had going on earlier. It's the same problem; this forum is full of utter fucktards who don't understand the slightest thing about the principles on which their justice system is founded. Also, their reasoning is circular. Let me talk you through it:
1) A fair trial is not a privilege. You cannot use a supposition of guilt to argue against giving someone a proper trial because that undermines the use of a trial to determine guilt in the first place.
2) The whole idea behind a free trial is that justice requires a rigorous debate and analysis of the evidence, and not just locking people up because 'they obviously did it'.
3) What Joph said. "[In a free trial,] each person before the court should have every possible opportunity under the law to prove their case and not be hampered by their own inexperience or lack of understanding of the legal system." Without an attorney, this is obviously not possible.
4) Defence attorneys are vital to the American justice system.
#988Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 17 2010 at 8:11 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kavekk, who exactly are you talking to? No one was even talking about that.
#989
Aug 17 2010 at 8:30 AM
Almalieque wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Prosecuting innocent people is fine, though, obviously.
Honestly, this sounds a lot like that whole "terrorists don't deserve a fair trial" thing we had going on earlier. It's the same problem; this forum is full of utter fucktards who don't understand the slightest thing about the principles on which their justice system is founded. Also, their reasoning is circular. Let me talk you through it:
1) A fair trial is not a privilege. You cannot use a supposition of guilt to argue against giving someone a proper trial because that undermines the use of a trial to determine guilt in the first place.
2) The whole idea behind a free trial is that justice requires a rigorous debate and analysis of the evidence, and not just locking people up because 'they obviously did it'.
3) What Joph said. "[In a free trial,] each person before the court should have every possible opportunity under the law to prove their case and not be hampered by their own inexperience or lack of understanding of the legal system." Without an attorney, this is obviously not possible.
4) Defence attorneys are vital to the American justice system.
Honestly, this sounds a lot like that whole "terrorists don't deserve a fair trial" thing we had going on earlier. It's the same problem; this forum is full of utter fucktards who don't understand the slightest thing about the principles on which their justice system is founded. Also, their reasoning is circular. Let me talk you through it:
1) A fair trial is not a privilege. You cannot use a supposition of guilt to argue against giving someone a proper trial because that undermines the use of a trial to determine guilt in the first place.
2) The whole idea behind a free trial is that justice requires a rigorous debate and analysis of the evidence, and not just locking people up because 'they obviously did it'.
3) What Joph said. "[In a free trial,] each person before the court should have every possible opportunity under the law to prove their case and not be hampered by their own inexperience or lack of understanding of the legal system." Without an attorney, this is obviously not possible.
4) Defence attorneys are vital to the American justice system.
Kavekk, who exactly are you talking to? No one was even talking about that.
You and catwho.
It is relevant to:
you wrote:
Well maybe you can enlighten me. I always thought that criminal defendants weren't necessarily arguing about innocence but also the degree of the penalty. I differentiate supporting a killer for a fair trial as opposed to supporting a killer for his/her innocence.
catwho wrote:
It depends on what the defendant wants to argue. If they want to claim innocence, and the lawyer thinks that they have a good shot of winning, then they'll claim innocence, even if they privately confide to the lawyer that they're really guilty. The lawyer, even a state issued one, is still required to argue their defense to the best of their abilities, whether the party is guilty or innocent.
Now, a competent lawyer is probably going to do their best to convince a guilty party to accept a plea bargain if the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, but they're going to do their damnedest if the defendant says they're innocent.
You really honestly think OJ Simpson's lawyers believed he was innocent? Hell no. But they were getting paid a LOT of money to prove that he was, and they earned every penny of it.
And that's why lawyers are the scum of the earth.
Now, a competent lawyer is probably going to do their best to convince a guilty party to accept a plea bargain if the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, but they're going to do their damnedest if the defendant says they're innocent.
You really honestly think OJ Simpson's lawyers believed he was innocent? Hell no. But they were getting paid a LOT of money to prove that he was, and they earned every penny of it.
And that's why lawyers are the scum of the earth.
4) is the conclusion, the other three parts are an (informal) line of reasoning supporting it.
#990Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 17 2010 at 8:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What I gathered from your post is that everyone deserves a free trial regardless of their actions and that is important to the American Justice System. I didn't see anything in our posts that contradicted that.
#991
Aug 17 2010 at 8:47 AM
Almalieque wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
You and catwho.
What I gathered from your post is that everyone deserves a free trial regardless of their actions and that is important to the American Justice System. I didn't see anything in our posts that contradicted that.
Alleged actions. And really, if that's the case, you either haven't read my post properly or you're just too stupid to understand the implications. Either way, there's no point in me communicating with you any further.
#992
Aug 17 2010 at 9:01 AM
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a hard concept, but I think he's got it.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#993Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 17 2010 at 9:05 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm actually running out of clever insults without repeating myself. All I can say to you is not to be so so thinthitive. Catwho took the time out to explain herself, if you can't do the same, then don't waste anybody's time posting your "logic". Politely go back and continue whatever you were doing.
#994
Aug 17 2010 at 9:08 AM
Alma wrote:
I'm actually running out of clever insults without repeating myself.
Kinda sad you thought your insults are clever
#995
Aug 17 2010 at 9:12 AM
For the record, the anti-prop 8 lawyers did take this case on because they believed that prop 8 was unjust.
#996Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 17 2010 at 9:22 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) They do require a certain level of intellect to understand. It's like looking at the "magic" pictures composed of dots. To the ordinary idiot, it's just a bunch of dots, but to the more advanced personnel, they can see the picture. My suggestion to you is to step up your IQ. See if you can hit a double integer.
#997
Aug 17 2010 at 9:23 AM
Samira wrote:
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a hard concept, but I think he's got it.
Evidently not.
#998Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 17 2010 at 9:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Evidently so... You just came out of nowhere arguing points that no one has denied. No one here has argued against you or has said anything to the contrary. I think you just saw a couple of key words and went into rage mode from memories of the previous thread that you mentioned. It's really not that serious..
#999
Aug 17 2010 at 9:31 AM
I didn't realize that those "magic eye" pictures were suddenly a measure of intelligence...
#1000
Aug 17 2010 at 9:32 AM
This thread has become sad, really.
#1001Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 17 2010 at 9:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) They're not, but they fit the criteria of the "thing" that I needed to complete the insult.
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 192
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (192)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC