Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are simply pointing out the danger of a person with a computer and Google, thinking that they can 'learn' law in 30 seconds.
I had to take 90 hours of law classes in law school, and then pass a bar examination here in Texas. I discount my 'college' degree, another 120 hours, which, if I recall, I majored in 'business administration'.
Regardless, it is said that one needs 10,000 hours in a field to become an 'expert' in said field. Now, one only needs access to a computer to provide arguments to 'prove' some point, without regard to the individual's expertise.
It is said that one may find, on the Web, confirmation of your viewpoint, regardless of what it is. I agree.
I have argued before that one reason for the rise in child abuse (i.e., sexual) is that pedophiles were able to 'look online' and find others of their opinion, hence reinforcing their sick believe that sexual relations with children was 'normal'. It is, of course, a lie. I care not how many websites claim otherwise.
Same here, although to a lesser extent (at least, morally).
One tactic that such individuals use is to link to a "Youtube" videos. It is common here on CD. The more twisted an idea, the more probability a CD individual will link to some Youtube video as an argument for their beliefs.
Yet, I defend them. The "marketplace of idea's" demands that all opinions be expressed. It used to be that twisted ideas would be quickly ignored, or not published in newspapers. Yet, with the rise of the Web and forums, even the most ignorant or twisted ideas seem to get some light.
It is sad. But, in a way, it would be sadder if we prohibited such expression of views. My concern is that the criminal element, such as pedophiles, also are able to express their twisted, criminal viewpoints.
Actually they can learn a lot about the law in a few minutes with a computer and google. If there good at it they can probably get to the level of the average lawyer in an hour or so on a narrow topic. The lawyers have much of this committed to memory and had a vast advantage when the data was buried in books and not indexed well for the layman. But that is no longer true. I would in fact consider taking on certain legal matters that 10 years ago I would not have considered without a lawyer. For instance I might go pro se on a copyright dispute. Would never have considered it 10 years ago but at this point I can hold my own with the lawyers around here. (There are lawyers who would be much more difficult...but not here in this particular field).
So even lawyers have the problem that there expertise is becoming widely available through the net.
Again, DT is coming at this as a businessman with nil political experience. He does not understand nor seem to care to know the politics of what he now suggests.
The man needs to learn and understand that Congress and or senate will throw a POTUS under a bus if it suits there purposes, even members of his own party. They've done it before....
His Orangeness refuses to understand that the dominate motivation for any senator or House member is to be re-elected. This is unless they are planning to retire or otherwise not run for office again.
This goes to the heart of why the GOP cannot govern now with controlling three branches of government than they could when holding only two or one. You have senators and or Congressmen finely tuned to the wants and needs of their districts. Only a fool would vote against such things, again just ask Eric Cantor and a few others how that worked out for them.
Things have been made much worse ever since pork barrel/earmark spending was removed.
Back in the day a POTUS, senate majority leader, House Whip or whatever could get votes by good old fashioned horse trading. That is you scratch Big Daddy's back, and he'll take care of you. Local electorate may not be happy with this or that vote of a senator or Congressman, but bringing home a nice fat piece of bacon often helped negate hard feelings.
LBJ got the Civil Rights and other legislation passed using these tricks as did many other successive administrations.
Actually they can learn a lot about the law in a few minutes with a computer and google. If there good at it they can probably get to the level of the average lawyer in an hour or so on a narrow topic. The lawyers have much of this committed to memory and had a vast advantage when the data was buried in books and not indexed well for the layman. But that is no longer true. I would in fact consider taking on certain legal matters that 10 years ago I would not have considered without a lawyer. For instance I might go pro se on a copyright dispute. Would never have considered it 10 years ago but at this point I can hold my own with the lawyers around here. (There are lawyers who would be much more difficult...but not here in this particular field).
So even lawyers have the problem that there expertise is becoming widely available through the net.
While your argument holds water, I do not totally accept it.
For instance, in law school one learns, through many hours of work, of what parts of a Supreme Court opinion is 'relevant', and what is 'dicta', or not law.
It is why, when such opinions are topical, I insist on linking to the actual decision. Many will repeat what the news media claims the decision to hold. I, knowing what to look for, sometimes find that the news media, and hence the poster, is incorrect in what they claim is the 'true' holding.
However, it is true that every Supreme Court decision mandates that every word, every phrase, be studied, for it can be instructive on future cases. For example, I wrote the other day (Tuesday) about a 'church' case the Court handed down (search my postings). The Court used interesting language that would have been missed by 99 percent of laymen (and 100 percent of CD people, I regret to say). It was not 'on point' for the case in question, but for the Chief Justice to use such language (and for the other Justices to 'sign off' on it) is interesting (hint: Justice Scalia would never had used such language in his opinions).
While your argument holds water, I do not totally accept it.
For instance, in law school one learns, through many hours of work, of what parts of a Supreme Court opinion is 'relevant', and what is 'dicta', or not law.
It is why, when such opinions are topical, I insist on linking to the actual decision. Many will repeat what the news media claims the decision to hold. I, knowing what to look for, sometimes find that the news media, and hence the poster, is incorrect in what they claim is the 'true' holding.
However, it is true that every Supreme Court decision mandates that every word, every phrase, be studied, for it can be instructive on future cases. For example, I wrote the other day (Tuesday) about a 'church' case the Court handed down (search my postings). The Court used interesting language that would have been missed by 99 percent of laymen (and 100 percent of CD people, I regret to say). It was not 'on point' for the case in question, but for the Chief Justice to use such language (and for the other Justices to 'sign off' on it) is interesting (hint: Justice Scalia would never had used such language in his opinions).
It's like they're sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating: "La la la la la...I can't hear you".
I especially love how some of the posters on here suddenly become Constitutional experts when a ruling comes down they don't agree with. I mean, who needs a law degree when you have Google?
There should be no repeal of Obamacare. You can't take away insurance from people. Yes there are flaws so why not work together and fix them. Honestly, why can't the people in this country get the same insurance that congress gets.... yeah right....like they really care.
While your argument holds water, I do not totally accept it.
For instance, in law school one learns, through many hours of work, of what parts of a Supreme Court opinion is 'relevant', and what is 'dicta', or not law.
It is why, when such opinions are topical, I insist on linking to the actual decision. Many will repeat what the news media claims the decision to hold. I, knowing what to look for, sometimes find that the news media, and hence the poster, is incorrect in what they claim is the 'true' holding.
However, it is true that every Supreme Court decision mandates that every word, every phrase, be studied, for it can be instructive on future cases. For example, I wrote the other day (Tuesday) about a 'church' case the Court handed down (search my postings). The Court used interesting language that would have been missed by 99 percent of laymen (and 100 percent of CD people, I regret to say). It was not 'on point' for the case in question, but for the Chief Justice to use such language (and for the other Justices to 'sign off' on it) is interesting (hint: Justice Scalia would never had used such language in his opinions).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
It's like they're sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating: "La la la la la...I can't hear you".
I especially love how some of the posters on here suddenly become Constitutional experts when a ruling comes down they don't agree with. I mean, who needs a law degree when you have Google?
I am not sure this even deals with law in the lawyer sense. There are a set of experts who deal with the structuring of laws and the concepts behind them. Some are lawyers and some are Political Scientists and some are Philosophers. And they all take their place in the structuring of laws.
My mother was a lawyer and a high ranking expert on the US Income tax. She provided expert advice to the US Congress on various issues. But her skill was not one possessed by one in a thousand lawyers. She was a subject matter expert in a very narrow field. Much more an academician than a lawyer.
So I am not sure that "lawyers" have any real inside track on this stuff. They are the mechanics who put it together so that it actually realizes the intent...but they do not control the intent and may even thwart it working for those who oppose the law.
The middle class (ages 45-65) have been subsidizing the "taker class" for this Gold Plate Insurance. The Repubs won't lose one angry constituent (since Taker class is 100% Democratic - or Illegal Aliens.).
The "Takers" would never make a payment on a $500 hospital bill much less a $50,000 hospital bill. Time to stick a fork in this pig and move on to what is actually causing the high costs of "health care".
Time to address Insurance Companies, Pharma, Tort reform. (those would be a start).
.
ROTFLMAO! You making a joke, right?
Do you not consider the millions of Hard-core Trump supporters, that receive Disability...SNAP....who also show up at emergency rooms with no insurance...or Govt. healthcare...are not these people 'takers'?
In short, Cruz is fighting for a parallel market of unregulated insurance plans alongside Obamacare plans, which will remain subsidized via the BCRA’s $50 billion bailout so as to avoid an immediate death spiral.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
