Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Why are any men enrolled in law school at all?

I'm serious. The debts are a killer, the job market is bruta acerimmer10/02/18
Most lawyers are loser/nerds and if they “stay in their la irishlaw10/02/18
Umm, Kav got (and if not confirmed, would return to) a lifet onehell10/02/18
Young men should try to run for President instead. Sex assa plunky10/02/18
Excellent question! Law is for women and homos. God bless! jbthealmightyprophet10/04/18
>> perhaps one shouldn't seek a SCOTUS seat if they have ANY passportfan310/02/18
Which of those are unelected lifetime appointments? onehell10/02/18
"Unelected lifetime appointment" is a red herring. Every passportfan310/02/18
They most certainly do apply to elected officials, but as Tr onehell10/02/18
If you went to a job interview yelling, crying, and pounding fettywap10/02/18
It has been widely reported that what most informed people w onehell10/02/18
If I went to a job interview, it would not be on national te passportfan310/02/18
1. OK, I'll give you that one. But again, regular jobs don't onehell10/02/18
onehell, I appreciate your thoughtful posts in general, but zuma10/03/18
I just got a government job, and had to sign a release for t fettywap10/03/18
All true, but you're showing a bias for both blue states and onehell10/03/18
Unless you have faced losing everything you’ve spent years qdllc10/02/18
I don't begrudge him for being angry about the whole process actionbronson10/03/18
Hillary answered questions about Benghazi for 11 hours. I do johnsmith10/03/18
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_n z53CcM wutwutwut10/03/18
I have to LOL at the idea that the accusations against Kavan disappearedattorney10/04/18
False accusations are an issue only if made against upper cl triplesix10/04/18
This. Welcome to the American Justice System! fuckyouracists10/04/18
OK, I see how all of the experts who have commented on this zuma10/04/18
One: I am not going to westlaw criminal cases to prove you a nycatt10/04/18
Did you read disappearedattorney's post? I didn't make the s zuma10/04/18
I can go to my filing cabinet and pull out 2 or 3. disappearedattorney10/04/18

acerimmer (Oct 2, 2018 - 1:56 pm)

I'm serious. The debts are a killer, the job market is brutal. Your career can be derailed not only with no evidence but without a full accusation - "something may have happened 30 years ago. If it happened it was Kavanaugh, or maybe someone else."

It looks bad at every turn. Why would any young men bother?

Reply
irishlaw (Oct 2, 2018 - 2:32 pm)

Most lawyers are loser/nerds and if they “stay in their lane” and do what their clients/partner tells them...most will enjoy a somewhat quiet existence.

...I tried clique theory am I doing it right?

Reply
onehell (Oct 2, 2018 - 2:40 pm)

Umm, Kav got (and if not confirmed, would return to) a lifetime appointment on the DC circuit.

But yeah, why would anyone bother if they had to settle for that?

Also, any employer would refuse to hire you if they got a bad reference, proven or otherwise. They probably wouldn't even tell you why you weren't hired, much less give you some kind of "fair hearing." It's just that if you're getting appointed to a seat that will get covered on national news, you have to be prepared for unsolicited bad references. Note that even the DC circuit wasn't a big enough deal to merit such coverage.

The assault may not be provable (not that it needs to be in this context), but it appears pretty much uncontested right now that he was quite the party animal in college and high school. For many purposes that may be something you can grow out of. But in the unique context of something of this kind of prominence, perhaps one shouldn't seek a SCOTUS seat if they have ANYTHING in their background they don't want to come out, even if it were just a few years of hard and heavy drinking. And frankly, provable or not there are serious doubts as to whether it may have been something much worse than that. Enough to impeach him from his current lifetime appointment? Probably not. Enough to charge him criminally? Absolutely not. Enough to deny him a SCOTUS seat? Absolutely.

Reply
plunky (Oct 2, 2018 - 2:50 pm)

Young men should try to run for President instead. Sex assault allegations are a small speed bump on that path.

Reply
jbthealmightyprophet (Oct 4, 2018 - 9:19 pm)

Excellent question! Law is for women and homos. God bless!

Reply
passportfan3 (Oct 2, 2018 - 3:00 pm)

>> perhaps one shouldn't seek a SCOTUS seat if they have ANYTHING in their background
>> they don't want to come out, even if it were just a few years of hard and heavy drinking.


Perhaps one shouldn't seek the governorship of Arkansas and the presidency if there is anything in their background, like repeated trysts with women of varying consent.

Perhaps one shouldn't seek the Delaware senate seat and the vice presidency if there is anything in their background, like rock-bottom academic records capped off with an F for plagiarizing in law school.

Perhaps one shouldn't seek the Massachusetts senate seat and the presidency if there is anything in their background, like getting expelled for cheating or manslaughtering a woman.

I could play this game all day.

Reply
onehell (Oct 2, 2018 - 3:22 pm)

Which of those are unelected lifetime appointments?

Reply
passportfan3 (Oct 2, 2018 - 3:40 pm)

"Unelected lifetime appointment" is a red herring.

Every civil servant, including the guy at the VA who pushes a cart around for $19,000 a year, holds an "unelected lifetime appointment."

Are we going to subject every civil servant to the impossible standards of sainthood?

Oh, you say, a SCOTUS justice has more power?

I agree.

But senators and presidents have more power still. They can do things on their own initiative; justices have to wait for a case or controversy to come to them.

And yet liberals always have a reason why these exacting standards of behavior don't apply to their elected officials.

Reply
onehell (Oct 2, 2018 - 3:49 pm)

They most certainly do apply to elected officials, but as Trump is fond of pointing out, such issues are already priced into the vote for each and every term of office.

SCOTUS judges certainly shouldn't be elected, but perhaps they should serve a defined term of years.

Reply
fettywap (Oct 2, 2018 - 3:55 pm)

If you went to a job interview yelling, crying, and pounding on the table, and answered questions with did you, would you get the job? The man is unhinged.

Reply
onehell (Oct 2, 2018 - 4:05 pm)

It has been widely reported that what most informed people would call a show of judicial temperament is seen by Trump as weakness. "Why should I stick up for him if he won't stick up for himself?" or something like that, was widely reported as Trump's reaction to his earlier and more measured demeanor, e.g. on the (itself unprecedented) Fox News interview.

To Trump, strength is demonstrated by anger. Trump wants fire and fury and that's what his nominee is trying to give him. The senators whose questions he is responding to are not the intended audience. When I watch him, I can see him trying to ape Trump's mannerisms. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it is well known that flattery gets you everywhere with the Very Stable Genius.

He's behaving like this because that's what his "boss" wants, not because he's unhinged. Of course, the idea of appointing someone to SCOTUS who perceives the president who nominated him as his boss is even worse than being unhinged. If confirmed, people will remember this and it will follow him. It would hurt the perceived legitimacy of the court for decades hence.

Reply
passportfan3 (Oct 2, 2018 - 4:13 pm)

If I went to a job interview, it would not be on national television, nor would it be held before a panel of interviewers who are more interested in giving prepared speeches than in hearing what I have to say.

The "job interview" analogy is bogus.

What private sector jobs exist in which, from the moment your name is known, there are hundreds of interest groups willing to spend millions of dollars to ensure your defeat?

What private sector job requires you to answer any question on any topic, no matter how irrelevant or embarrassing? (Senators can ask about gender and other topics verboten in the real world.)

Where in the private sector are your job interview answers parsed to find the slightest, colorable claim of "perjury"?

What private sector job requires you to provide, for public delectation, detailed information about your family's finances? (Here in California, it is generally unlawful for an employer to ask for prior salary history or run a credit check.)

Since the SCOTUS confirmation process bears little resemblance to a private sector job interview, the analogy is inapt.

(Plus, the moment the shoe is on the other foot, the Dems will be screeching about due process and the presumption of innocence.)

Reply
onehell (Oct 2, 2018 - 6:53 pm)

1. OK, I'll give you that one. But again, regular jobs don't have life tenure and irreducible salary.

2. Private sector employers can ask anything that wouldn't be an EEO issue, and they don't have to interview you at all. I'll give you the gender stuff, but that's not the issue here. A private company most certainly can ask you about your drinking habits, except to the extent they represent alcoholism in remission due to professional treatment which is a disability/EEO thing.

3. See #2. They probably just won't hire you if they have any doubts at all. Also, many government job applications are signed under penalty of perjury.

4. You're in Cali. In less regulated states it's quite common to run credit checks as part of standard background checks, particularly for anything that involves any significant level of responsibility. And prior salary info is usually a blank right on the application form. Often, the computerized HR management system won't even accept the application if that answer is blank or contains anything other than a number.

5. You're right that it bears little resemblance to a private sector job interview. A regular job interview won't give you notice and opportunity to be heard at all. If you got a bad reference, or even if there's just a rumor around town that you're some kind of drunk, you'd simply never hear from the employer again. So a hearing, even though it's one at which regular standards of proof do not apply, is a lot MORE than you'd get in the private sector, not less.

Reply
zuma (Oct 3, 2018 - 11:33 am)

onehell, I appreciate your thoughtful posts in general, but you are way off base on the current trends in employment law. As you noted somewhat, states and cities nationwide are moving away from allowing any kind of inquiry into past salary, credit checks, arrests without convictions, etc. But on the drinking stuff, there is no freaking way would I counsel a client in any state that it's ok to ask an applicant questions about their drinking habits, let alone whether the applicant was a binge drinking party animal 30 years ago. That's begging for a discrimination claim.

Also the idea that employers are getting all of these rumors and innuendos about applicants is something out of the 60s. More and more employers just confirm position title and dates of employment, the rest almost always do not want to discuss former employees, unless its a friend they are trying to help out. You think the average company executive is going to talk to some HR person he never met in a different city about how his old employee confided one time that he had a drinking problem and open up that can of worms? That does not happen anymore. Employers get surprised by their new executive level hires' behavioral problems. all. the. time.

Reply
fettywap (Oct 3, 2018 - 12:27 pm)

I just got a government job, and had to sign a release for them to pull a criminal background check and my credit report. Job before last checked my criminal record too. I recently interviewed with a bank that pulled my credit report before they would even call me for an interview, and you better not have anything bad on your credit if you want to work for a bank.

Reply
onehell (Oct 3, 2018 - 12:29 pm)

All true, but you're showing a bias for both blue states and for larger companies and cities. In red states, you don't see them imposing any restrictions above federal minimums about what can or can't be asked. And even states that do have additional restrictions on things like credit reports tend to have lots of exceptions, like fettywap mentioned w/r/t banks etc.

Furthermore, you have to keep in mind how many people work for small businesses in small towns. Many EEO laws have minimum number of employees to trigger applicability, and a lot of small business owners do whatever the hell they want anyway in our current environment of lax enforcement of the few rules that do apply to them.

You're absolutely right that a large company will have highly organized HR departments that err on the side of caution with any kind of discrimination stuff, and on the other end they may also have official policies about not giving out substantive references and just doing names/dates as you said. But try applying to wait tables at some locally-owned restaurant in a middle of nowhere small town. If you are a well-known ne'er do will based just on community rumor, you're not getting hired. And keep in mind, again, that no one ever tells you why you just weren't interviewed. At companies large and small, resumes disappear into black holes all the time. Heck, USAJobs is a well-known black hole. If you passed initial screen and were "forwarded to hiring manager" but then weren't selected for interview, you will never know why.

Reforms happen here and there, but at the end of the day it's still at-will employment and there's a whole lot of hiring and not hiring that happens every day in this country based on whether a business owners liked the "cut of your jib." Even large employers have a euphemism for such non-evidence-based subjectivity: They call it "fit."

Reply
qdllc (Oct 2, 2018 - 5:41 pm)

Unless you have faced losing everything you’ve spent years working for all because of a false accusation against your character, you can’t imagine the stress and anguish it creates. No sane person would be cold and emotionless is that situation. Watch Clarence Thomas dress down the committee at the end of his confirmation. It wasn’t cold and logical. He held the committee in disdain and more or less threw down the race card (perhaps rightly so). Once on the court, temperament is irrelevant. The top justices don’t set punishments, declare verdicts, or even deal with people aside from asking questions during oral presentations.

He has every right to be angry about how this has been handled...anyone would.

Reply
actionbronson (Oct 3, 2018 - 12:50 pm)

I don't begrudge him for being angry about the whole process. But he really shouldn't have made those numerous blatantly partisan statements.

Reply
johnsmith (Oct 3, 2018 - 1:16 pm)

Hillary answered questions about Benghazi for 11 hours. I don't remember her yelling and crying.

Reply
wutwutwut (Oct 3, 2018 - 1:44 pm)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM

Reply
disappearedattorney (Oct 4, 2018 - 8:38 am)

I have to LOL at the idea that the accusations against Kavanaugh are not enough for criminal charges. The dirty secret is that people are convicted in this country every day, and sentenced to long-term prison sentences, on the basis of no more evidence than has brought against Kavanaugh. Of course it doesn’t happen to rich white men who went to Yale, but it happens. All. The. Time.

Funny how the demands for “corroboration” never seem to work when made by black men, Latino men, or uneducated poor white men.

Reply
triplesix (Oct 4, 2018 - 8:41 am)

False accusations are an issue only if made against upper class white men.

America 101

Reply
fuckyouracists (Oct 4, 2018 - 12:52 pm)

This. Welcome to the American Justice System!

Reply
zuma (Oct 4, 2018 - 10:46 am)

OK, I see how all of the experts who have commented on this case are clearly wrong, but could you help us out a little more by pointing out one case in the United States in the last say, 50 years, where someone was convicted of sexual assault based solely on a he said she said event of 36 years prior? I'm looking but for some reason I can't find any. Thanks.

Reply
nycatt (Oct 4, 2018 - 11:31 am)

One: I am not going to westlaw criminal cases to prove you are wrong, but having litigated a long time in civil cases, I am pretty sure you are wrong. Credible oral testimony is enough to convict anyone of anything. Because it IS evidence. What are you basing your claim on? Are you a criminal attorney? Did you look at westlaw in all 50 states? Or are you just making stuff up?

Two: Criminal cases have a high evidentiary standard: beyond a reasonable doubt. That is because it is taking a away a fundamental right - freedom. This is not the standard applied to job interviews. Thus, your analogy sucks. Even the civil evidentiary standards - clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of the evidence don't make sense for a job interview.

But anyway, its not like you are changing your mind anytime soon about anything, just here to tell you your comment makes no sense. The truth is that there is no evidentiary standard here, the senate can and will vote anyway that they please. That is the bottom line.

Reply
zuma (Oct 4, 2018 - 1:24 pm)

Did you read disappearedattorney's post? I didn't make the stupid analogy.They said "every day" people are convicted and given long sentences based on the evidence against Kavanaugh. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Keep looking for an example of that evidentiary basis sustaining a sexual assault conviction. You won't find one outside some rigged jury from the 30s or a Soviet show trial.

And yes, I do have experience with this. Without going to much into my background I've been involved with cases involving mistaken visual ID that were made days and weeks after the alleged event, not 36 YEARS after the event.

Reply
disappearedattorney (Oct 4, 2018 - 7:13 pm)

I can go to my filing cabinet and pull out 2 or 3.

Reply
Post a message in this thread