February 09, 2004

Idiot Alert

Fail me once, shame on you.

Fail me twice, shame on me.

Fail me forty-seven times, shame on the California Bar examiners . . .

Would you hire this lawyer?

And what does this idiot intend to do now?

He wants to challenge laws denying ex-felons the right to vote. He hopes to file a class-action suit in the next six months.
My dad was right. There's too many damn lawyers in this state.

Posted by: annika at 01:18 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, considering the volume of Cali's constitution, one would reasonably assume the laws are not any more direct or condesnsed. So I can't really say I find it hard to believe that, especially over a few decades, that the laws would grow enough to keep someone from passing the bar. However while I cn understand not having complete trust in the guy (even though he did finally pass)the case he plans to launch has more merit than you think. The theory I'm going with is that once you've served your time there shouldn't be any restriction of Rights. After all, if they trust you enough to let you back into society, then what excuse do they have for treating you as a second or third class citizen?

Posted by: Publicola at February 09, 2004 06:28 AM (Aao25)

2 Call me old fashioned, but i don't want ex-cons voting.

Posted by: annika! at February 09, 2004 10:13 AM (zAOEU)

3 Yeah, I can see it now: DEMOCRATS PANDERING FOR THE EX-CON VOTE!!! Dean: "When I was governor, our inmates only served 43% of their sentences." Kerry: "George W. Bush is out of touch with today's middle class prisoners. I served in Vietnam, so I understand EVERYTHING!" etc. etc...

Posted by: John at February 09, 2004 10:53 AM (7UPKM)

4 okay Old Fashioned (shoulda seen that one coming)... Here's the deal - if a person commits a crime & srves his/her sentence, then why wouldn't you want them to vote? Hell, if you're that bothered by criminals voting then we should disband the legislature (just cause they ain't been busted yet doesn't mean they're not guilty) The other side is that we shouldn't be releasing people into society whom we distrust with the exercise of their Rights. & what the tough on crime folks often forget is that any felony conviction will cause a denial of certain Rights. Ya don't have to set foot inside a jail, do probabtion, etc... If you get time served or a fine but it's a conviction, then adios Rights. & that applies to non-violent crimes, which I believe comprise the majority of convictions. In my world I see it all the time. The statist bastards at the BATF have a real high conviction rate & the vast majority of convictions are for non-violent "crimes". A paperwork error can literally cost you several grand, 5 to 10 years out your life & a denial of Rights. Now of course I'm all for disbanding those tax agents with delusions of granduere along with the elimination of most of the "laws" they enforce, but I still see no justification for denying someone their Rights after they have paid their debt to society. & think about the federal & state congressional votes on certain laws (i.e. banning plastic guns even though they don't exist, not impeaching Clinton despite the blatent dishonesty he showed, etc...)& you're actually worried about someone who just took a multi-year time out voting? what's the worst that could happen- they'll vote dishonest politicians into office? lol But I will agree that there are too many damn lawyers - which is the inevitable by-product of too many damn laws.

Posted by: Publicola at February 09, 2004 05:29 PM (Aao25)

5 Publicola, i just took a walk into our library to count the volumes of the California Code. Forget it. That would take me five or ten minutes. They cover two walls. So i decided just to count the books containing the ever growing California Constitution. Four volumes, along with three more volumes of annotations. Wow.

Posted by: annika! at February 09, 2004 06:22 PM (zAOEU)

6 Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. —Thomas Jefferson It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . . James Madison Kinda spooky isn't it? BTW, lately have I urged you to abandon Cali like the sinking socialist cesspool it is ?

Posted by: Publicola at February 09, 2004 10:14 PM (Aao25)

7 Not to worry, ex-cons don't and won't vote in any significant numbers ever. Funny thing about this guy. I once worked in the commercial real estate business, one of our tenants was a "lawyer" who used to smoke pot in his office all the time. I mean you could smell it in the hall. I raised his rent to the market rate, and the fucker skipped on three months worth of rent.

Posted by: Casca at February 10, 2004 12:28 AM (BRVtJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
19kb generated in CPU 0.0154, elapsed 0.0758 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0655 seconds, 168 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.