I remember Bill O’Reilly bloviating that physicians should not care about money because medicine should be “a calling.”
Maybe the two of you can compare notes to see how physicians rank vs. attorneys?
Scroll back to the beginning of the conversation, a person who is “as progressive as it gets” defended making a living defending shit corps with the BS saying that “everyone deserves the best defense possible.”
I need/like money and the people who actually deserve the best representation are unable to give me enough is a great reason to defend shit corps! But that wasn’t the claim.
1 Like
I don’t see how the problem can ever be that someone’s defense was too good. If someone gets away with an unsavory criminal or civil act, the problem wasn’t that the defense was too good, but rather a problem on the prosecutorial end, or a legal loophole that needs to be patched, or even a problem with the justice system itself. Case in point: I don’t blame the defense lawyers for Trump not being held accountable. I blame the justice system for being incapable of bringing him to trial in a timely manner
That said, there’s a huge problem when it comes to poor people not being able to get quality defense
There are other people in immoral jobs working 24/7 to ensure that there are endless legal loopholes that need to be patched and problems with the justice system itself. The best of these would say “everyone is entitled to the best representation before their legislators/regulators/etc possible” before deciding to represent the person who hands them the biggest bag.
Because law courts aren’t an abstract and impartial arbiter of truth.
They are fields of power where interests compete based on the amount of wealth and power they are able to bring to bear on a case.
Bringing more power to the bad guys results in the bad guys winning more.
Good guys are fighting bad guys in the street. You go join the bad guys you are making the world worse. It’s exactly like this.
1 Like
You guys are much more confident in the righteousness of medical malpractice plaintiffs than I am. I doubt med-mal defense lawyers are fighting hard against wrong-leg amputees. They are just paying the max under a policy, and maybe more. What about the 70-year-old heart surgery patient with other serious medical issues who dies, maybe negligently, maybe not, during surgery? Is the doctor entitled to a defense is or he just some killer who doesn’t deserve legal representation?
1 Like
Without trying to be rude. We couldn’t agree that torturing prisoners was bad, so I don’t think we have enough of a shared world view for this discussion to be fruitful pr interesting.
4 Likes
M K F
2 Likes
[quote=“Rugby, post:410, topic:10932”]
Because law courts aren’t an abstract and impartial arbiter of truth. [/quote]
I don’t se how this is the fault of a defense attorney?
As Simplicitys has already said, doctors and hospitals aren’t always the bad guys. And even when a big bad insurance company loses a verdict it shouldve won, or has to pay an excessive amount because of poor defense, it hurts everyone in the way of higher bills
Sure. If your argument is that insurance companies are the good guys, then defending then for a fat bag of cash seems fine.
But thats not what is argued.
“Both sides might present their closing arguments Tuesday”
Warp Speed!
But what if the antimatter pods are rigged to blow up the moment we go into warp drive?
Spiking the football over a single case reaching closing arguments 4 and half years later seems like trolling.
2 Likes
It seems fair enough considering any minor delay in the other trials leads to 10 people posting “wArP sPeEd” at iron.
The other trials would’ve went fast too if it weren’t for the extreme corruption that no one could’ve seen coming. All the warp speed and commodus.gif people think they’re geniuses because they wound up being right for all the wrong reasons
/rainbow text
9 Likes
The exact scenario that has happened was predicted by multiple people on this forum.
4 Likes
When I put money down that Trump would be convicted before the election around January? I wasn’t under the impression that 3 or 4 of the cases would go to trial. I remember acknowledging that Cannon would slow walk her case, which seems to have happened.
I was surprised by the SCOTUS dragging, I would have assigned a 20% chance chance to granting cert. The rate they have considered that case is faster than average, but slower than liberal law bros that seemed trustworthy thought. I remember posting that the latest they would issue a ruling is June before cert was granted, which they seem to be sticking to.
So yeah, I don’t feel bad about my predictions.
Since I’m the topic, @econophile says he still likes his side of the conviction bet a few days ago, which means he thinks Trump will be acquitted or get a hung jury in the Documents case. He might be arguing that he wins with a post conviction reversal, but I would dispute that.