Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is well put.

The implication either is that swing voters are fools with no memory or principles, willing to respond to the latest GOP talking points even when they contradict prior talking points, or that there are no swing voters, only partisans to mobilize. If the former, Democrats are suckers to adhere to principles when they get in the way of persuading swing voters. If the latter, there's got to be a way to make the GOP pay for its cynicism. But which is it?

There are (almost) no swing voters.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

It's cool to know that as an in-house securities lawyer, I am still qualified to be a federal district court judge! FTR, that's an R asking those questions, reportedly pissing off other Rs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4616f22e81e9

I've probably taken over 500 depositions in 20+ states, but I can't remember the last time I read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure either. I mean, I'll check a particular rule (like Rule 68 - Offer of Judgment or Rule 36 - Requests to Admit) every once in a while, but I'm not sitting in my leather recliner with a glass of 12-year and the FRCP once a year.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I've probably taken over 500 depositions in 20+ states, but I can't remember the last time I read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure either. I mean, I'll check a particular rule (like Rule 68 - Offer of Judgment or Rule 36 - Requests to Admit) every once in a while, but I'm not sitting in my leather recliner with a glass of 12-year and the FRCP once a year.

I've probably taken over 20,000 depositions in over 70 states, 500+ countries, and on all 11 continents and, until this very moment, I was unaware that there even were "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." But if we want to limit our judiciary to pathetic rule-following (and rule-reading) sheep, then we get what we deserve.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I've probably taken over 20,000 depositions in over 70 states, 500+ countries, and on all 11 continents and, until this very moment, I was unaware that there even were "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." But if we want to limit our judiciary to pathetic rule-following (and rule-reading) sheep, then we get what we deserve.

I bet you didn't even know that the UCI revised its cyclocross rules in June 2016.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I bet you didn't even know that the UCI revised its cyclocross rules in June 2016.

The UCI can suck me (this is not a solicitation). If I want to pivot through a U-turn by holding onto the stake holding up the course tape, then that is what I'm going to do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Alright, I’m gonna say it: I don’t know who this Omarosa person is.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Alright, I’m gonna say it: I don’t know who this Omarosa person is.

Also, while we are getting explanations, can someone explain to me why the end of net neutrality means that Youporn might stop being free?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"I want Omarosa out. Make it happen, Donald."

I have no idea who Omarosa is either.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"There are (almost) no swing voters."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Also, while we are getting explanations, can someone explain to me why the end of net neutrality means that Youporn might stop being free?

It's all about bandwidth now. Someone's got to pay for all that streaming.

[SEC_Chick]

You all who don't know who Omarosa is missed some quality reality television in 2004.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you're confused about what civil rights are. The government's protection of a right to a workplace that is free of sexual harassment is not an effort to solve a market failure that inhibits bargaining between private parties around what the optimum workplace should be like (Boss: I really value the ability to grope my subordinates. Potential subordinate: I'm not crazy about being groped, but the other job I'm looking at has a longer commute, so for the right price I guess I'm fine with that.). Civil rights are inalienable rights that you get by virtue of being a human and a citizen, and so cannot be bargained away.

But some, at least, civil rights can be intentionally and knowingly waived. For example, the right to an attorney or jury trial. Similaarly, one waives some Fiat Amendment protection by working for the government.

And, as an aside, they are not inalienable. Governments change, law changes, and those "rights" become alienated

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

And, as an aside, they are not inalienable. Governments change, law changes, and those "rights" become alienated

I don't think you see the rights alienated as much as you see the laws enacted to protect them altered.

One area where the current laws should be pared down is fee shifting. If you bring a discrimination case and lose almost all of your numerous claims, the award of attorneys' fees should be similarly adjusted. I don't understand how it's equitable for a plaintiff's lawyer to receive fees for working on claims he or she lost.

Simple math would work nicely. Bring four claims and win two, you get half of your claimed fees (or some amount that can be credibly tied to the successful claims).

Fee shifting seems more an arbitrary "lawyer's right" than anything else. You need some of it, but it should be reasonable. No one should get paid by a defendant for working on claims he or she lost.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I've probably taken over 500 depositions in 20+ states, but I can't remember the last time I read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure either. I mean, I'll check a particular rule (like Rule 68 - Offer of Judgment or Rule 36 - Requests to Admit) every once in a while, but I'm not sitting in my leather recliner with a glass of 12-year and the FRCP once a year.

I worked under a partner years ago who was clearly on the autism spectrum. He sat across from me and with a straight face said that in my free time, I should read the rules of civil procedure. Just to get the best grasp on them.

Right. And when that's done, on to my dishwasher's user's manual, all of my social media users' agreements, and then the critics' footnotes to the unabridged Atlas Shrugged.