Having The Same Argument, Again.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Did they really have kimchee? That's not Cambodian.

it seemed more pan asian.

the best kim chee I ever had was in Tokyo, not Seoul. why not in Cambodia.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Cheap shots only.

New thread title?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How's an in-house lawyer dumb? If you've the choice of billing your time like a factory shlep in a firm, or getting paid a similar amount to work in house, how's it even a decision? Could there ever be a question on which to pick? Of course, choosing the much better of two evils doesn't make one brilliant, but it's much closer to that than "brain dead." Quite opposed, I'd say.

The "getting paid a similar amount" part is a major flaw in your analysis. Beyond that, there are all kinds of reasons why I would never want to work in-house, but I won't go into that right now.

You seem to think firm lawyers are morons ("sheep"), while in-house lawyers are only marginally smarter but are still corporate drones. So why would private-sector legal experience be a good thing, in your view, for a nominee to the USSC?

Or were you thinking that Obama should nominate Steve Jobs?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Cheap shots only. Thank you for the notice. I won't bother to read.

thanks, like if I was in a cool rock band I'd hate to see some pimply nerd wearing one of our t-shirts.

thin

k
bout

it

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Cheap shots only. Thank you for the notice. I won't bother to read.

Technically not. With cheap shots, one generally scores.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Technically not. With cheap shots, one generally scores.

you of all people would know.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The "getting paid a similar amount" part is a major flaw in your analysis. Beyond that, there are all kinds of reasons why I would never want to work in-house, but I won't go into that right now.

You seem to think firm lawyers are morons ("sheep"), while in-house lawyers are only marginally smarter but are still corporate drones. So why would private-sector legal experience be a good thing, in your view, for a nominee to the USSC?

Or were you thinking that Obama should nominate Steve Jobs?

Most people aren't going to make partner. I can't insert every imaginable caveat into a response. Some are so obvious they're assumed assumed.

I didn't say either lawyer was stupid. Three short years ago I was working in a law firm earning what was considered in Philly probably somewhere in the top 25% for lawyers my age (excluding the handful of personal injury freaks who got those lucky six figure and up referral fees). It was shit work only an idiot would enjoy, but was it stupid? Not at all. I was foolish enough to enter the field (actually, drunk enough through college to consider it wise), then even more foolish to select into its worst and least fungible area - litigation. Given the hole I'd dug, doing what I did was entirely sensible. Most litigators would relate a story quite similar to what I just wrote. They'd rather do just about anything, but they're stuck doing what they're doing (if they like it, they need serious fucking therapy). So no... I'd never call either group "morons." I'd call them people who made bad choices early in their careers and are doing the best they can in their situations.

The reasons I think we could use someone with private sector experience, preferably non-legal, on the court, is that such experience gives people an understanding of street-level realities businessmen run into that academics, bureaucrats and even professionals working in large private practices never understand. It's real easy to consider cases involving things things like health care reform, or immigration reform, or derivatives regulation, theoretically (I'm just guessing at the types of issues the Sup. Ct. might see). It's quite another to have worked directly in the industries, or among the people, who could be impacted by such rulings. I think we'd do well to have a voice on the court who has an understanding of commerce at the ground level. Consider that horrible ruling allowing corporations to donate like individuals in political races. Would anyone with business experience - who'd seen the damage crony capitalism and "pay to play" structure do to an otherwise competitive marketplace - go along with such a preposterous ruling? No. But academics, or a political hacks/ideologues, would. It's all theory to those people.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Technically not. With cheap shots, one generally scores.

As the Bruins well know.

Point taken.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Most people aren't going to make partner. I can't insert every imaginable caveat into a response. Some are so obvious they're assumed assumed.

Um..... the discussion was about an individual being nominated to the Supreme Court. I sort of assumed that implied a person who would have a high level of success whereever she went, and so we were comparing hihg-level partner to at least senior in-house counsel. It's not like Kagan is the Assistant Dean for Student Life at HLS.

Beyond that, well, partner, schmartner. In-house jobs don't pay junior people the way firms do. There may be other benefits, but your "better work in a better place for the same pay" presented one statement that was objectively wrong, and two that are highly arguable.

I didn't say either lawyer was stupid. Three short years ago I was working in a law firm earning what was considered in Philly probably somewhere in the top 25% for lawyers my age (excluding the handful of personal injury freaks who got those lucky six figure and up referral fees). It was shit work only an idiot would enjoy, but was it stupid? Not at all. I was foolish enough to enter the field (actually, drunk enough through college to consider it wise), then even more foolish to select into its worst and least fungible area - litigation. Given the hole I'd dug, doing what I did was entirely sensible. Most litigators would relate a story quite similar to what I just wrote. They'd rather do just about anything, but they're stuck doing what they're doing (if they like it, they need serious fucking therapy). So no... I'd never call either group "morons." I'd call them people who made bad choices early in their careers and are doing the best they can in their situations.

You didn't this time, but you do all the time. I don't take it personally, but c'mon -- you don't hold people who have pursued legal careers in high regard, or really in any regard. Again, I don't take it personally -- though I obviously regret not doing whatever it is you do that gives you such a joyful outlook on life.....

The reasons I think we could use someone with private sector experience, preferably non-legal, on the court, is that such experience gives people an understanding of street-level realities businessmen run into that academics, bureaucrats and even professionals working in large private practices never understand. It's real easy to consider cases involving things things like health care reform, or immigration reform, or derivatives regulation, theoretically (I'm just guessing at the types of issues the Sup. Ct. might see). It's quite another to have worked directly in the industries, or among the people, who could be impacted by such rulings. I think we'd do well to have a voice on the court who has an understanding of commerce at the ground level.

There are reasons I can think of why having someone on the court with private sector experience would be good. But I have no problem with having someone from an academic background who also has extensive government experience (i.e., Kagan). Harriet Miers' problem was that she's dumb, and that her main qualification was her ability to take sycophancy to Bush to unimaginable levels (didn't she describe W as the smartest person she knew? Seriously???) I wouldn't want 9 Kagans, but I also wouldn't want 9 Steve Jobs.

Consider that horrible ruling allowing corporations to donate like individuals in political races. Would anyone with business experience - who'd seen the damage crony capitalism and "pay to play" structure do to an otherwise competitive marketplace - go along with such a preposterous ruling? No. But academics, or a political hacks/ideologues, would. It's all theory to those people.

Just stop and think about what you are saying here. For once, stop and think. Do you think someone from the private sector would be more likely to concur or dissent in the decision you are referencing?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you of all people would know.

You, of all people, would not.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You, of all people, would not.

thanks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Um..... the discussion was about an individual being nominated to the Supreme Court. I sort of assumed that implied a person who would have a high level of success whereever she went, and so we were comparing hihg-level partner to at least senior in-house counsel. It's not like Kagan is the Assistant Dean for Student Life at HLS.

Beyond that, well, partner, schmartner. In-house jobs don't pay junior people the way firms do. There may be other benefits, but your "better work in a better place for the same pay" presented one statement that was objectively wrong, and two that are highly arguable.

You didn't this time, but you do all the time. I don't take it personally, but c'mon -- you don't hold people who have pursued legal careers in high regard, or really in any regard. Again, I don't take it personally -- though I obviously regret not doing whatever it is you do that gives you such a joyful outlook on life.....

There are reasons I can think of why having someone on the court with private sector experience would be good. But I have no problem with having someone from an academic background who also has extensive government experience (i.e., Kagan). Harriet Miers' problem was that she's dumb, and that her main qualification was her ability to take sycophancy to Bush to unimaginable levels (didn't she describe W as the smartest person she knew? Seriously???) I wouldn't want 9 Kagans, but I also wouldn't want 9 Steve Jobs.

Just stop and think about what you are saying here. For once, stop and think. Do you think someone from the private sector would be more likely to concur or dissent in the decision you are referencing?

1. What isn't arguable? And I wasn't talking specifically about Kagan there. She is the caveat. Most people don't make partner. And if we want to go one step further, law's trajectory is downward, so even if one does make partner, he can expect less and less in terms of income over coming decades (yes, I know... that also impacts in-house laywers, whose comp will follow a similar trajectory as the skillset devalues).

2. I don't hold any non-litigator in low esteem. My experience with them has generally been pleasant. Litigation, OTOH, is a cesspool practice area most people fall into through bad luck/timing/etc... Those who'd self select into it I consider slightly mad, deluded or foolish. Those who enjoy it? Without a doubt, mentally ill. I mean, come on... To want to fight like that as a living is a sign of supreme toolishness. It's so irrelevant, so silly... If it were the only thing I had in my life, I'd be hard pressed not to kill myself. It pays bills, but if I hadn't a Plan C in the fire - something interesting to do - the depression engendered by toil so insufferable would surely have me at Wal Mart, asking the couterperson, "So the Desert Eagle... That'll blow the spinal column clear out of the back of my head. Never feel a thing, right?"

When my wife and I had more money than we could spend, I still hated my life. I make a lot less now and am rebuilding myself financially, but oddly, I'm finally happy. There's something deeply wrong with people who think the litigation business is anything but terminally dysfunctional, or that being around people in it all day long is enjoyable. It really is the asshole of professional work, and I say that as a guy who's worked on super complex shit and really lowball just-get-the-money stuff. There is no difference. It is never intellectually stimulating... at its best, its a horrific waste of time, money and talent. Worse than Wall Street, which at least sometimes creates something.

3. Agreed. The more I read about her, the more I actually like Kagan. I'd like 4.5 Jobses, 4.5 Kagans.

4. Most private sector people would dissent. It's only the monster corporations who'd concur, as they'd be able to write the checks to buy candidates who'd feed them the regulatory environment and govt contracts with which to consolidate their grasps on the wholes of their chosen markets.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. What isn't arguable? And I wasn't talking specifically about Kagan there. She is the caveat. Most people don't make partner. And if we want to go one step further, law's trajectory is downward, so even if one does make partner, he can expect less and less in terms of income over coming decades (yes, I know... that also impacts in-house laywers, whose comp will follow a similar trajectory as the skillset devalues).

2. I don't hold any non-litigator in low esteem. My experience with them has generally been pleasant. Litigation, OTOH, is a cesspool practice area most people fall into through bad luck/timing/etc... Those who'd self select into it I consider slightly mad, deluded or foolish. Those who enjoy it? Without a doubt, mentally ill. I mean, come on... To want to fight like that as a living is a sign of supreme toolishness. It's so irrelevant, so silly... If it were the only thing I had in my life, I'd be hard pressed not to kill myself. It pays bills, but if I hadn't a Plan C in the fire - something interesting to do - the depression engendered by toil so insufferable would surely have me at Wal Mart, asking the couterperson, "So the Desert Eagle... That'll blow the spinal column clear out of the back of my head. Never feel a thing, right?"

When my wife and I had more money than we could spend, I still hated my life. I make a lot less now and am rebuilding myself financially, but oddly, I'm finally happy. There's something deeply wrong with people who think the litigation business is anything but terminally dysfunctional, or that being around people in it all day long is enjoyable. It really is the asshole of professional work, and I say that as a guy who's worked on super complex shit and really lowball just-get-the-money stuff. There is no difference. It is never intellectually stimulating... at its best, its a horrific waste of time, money and talent. Worse than Wall Street, which at least sometimes creates something.

3. Agreed. The more I read about her, the more I actually like Kagan. I'd like 4.5 Jobses, 4.5 Kagans.

4. Most private sector people would dissent. It's only the monster corporations who'd concur, as they'd be able to write the checks to buy candidates who'd feed them the regulatory environment and govt contracts with which to consolidate their grasps on the wholes of their chosen markets.

actually the biggest tools I've seen are M&A guys. when a litigator is being a dick (in a file, I really don't get the ones who are dicks here) I at least understand the motivation, but the M&A guys I don't understand at all.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

actually the biggest tools I've seen are M&A guys. when a litigator is being a dick (in a file, I really don't get the ones who are dicks here) I at least understand the motivation, but the M&A guys I don't understand at all.

What don't you understand? Isn't it YOUR JOB to understand?!

I think this is part of the problem. You don't understand.

Mr. Client, I think we need to bring the IP work in here. It may cost twice as much, but our guys will understand.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you not see significant differences between Miers and Kagan?

Both Roberts and Kagan had/have resumes which did not shed a lot of light, for the public anyway, about their views. Were Bush and Obama drawn to pick them because their lack of a paper trail would make it easier to get them confirmed? Were they drawn to jobs that would be safe for them as later nominees. I'd like to think not, in either case.

The whole Supreme Court confirmation spectacle is such pointless political theater. Everyone is expecting another Clarence Thomas Show, and it never pans out.

You honestly don't believe that a light paper trail wasn't a plus for both Roberts and kagan's prospects?

Which is not to say that I disagree with you conclusion.