Can we please not use sexism as a fall back excuse for everything?
@Aquaman5K The part that strikes me as odd is the “if she were just a politician, we wouldn’t be objecting” bit. A great number of the serial bullshitters who inhabit the US capitol building and white house are in fact, lawyers.
They do things that are varying degrees of unethical all the damn time.
Maybe the point is that
a) Kellyanne is NOT and elected official and consequently can’t be un-elected by her constituents.
b) She is still registered with the bar and consequently could theoretically represent clients as a lawyer. Presumably lawyers sitting in Congress are not allowed to work as lawyers–otherwise the whole separation of Powers would be pointless. Surely, you can’t at once be part of the Legislative and the Judiciary?
Thus in conclusion this seems a good move.
The only way to defeat this b***rds is to use every legal avenue available to haunt them out of office–relentlessly.
you probably confused Freunde (with an ‘n’)-- meaning friend and Freude as in Schadenfreude meaning joy as in Freude, schöne Götterfunken a la Schiller / Beethoven’s Ode to Joy…
Schade means damage so Schadenfreude means damaged joy or joy damage whichever way you prefer.
Words are fun:)
German words moreso than others.
I have the weirdest nostalgia for the era when the go-to would have been “Maverick” lawyer…
I’m just trying to parse you’re meaning in general. If English is not your first language (and there are plenty of people here who are not native English speakers) try just a little at a time in what you write. It will help us to understand what you’re trying to get across.
Welcome to BB!
I don’t think merely being a lawyer makes you part of the judiciary.
How not? Having independent lawyers is surely key to a functioning judiciary.
That aside, I see a serious conflict of interest if you are at once create legislation and solicit clients to represent them in court. It’s kind of a job creation thing.
reminds me of a classical bash.org - #835030
<Khassaki> HI EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!! <Judge-Mental> try pressing the the Caps Lock key <Khassaki> O THANKS!!! ITS SO MUCH EASIER TO WRITE NOW!!!!!!! <Judge-Mental> fuck me
Well, because the judiciary is judges. Not lawyers.
Lawyers represent plaintiffs or defendants (including the accused, and of course the state can be any of these and the accuser).
Judges represent the law.
Having judges who know and swear to uphold the law is key to a functioning judiciary. Having independent lawyers may be key to the rule of law or the ability to assert (or defend) rights under the law. I’m not certain how concerned a judge needs to be about how independent a lawyer is. In many jurisdictions (I am not an expert on the US) an elected official may be able to also practice as a lawyer, because when wearing that hat they are subject to - for example - their local bar council (or other legal industry regulatory authority and the relevant standards of practice). An observer may question conflict of interest but I do not think having participated in making law prohibits a lawyer from practising. No doubt someone from the BB community with more technical knowledge may be along in a minute to put us both right.
“Well shit, let’s start at the basics. First we have to submit that something must exist, because it’s a logical paradox that nothings exists. And the basic universal building blocks must be based on logic before anything else, right? So OK, presume Something Must Exist. This is sort of “Rule 1.” What is the next piece of logic?”
So, Rule 0 is that nothing exists. This works on so many levels, from binary to holographic… Thank you for sharing!
LOL Yes I actually had written previously in my own notes that Rule 0 is the state of nothingness, or also all possibilities, but nothing existing tangibly in any real way. 
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
