Attorneys and Barristers of the Lounge

[Harp]

My Professor said something very interesting today...

"It's not the truth that matters, it's the truth you can prove."

Opinions or thoughts?

...let your reason serve
To make the truth appear where it seems hid.
And hide the false seems true.

Isabella, V;I

 

[tortswon]

How is it truth if it cannot be proven? Best, Sam

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Well now Brother Sam. That sounds like a question for your rabbi!

 

[Mountain Man]

My hero Horace Rumpole would have quoted Keats "...Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

 

[C-dot]

Interesting points of views, fellas Thank you!

That professor teaches my Evidence Law class. He's a fascinating man.

 

[Harp]

That professor teaches my Evidence Law class. He's a fascinating man.

My One-L Torts professor was a beautiful, elegant, and fascinating woman.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

It always enhances a class when the one behind the podium is a thing of beauty.

Alas...my students are not in that boat!

And C-dot - never abandon truth, or justice or conscience, for the law or anything else. If the law is not the foundation of civil society, then it has lost its purpose. "The salt has lost its saltiness..."

And if I go any further I'll start quoting Keats and sound as much like Rumpole as I'm beginning to look (though I have much better hats!).

 

[Harp]

And if I go any further I'll start quoting Keats...

Please do Ephraim..for here there is no poetry, save what from Heaven
is with the breezes blown, through verdurous glooms and winding mossy ways.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

And C-dot - never abandon truth, or justice or conscience, for the law or anything else. If the law is not the foundation of civil society, then it has lost its purpose. "The salt has lost its saltiness..."

"And happiness, I am sure from having known many successful men, cannot be won simply by being counsel for great corporations and having an income of fifty thousand dollars. An intellect great enough to win the prize needs other food besides success. The remoter and more general aspects of the law are those which give it universal interest. It is through them that you not only become a great master in your calling, but connect your subject with the universe and catch an echo of the infinite, a glimpse of its unfathomable process, a hint of the universal law."

-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

 

[Harp]

"The remoter and more general aspects of the law are those which give it universal interest. It is through them that you not only become a great master in your calling, but connect your subject with the universe and catch an echo of the infinite, a glimpse of its unfathomable process, a hint of the universal law."

-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

"The Law is what the justices say it is."

Charles Evans Hughes

I greatly admire Holmes, but I wonder if the 'Yankee from Olympus' was more Aristotle to Hughes' Plato---must revisit this philosophic dynamic.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

Beware the crits. A contagious cancer that destroys independent legal thought and, in the end, liberty.

 

[Harp]

Roberts Court Landmark

A 5-4 split decision by US Supreme Court in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission
allowing corporate/union political expenditure as legitimate free speech under the First Amendment.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion...well, well.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

We are not supposed to discuss politics here, even in the abstract. However, the Supreme Court being the third branch of our government, it is not possible to discuss some of their decisions without considering their political implications or their place in the governmental soup.

The Supremes scheduled a special session to announce this decision (unheard of), then issued a ground-shaker opinion. The inescapable and obvious conclusion is that they were sending a bright star message to someone. I believe that, in the language the Court uses to communicate to the other branches, they were sending a full tilt boogie message to BOTH of the other branches that there is still a third branch of government and that they WILL defend the constitution. Comment beyond that is probably best left to our private conversations.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I live in northwest Indiana & on the boob tube we get alot (read: all) of the political ads from Chi-town. I have noticed in just the last few days more ads that don't have the phrase "I am so & so & I approve of this message". Could this be becasue of the courts ruling?

 

[Harp]

We are not supposed to discuss politics here, even in the abstract.... Comment beyond that is probably best left to our private conversations.

I respectfully submit that my prior comment regarding the Court's
ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission is appropriate
to this thread, and while certain political issues germane to the case
are obvious, the bench tilt toward conservative construct was focus.

 

[memphislawyer]

Going to NYC March 9th to the 14th as daughter is in a national moot court competition (Wagner Labor and Employment Law) at NYU. I have stayed at the Wellington and the room was nice, clean, but very small. Now, I dont need king's quarters since we spend little time in the room other than sleeping, but I would like something to relax in. A Day's Hotel was nice enough on 8th, but the window units got too loud, so that is out.

Found these:

found Hampton Inns Times North for $169 a night.
Belvedere for $111
Millinium for $184
The Moderne for $153

there is a special on the times 41 or something like that
wellington was like $159 a night
and there was an amsterdam hotel. all were 3 stars or better, so it was at
least equal to wellington. wellington had higher guest satisfaction rating then a few of them they said park central helmsley was not available but another helmsley hotel was new york helmsley near the chysler building for $137 a night.


Any ideas or comments?
Edit/Delete Message

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Interesting points of views, fellas Thank you!

That professor teaches my Evidence Law class. He's a fascinating man.

Ah...memories of Evidence class. All those exceptions to hearsay!

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Going to NYC March 9th to the 14th as daughter is in a national moot court competition (Wagner Labor and Employment Law) at NYU. I have stayed at the Wellington and the room was nice, clean, but very small. Now, I dont need king's quarters since we spend little time in the room other than sleeping, but I would like something to relax in. A Day's Hotel was nice enough on 8th, but the window units got too loud, so that is out.

Found these:

found Hampton Inns Times North for $169 a night.
Belvedere for $111
Millinium for $184
The Moderne for $153

there is a special on the times 41 or something like that
wellington was like $159 a night
and there was an amsterdam hotel. all were 3 stars or better, so it was at
least equal to wellington. wellington had higher guest satisfaction rating then a few of them they said park central helmsley was not available but another helmsley hotel was new york helmsley near the chysler building for $137 a night.


Any ideas or comments?
Edit/Delete Message

Sorry I'm no help to you at all Sam.


But come on you local lawyers - where a decent place to stay in NY??

 

[Edw8ri]

I respectfully submit that my prior comment regarding the Court's
ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission is appropriate
to this thread, and while certain political issues germane to the case
are obvious, the bench tilt toward conservative construct was focus.

I think that any interesting decision of the Supreme Court of the United States can be a subject of discussion. The impact of a decision may have a political demension. This is especially true with decisions involving the First Amendment. But those are among the most important and interesting decisions the Court issues. And it is possible to discuss the decision without making a political argument.

Some decisions have no polictical impact. Consider Byrd v. Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative. Sure, it is important to lawyers, but what a snoozer.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

I respectfully submit that my prior comment regarding the Court's
ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission is appropriate
to this thread, and while certain political issues germane to the case
are obvious, the bench tilt toward conservative construct was focus.

Just checked back in.

Holy smoke, Harp. My comment was not intended to chastise, nor was it directed at you at all, but was simply an offhand comment intended to explain my failure to follow through with my full train of thought, which should nonetheless not be terribly difficult to extrapolate.

One might glean a conservative tilt, in that the case defends corporate political speech. One might also see a fundamental first amendment defense, considered for some strange reason to not be a conservative concern. All depends upon one's point of reference. So, given Roberts' and Kennedy's political leanings that is one perspctive from which to read it. On the other hand, they also read the paper every morning just like us.

Read my earlier post. They scheduled a special session just to issue this opinion. They didn't just toss it out over the transom. Is that just saying something about the importance of this particular case, or is it communicating something else entirely? Were the Supremes sending a message to both of the other branches of government? Some of us heard it, and I dare say, after the state of the union, others did as well, and one branch gave its response to the Supremes that night.

The language of the Supremes. Arcane as it gets, and I'm not even a S Ct follower. Question is, is it so subtle, even in its most obvious, that now few even hear it? And the next question is the one I may not ask here. Perhaps as masters of language, as experts in the use of the million-dollar comma, we may speak without saying? Communicate without the words?