ExiledInIllinois Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Dumped as in rejected whe trying to get insurance. Not dumped as in losing insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I didn't mean it's bad law as in it has been overturned, I meant that the ruling was wrong to begin with. The reason no SC has overturned it doesn't mean much. It can largely be chalked up to stare decisis, but more accurately because the court prefers to distinguish whenever possible. Hell, Plessy's still good law according to this definition. And the question of increments is irrelevant. The question has to do with whether the commerce is in its nature interstate commerce regardless of volume. The ruling itself is absurd. If anything that "significantly" affects interstate commerce in the aggregate is within the scope of Congress' regulatory power it renders a good portion of article 1 sec 8 superfluous. Again, you can argue that you prefer the direction they took because you prefer centralized control or other reasons, but you can't honestly argue that the ruling was consistent with the text. Missed this one... I'm second fiddle on a pretty fun products liability case that I believe has some wheels. Right when it seemed as if it was going really smoothly.... it was 1332'd out of state; then we had to find competent pro hac; then we had to abandon said pro hac as he was newly minted in TN on comity (but hadn't been sworn in) so they wouldn't let him convey (never use Craigslist to solicit local counsel); then we had to fly to TN to meet with a firm that charged a small fortune just to pro hac (basically they're just sitting there, researching and writing notes [about their own cases undoubtedly], observing the out-of-staters for F ups, and advising about what judge tolerates what style)... Now we're waiting on responses so there is some time to relax. I should have PM'd this all to you but I was on a roll and I haven't slept in almost 30 hours. Hey, are you interning this summer? If so, kick me a PM let me know how it's going... Back to Wickard: Article I, Section 8, clause 3 allows Congress to - "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Filburn growing excess wheat affected the flow of commerce because he wasn't buying it on the open market. If he wasn't producing it in over-abundance, he'd be purchasing on the open market it for his own personal consumption. His usage has a trivial affect, but an affect just the same. The language is (probably intentionally) open-ended and doesn't provide much in the way of guidance around application or constraint. With that said, as articulated, the ruling is techincally correct. a. Congress is obliged to regulate commerce. b. Filburn's personal use of a regulated commodity affected commerce (notwithstanding the degree of substantialness). c. Therefore Filburn's personal production can be curtailed. That the production of wheat for personal use may be trivial does not remove it from the scope of federal regulation - especially when, if made permissible amongst individual growers, the aggregate effect of that behavior would result in a substantial affect on commerce. I think your concern (a valid one) portends the federalism dilemma - e.g. to what extent can the national entity encroach upon the state, the municipality, and the individual to exert supreme authority over very local activities. Fair enough. But that is a political debate. And if those politics rule the day, an amendment needs to be forthcoming. As it stands now, Filburn's actions still exist within the purview of I,8,3 when the language is read plainly and without interpretation. And yes, I do feel that there is a role for a strong centralized government. That national preeminence has effectuated that which the states were too chicken **** or too uncoordinated to do themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Missed this one... I'm second fiddle on a pretty fun products liability case that I believe has some wheels. Right when it seemed as if it was going really smoothly.... it was 1332'd out of state; then we had to find competent pro hac; then we had to abandon said pro hac as he was newly minted in TN on comity (but hadn't been sworn in) so they wouldn't let him convey (never use Craigslist to solicit local counsel); then we had to fly to TN to meet with a firm that charged a small fortune just to pro hac (basically they're just sitting there, researching and writing notes [about their own cases undoubtedly], observing the out-of-staters for F ups, and advising about what judge tolerates what style)... Now we're waiting on responses so there is some time to relax. I should have PM'd this all to you but I was on a roll and I haven't slept in almost 30 hours. Hey, are you interning this summer? If so, kick me a PM let me know how it's going... Back to Wickard: Article I, Section 8, clause 3 allows Congress to - "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Filburn growing excess wheat affected the flow of commerce because he wasn't buying it on the open market. If he wasn't producing it in over-abundance, he'd be purchasing on the open market it for his own personal consumption. His usage has a trivial affect, but an affect just the same. The language is (probably intentionally) open-ended and doesn't provide much in the way of guidance around application or constraint. With that said, as articulated, the ruling is techincally correct. a. Congress is obliged to regulate commerce. b. Filburn's personal use of a regulated commodity affected commerce (notwithstanding the degree of substantialness). c. Therefore Filburn's personal production can be curtailed. That the production of wheat for personal use may be trivial does not remove it from the scope of federal regulation - especially when, if made permissible amongst individual growers, the aggregate effect of that behavior would result in a substantial affect on commerce. I think your concern (a valid one) portends the federalism dilemma - e.g. to what extent can the national entity encroach upon the state, the municipality, and the individual to exert supreme authority over very local activities. Fair enough. But that is a political debate. And if those politics rule the day, an amendment needs to be forthcoming. As it stands now, Filburn's actions still exist within the purview of I,8,3 when the language is read plainly and without interpretation. And yes, I do feel that there is a role for a strong centralized government. That national preeminence has effectuated that which the states were too chicken **** or too uncoordinated to do themselves. No internship this year, I need to maintain a cash flow. Hope I don't regret that decision. As far as the case goes, the key to all of this is that the bolded section only empowers congress to regulate commerce. No mention is made of activity that might have an indirect effect on the commerce to be regulated. They're essentially regulating abstention from commerce. It doesn't seem so controversial to us now, but for the roughly 150 years preceding these decisions the text was well understood to include only commerce. At this point it's academic because no court will or can side with logic & reason over a SC decision. My point is simply that the court usurped the constitution and essentially wrote a transformative amendment into the constitution without going through the proper channels. BTW, do you like your new gig better than your last? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The premise of this thread is absolutely moronic- I would use another word, but it is trademarked by one of our moderators The neocons are so up in arms with John Roberts decision that I guess they would like him removed and have President Obama name a replacement. I am sure they would be very happy with that. Second- it isn't a tax or a penalty. For arguments sake, lets just call it enhanced interrogation techniques, since what you call something overrides what it actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The premise of this thread is absolutely moronic- I would use another word, but it is trademarked by one of our moderators The neocons are so up in arms with John Roberts decision that I guess they would like him removed and have President Obama name a replacement. I am sure they would be very happy with that. Second- it isn't a tax or a penalty. For arguments sake, lets just call it enhanced interrogation techniques, since what you call something overrides what it actually is. What moderator has a trademarked word or phrase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 What moderator has a trademarked word or phrase? Well- I won't tell you that you're an idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well- I won't tell you that you're an idiot! Did the longest serving private get promoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Did the longest serving private get promoted? Let's not talk about privates! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Let's not talk about privates! Embarrassed to talk about privates or embarrassed by your presumption? There were plenty of guys here yesterday that wanted to talk about my pecker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Embarrassed to talk about privates or embarrassed by your presumption? There were plenty of guys here yesterday that wanted to talk about my pecker! Lack thereof, I believe. Well- I won't tell you that you're an idiot! I'm not a moderator, you !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 If Tom were a mod, then the only person posting would be him, because "being an idiot" would be a ban-able offense. And, of course, Tom is the arbiter of all that is idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 If Tom were a mod, then the only person posting would be him, because "being an idiot" would be a ban-able offense. And, of course, Tom is the arbiter of all that is idiot. He's PPP's idiot judge. Take that any way you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 If Tom were a mod, then the only person posting would be him, because "being an idiot" would be a ban-able offense. And, of course, Tom is the arbiter of all that is idiot. Now how the hell could I be the arbiter of all that is idiot when I banned all the idiots? Think before you post, you idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 BTW, do you like your new gig better than your last? Yep, I do. Politics sucked because you're mainly dealing with a bunch of dolts who are convinced that one thing is so right and the other is so wrong ipso facto. It's fun arguing within the penumbras again - where nuance matters and can determine the outcome. Opening our own practice is taxing though. We're all a bunch of thirty-somethings who have very little big lit experience. We're re-fueling with Wendy's and using Georgetown/American/George Mason law library a lot . We can't afford big time case research subscriptions so we're relying on the free ones provided by our state ba (thank you LexisOne and Fastcase). My buddy Rodney is convinced that if we screw up, using free case search services is our ticket to being on the wrong side of a malpractice action. He may be right. We rent office space by the hour, have "no contract" phones for client calls, and use Rodney's basement for trial prep and strategy sessions (thanks to his very considerate wife). We have about $11,000 in capital left so we're desperately hoping that one of these cases settle. If not, we'll be making capital investment sacrifices (buh bye Mustang). It's pretty Bohemian to be honest bro. As I type this, I realize that I haven't slept in almost two days and I'm trying to figure out how to tell my fiance that I'm going to have to postpone the April wedding for a second time. She'll probably move in with her sister again which I'm too tired to be upset about because it means that I'll have a day or so to sleep before having the "are you serious about us" conversation once she gets back from whatever night out her friends take her on to show her that she can do better and I'll always prioritize my job over her. Most importantly, we have good health, and wonderful blessings, and ambition. Our spouses/fiances are supportive and haven't committed adultery yet. My doberman still loves me. Thankfully we have clients and cases and overtures from defense counsel about preliminary settlement numbers in a fairly significant case. We figure that once we make it through this year and next, we'll be good. I'll keep you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Yep, I do. Politics sucked because you're mainly dealing with a bunch of dolts who are convinced that one thing is so right and the other is so wrong ipso facto. It's fun arguing within the penumbras again - where nuance matters and can determine the outcome. Opening our own practice is taxing though. We're all a bunch of thirty-somethings who have very little big lit experience. We're re-fueling with Wendy's and using Georgetown/American/George Mason law library a lot . We can't afford big time case research subscriptions so we're relying on the free ones provided by our state ba (thank you LexisOne and Fastcase). My buddy Rodney is convinced that if we screw up, using free case search services is our ticket to being on the wrong side of a malpractice action. He may be right. We rent office space by the hour, have "no contract" phones for client calls, and use Rodney's basement for trial prep and strategy sessions (thanks to his very considerate wife). We have about $11,000 in capital left so we're desperately hoping that one of these cases settle. If not, we'll be making capital investment sacrifices (buh bye Mustang). It's pretty Bohemian to be honest bro. As I type this, I realize that I haven't slept in almost two days and I'm trying to figure out how to tell my fiance that I'm going to have to postpone the April wedding for a second time. She'll probably move in with her sister again which I'm too tired to be upset about because it means that I'll have a day or so to sleep before having the "are you serious about us" conversation once she gets back from whatever night out her friends take her on to show her that she can do better and I'll always prioritize my job over her. Most importantly, we have good health, and wonderful blessings, and ambition. Our spouses/fiances are supportive and haven't committed adultery yet. My doberman still loves me. Thankfully we have clients and cases and overtures from defense counsel about preliminary settlement numbers in a fairly significant case. We figure that once we make it through this year and next, we'll be good. I'll keep you posted. Just remember: you don't have to work hard, because the road crews do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Yep, I do. Politics sucked because you're mainly dealing with a bunch of dolts who are convinced that one thing is so right and the other is so wrong ipso facto. It's fun arguing within the penumbras again - where nuance matters and can determine the outcome. Opening our own practice is taxing though. We're all a bunch of thirty-somethings who have very little big lit experience. We're re-fueling with Wendy's and using Georgetown/American/George Mason law library a lot . We can't afford big time case research subscriptions so we're relying on the free ones provided by our state ba (thank you LexisOne and Fastcase). My buddy Rodney is convinced that if we screw up, using free case search services is our ticket to being on the wrong side of a malpractice action. He may be right. We rent office space by the hour, have "no contract" phones for client calls, and use Rodney's basement for trial prep and strategy sessions (thanks to his very considerate wife). We have about $11,000 in capital left so we're desperately hoping that one of these cases settle. If not, we'll be making capital investment sacrifices (buh bye Mustang). It's pretty Bohemian to be honest bro. As I type this, I realize that I haven't slept in almost two days and I'm trying to figure out how to tell my fiance that I'm going to have to postpone the April wedding for a second time. She'll probably move in with her sister again which I'm too tired to be upset about because it means that I'll have a day or so to sleep before having the "are you serious about us" conversation once she gets back from whatever night out her friends take her on to show her that she can do better and I'll always prioritize my job over her. Most importantly, we have good health, and wonderful blessings, and ambition. Our spouses/fiances are supportive and haven't committed adultery yet. My doberman still loves me. Thankfully we have clients and cases and overtures from defense counsel about preliminary settlement numbers in a fairly significant case. We figure that once we make it through this year and next, we'll be good. I'll keep you posted. Wow, sounds like you guys went all in. I hope that works out for you. One of my best friends decided to start a restaurant a few years back. All he had was a job waiting tables and no capital. He found his location, signed a lease and lived in a tool shed in the back for a year scraping together the funds to put the place together piece by piece and get his various licenses one at a time. He finally brought on a partner (gave him 49% for a $7k capital investment) and they spent the next six months in the restaurant 7 days a week staring at an empty window. It's 2 1/2 years later and heir profit for last month after taking their salaries was $27k. You'll get there, sometimes you just have to wade through a mountain of snow to get to the cabin. But man it's nice when you get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Just remember: you don't have to work hard, because the road crews do. They do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Wow, sounds like you guys went all in. I hope that works out for you. One of my best friends decided to start a restaurant a few years back. All he had was a job waiting tables and no capital. He found his location, signed a lease and lived in a tool shed in the back for a year scraping together the funds to put the place together piece by piece and get his various licenses one at a time. He finally brought on a partner (gave him 49% for a $7k capital investment) and they spent the next six months in the restaurant 7 days a week staring at an empty window. It's 2 1/2 years later and heir profit for last month after taking their salaries was $27k. You'll get there, sometimes you just have to wade through a mountain of snow to get to the cabin. But man it's nice when you get there. Old adage: It takes 3 years to start making money on a new business venture. The first year is spent trying to figure out what you're doing. The second year is spent figuring out how to make money on what it is you're doing. And the third year is where it all comes together if you've done the first two years correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Just remember: you don't have to work hard, because the road crews do. Is this simpler than what I'm making it? I keep repeating this to myself and can't quite grasp what it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Wow, sounds like you guys went all in. I hope that works out for you. One of my best friends decided to start a restaurant a few years back. All he had was a job waiting tables and no capital. He found his location, signed a lease and lived in a tool shed in the back for a year scraping together the funds to put the place together piece by piece and get his various licenses one at a time. He finally brought on a partner (gave him 49% for a $7k capital investment) and they spent the next six months in the restaurant 7 days a week staring at an empty window. It's 2 1/2 years later and heir profit for last month after taking their salaries was $27k. You'll get there, sometimes you just have to wade through a mountain of snow to get to the cabin. But man it's nice when you get there. Good story. I hope that things continue to go well for him. A buddy of mine has a successful cleaning business going. I saw what he went through. The difference is, he was able to get things going with suprisingly little capital investment. He didn't sleep much, but he was never on the verge of going into the red. For the first few years, his only costs were travel and supplies. He started out cleaning a local motel 6 and fast food franchises. He wasn't even bonded or insured. In 2010 when he had grown 5 fold, he began bidding for work and therefore needed to be bonded and insured. Up until then, almost 60% of what he was making was profit. Our issue is being judicious with the little capital that we do have and not borrowing to fund this thing. We also began accepting new business in order to fund the basic business creation things in the future(brick and mortar office space, admin staff, etc.) Everyone told us not to do it that way. We did it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts