Agreed. Nowhere even near, however much he may make us feel like banging our heads on the wall.
And really, we know this already, our esteemed Bricks is gonna lawyer it up if there’s even the slightest crack in the door open to lawyering it up. As the Geico ads say, it’s what he does.
Our misfortune is not that Bricker is becoming more and more like Trump. It’s that septimus is becoming more and more like septimus, and we already have way too much of that.
Regards,
Shodan
Bricker is nothing like Trump. This thread is ridiculous.
He does get on my nerves sometimes with nitpicking, Socratic methods, and his way of interpreting moral and ethical questions as legal questions. He does a great job, though, answering direct legal hypotheticals and is willing to accept correction and has changed his position on some pretty major things.
septimus is a bigger pain, not just with threads like these, but with his over-the-top sarcastic way of responding to threads elsewhere that, if you didn’t know his background, would seem like a real response. He’s like a Poe’s Law in action.
Someday, I’ll have a pit thread. Maybe if I weren’t so milquetoast.
Since we have the SDMB’s legal advisory guy in here, I’m interested in why he completely avoids the Trump Legal Issues threads populating these forums. You would think he would care to give his opinion on Mueller, pardons, can you subpoena/charge a sitting president, how bad does it look when 1 year of Trump investigation leads to more indictments/pleads of guilt than 25 years of HRC investigations, etc.
But, perhaps, avoidance is probably the best policy. Not much to defend there.
Oh, OK, so you would allow him to express his opinion if he agrees with you, otherwise, no?
Right?
That shit would be a lot easier to take if it weren’t so typically partisan advocacy presented as neutral analysis. His arguments are result-driven; his results are not argument-driven - no doubt his experience made him an effective litigator, but this isn’t that world here. His frustration is extreme at finding people here adamantly refusing to follow High School Debate League rules, as determined by himself as self-appointed referee as well as participant.
Do please note that he *never *takes a side against either the Republican Party or the Roman Catholic Church, no matter how obviously in the wrong they may be. If that requires him, as it so often does in his self-appointed role as pro bono public defender, to engage in legalistic/Jesuitical pettifoggery instead of moral outrage, well, that’s what he’s comfortable doing. Too bad for him it’s so damn obvious.
Naw, not when his avoiding the topic(s) for 18 months could just as easily be interpreted as his understanding there is nothing to defend, ie, “agreement”. After all, the smart lawyer doesn’t defend a client like Donald J Trump and nothing has ever suggested to me that Bricker isn’t smart.
However, the Mueller investigation is the legal case of this decade, possibly one of the most important in modern history. One would think a person tasked as being this Board’s legal expert could lend his opinion to these matters.
Yes it was and no we don’t.
I agree.
And yet Ed refuses to accept and pay my monthly invoices.
But sure, what the heck. What do you want to know?
Eh, feel free to peruse the threads. Or not. But it is odd how much you avoid them, considering your willingness to join many other legal discussions.
Can Trump declare martial law? What if he refuses to leave the White House? What if he cancels state elections? What if he shuts down all the newspapers and other forms of media?
More importantly, if Virginia implemented a state-wide Obamacare-like medical system, would you be okay with it? 
We can’t fairly expect him to opine on each and every case of Republican villainy! That’s like expecting him to pee out a forest fire if we give him free beer!
Wait a minute, … that just sounds wrong to me. This board is for fun. There is no and there should be no obligation to read every thread or join all legal discussions related to Trump to, well, to do … what exactly? To avoid any appearance that he might agree with something (you might consider bad) just because he hasn’t explicitly rejected it? No. This sounds too much like the thought-crime division to me.
Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.
No you have it right. If someone doesn’t denounce something explicitly, then they are 100% for it.
So your guidance is, “Read the entire Board?”
No. But I’m following this thread. If you have a burning desire to know my stance on an issue, ask away.
What is a bricker anyway?
Is your stance wide or narrow?
Our tops are made out of rubber, and our bottoms made out of springs.
Or maybe that’s Tiggers.
After that plaintive complaint from JohnT that I was dodging offering an opinion on myriad legal issues, I have to admit to a bit of surprise that no one them can be reproduced here. Anyone?
post 72 listed a few.