# Bricker, you are not a law professor **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 17, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930 "2009-11-17T17:24:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/1 "2009-11-17T17:24:04Z")
The [Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic](http://boardstest.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=539655) took on a hijack, and rather than paste a lengthly reply there I thought it more appropriate to spin it off here. It’s not a pitting per se (it was originally written for GD), but I believe this is the right forum to directly address other posters. My apologies that this is a biased and ill-written summary — corrections are welcome: The OP was about a civilian who was arrested and charged with impersonating a soldier. The law covers impersonating a soldier, claiming to have been a soldier, and claiming to have won a medal (all false claims). Aside from universally calling the person a douchebag (I believe it actually started in IMHO), a debate evolved over the relation between the law and the First Amendment. Then the genesis for this thread occurred (again, corrections welcome). In a familiar move, **Bricker** started playing law professor to correct a poster with a semantic argument generally irrelevant to the specific topic being discussed. > [@Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/95): > > > [@Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/95): > > > > Actually, it is your statements in this thread that show a lack of respect for those who have demonstrated valor and/or have been injured or killed in service to our country. You are taking the very rights that those people fought and died to protect and flushing them down the toilet by banning speech you find distasteful. > > > > Also, the arguments you have advanced in this thread are so unbelievably bad, I almost think you are being intentionally obtuse. > > > [@Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/102): > > > > But you’re not the one who gets to decide what those rights are. > > > > As it happens, we have a system to do that. You can CLAIM the Constitution protects the right to impersonate a member of the armed forces or wear military medals you didn’t earn, but Congress doesn’t agree with you, and neither did the federal court that has considered the issue. > > > > So what’s your basis for asserting that this law violates the Constitution? Unless the Predsident has appointed you to a federal bench somewhere, I don’t see why we would take your interpretation as the right one, and the actual Congress of the United States and an actual federal district judge’s as the wrong ones. Which set off the hijack. I got dragged into it, and there was a lot of back-and-forth among myself, Bricker and other posters. Here is where my reply originally written for GD began (again, my apologies if I cast this unfairly, as I said I originally wrote this as part of that thread and wasn’t thinking I’d be synopsizing it.): > [@Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/168): > > > [@Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/167): > > > > Jesus effing Christ, Bricker. You are aware, aren’t you, that not everybody else in the world is a lawyer, right? And that sometimes, we unenlightened, moronic peons like to have conversations without some arrogant self-important _law school graduate_ (oooooooooo…) scrutinizing our posts so you can gleefully pounce upon an instance of someone saying “does” instead of “should” so you can derail the thread into a semantic train wreck dedicated to your awesome brain power? Do you have any non-lawyer friends? What do they think of your ridiculously annoying habit of doing shit like this? How can you ever get through any kind of discussion with anybody? When you’re with a girl (or boy, whatever waives your flag) and they tell you to take off your clothes do you argue with them for 45 minutes over the precise definition of “remove”? Lighten the fuck up or go find a messageboard for lawyers where they appreciate this kind of bullshit. > > I know this will come as a great shock to you, but when the discussion is about what the law is, there’s actually some value in discussing what the law is. I can only imagine your ire at a discussion about atomic fusion being derailed by some scientist who criticizes the participants for saying _molecules_ when atoms are at issue, or a discussion about football halted by the foolish insistence that field goals not be confused with touchdowns. Mock him/her all you want, **Bricker** but the thing is your shenanigans are that much more apparent to those of us _with_ legal training. We’ve been 1Ls, where demands for exactitude have a pedagogical reason — definitionally, practically, and conceptually. But there was a difference between questions in class or office hours and relatively casual conversations over dinner or elsewhere. Professors weren’t there to feed their egos. And we’ve been 2Ls, 3Ls, and practitioners, and shifted focus, reframed parameters, and a host of other manoeuvres for practical and good ends. It’s the nature of the adversarial system. But during that time we also learned to manage our social lives, and recognize the difference between situations. We learned, for example, to recognize that hyper-specificity is very important in contractual settings and disputes, but not in disputes about who does more housework on the weekend. We learned to understand what someone is saying, despite knowing that there are several other interpretations, and learned not to jump on one that is least favorable. It’s a silly little game and hiding behind a slogan. There is ample ground for extreme specificity — a thread parsing out what how the Second Amendment relates to militias, or whether torture is punishment, for example. But reflexively hijacking threads just to play law professor is a transparent sop to your ego, not fighting ignorance. > [@Briker](#): > > No. No, no, no. Not on a messageboard dedicated to fighting ignorance when the mistake is germane to the discussion. But this isn’t GQ and the should/does distinction was not germane until you put on your professor costume and started the hijack. You’re \*\*not \*\*a scientist correcting terminology. You’re not popping in to say “Molecules are not atoms,” and then continuing the discussion. Rather, it’s like derailing discussions with arguments about Leibniz and proper credit in a discussion of orbital mechanics. What’s really funny is that you also claimed that this derailment — this derailment that has you championing specificity — started with you answering a question about who made a “should” or “does” argument and then dragging me in for some schooling. But consider the exchange: > [@Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/126): > > > [@Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/125): > > > > Well, i can’t speak for anyone else, but i don’t think i’ve ever claimed that it does. > > > > Every single argument i’ve been making in this thread, as far as i can remember, has been a “should” argument. > > Agreed. > > I was thinking more of this: > > > [@Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/53): > > > > Wow, that’s a fucked up law. > > > > “Let’s honor those who fought and died protecting the Constitution by wiping our asses with it!” > > > > “But hey, at least we got to send some douche-bag to jail for deprecating our soldiers. They’re tough as nails on the battlefield, but are such extreme emotional pussies that they need our help!” > > > > Yeah, douche-bag douche-bag douche-bag, gotcha. But _criminal_ douche-baggery? > > > > Anyone know if this piece of shit law has passed an Appeals court? I’d love to read the opinion. This really reveals the extreme bullshit of casting this as a case of **Bricker** innocently fighting ignorance. Notice that the post you quoted _ **ended with a question about whether the law passed an Appellate Court** _. Which is why I poked fun at you in my response. Playing the coulda woulda shoulda game just means that no one can say that the Constitution permits or denies _anything_, because the Court changes, because no two fact patterns are identical, etc. It’s fun to learn about law and language, but tedious when used to shit in a thread. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/2 "2009-11-17T17:36:56Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Mock him/her all you want, **Bricker** but the thing is your shenanigans are that much more apparent to those of us _with_ legal training. You are aware that **Bricker** is a lawyer, right? And thus, has “legal training” himself? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/3 "2009-11-17T17:42:57Z")
Objection, the witness hasn’t been sufficiently qualified as an expert. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/4 "2009-11-17T17:46:54Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > You are aware that **Bricker** is a lawyer, right? And thus, has “legal training” himself? Well, yeah, that’s kind of the point he’s making: **Bricker** might be able to snow us laymen, but others with legal training can more easily see that **Bricker** is dicking around. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/5 "2009-11-17T17:48:57Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > It’s fun to learn about law and language, but tedious when used to shit in a thread. So tell me this. We’re in GD. Poster makes a claim that the law against mopery is violative of the First Amendment. It’s not a side issue. It’s right on point to the thread. And the prevailing statute and case law says otherwise – it holds that mopery may be criminalized without offending the First Amendment. But in your view, I should not use that piece of information to counter that poster’s point in debate, because it’s hyper-specific? Or are you saying I just chose a particularly assholish way of presenting it? Or something else? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/6 "2009-11-17T17:54:23Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Well, yeah, that’s kind of the point he’s making: **Bricker** might be able to snow us laymen, but others with legal training can more easily see that **Bricker** is dicking around. I see. (But then, I’m not a lawyer. 😉 So I was snowed.) :o ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/7 "2009-11-17T17:54:34Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > You are aware that **Bricker** is a lawyer, right? And thus, has “legal training” himself? Yes. This is a reflection of a quick summary that didn’t capture everything, and of converting an in-thread GD post to a standalone OP here. There was an exchange between Bricker and others that I believe started with **DCMS’s** “You are aware, aren’t you, that not everybody else in the world is a lawyer, right?” (It’s in the quote above). Furthermore, my point of the quote you posted was that not only is his schtick apparent to non-lawyers, it’s that much more so to those who have been through it before under a different setting. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/8 "2009-11-17T17:54:37Z")
[Aside] The Google ad in my view of this thread is for Scientology - has this happened before?! [/Aside] ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/9 "2009-11-17T17:56:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So tell me this. We’re in GD. Objection: thread was in MPSIMS when you started throwing legal wankery to the simple opinion that “the unauthorized wearing of military medals should not be a criminal offense.” **mhendo** expressed an opinion, you had to go all Westlaw on him. I’ve defended you before, **Bricker** , but this one reeked of “I’m a (former) lawyer, me.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/10 "2009-11-17T17:59:21Z")
Missed the edit window: > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > But this isn’t GQ and the should/does distinction was not germane until you put on your professor costume and started the hijack. You’re \*\*not \*\*a scientist correcting terminology. You’re not popping in to say “Molecules are not atoms,” and then continuing the discussion. Rather, it’s like derailing discussions with arguments about Leibniz and proper credit in a discussion of orbital mechanics. How is it not germane?? Guy says, " In any event, where in your copy of the Constitution does it protect the right to defraud people?" You reply, “I have one of those shiny Constitutions with the First Amendment intact. . . . But if you want to continue to defame the Constitution by criminalizing speech, understand that that’s more repugnant than flag burning, and far more insulting to the honor of those who served to protect the Constitution.” So while my insult is to put something snarky here, I’ll just ask openly and honestly: how do you figure that what the caselaw actually says here is not germane to this exchange? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/11 "2009-11-17T18:01:54Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > Objection: thread was in MPSIMS when you started throwing legal wankery to the simple opinion that “the unauthorized wearing of military medals should not be a criminal offense.” > > **mhendo** expressed an opinion, you had to go all Westlaw on him. I’ve defended you before, **Bricker** , but this one reeked of “I’m a (former) lawyer, me.” Well… that’s a fair point. My response was out of line for MPSIMS. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/12 "2009-11-17T18:02:47Z")
**Bricker** , a simple question to you then: is it _ever_ permissible _in any thread, anywhere on the SDMB_ to post that a law “should not” be on the books? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/13 "2009-11-17T18:06:07Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > **Bricker** , a simple question to you then: is it _ever_ permissible _in any thread, anywhere on the SDMB_ to post that a law “should not” be on the books? Of course. Anywhere. What I had a problem with in the thread under discussion was the claim that the law DID violate the First Amendment. A claim that it SHOULD BE CONSIDERED as violative of the First Amendment, I have no heartburn with. A claim that the law SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PASSED, I’m fine with. And as I already acknowledged, in MPSIMS or IMHO I should not have even jumped on the former. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/14 "2009-11-17T18:07:38Z")
And sorry for missing the edit window on my reply; I had not seen yours. _Mea maxima culpa_, as either a lawyer or a former ecclesiastical historian might say. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/15 "2009-11-17T18:24:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So tell me this. We’re in GD. Poster makes a claim that the law against mopery is violative of the First Amendment. It’s not a side issue. It’s right on point to the thread. > > And the prevailing statute and case law says otherwise – it holds that mopery may be criminalized without offending the First Amendment. > > But in your view, I should not use that piece of information to counter that poster’s point in debate, because it’s hyper-specific? > > Or are you saying I just chose a particularly assholish way of presenting it? > > Or something else? [aside]I, by the way, fully recognize the inherent dickishnish to starting a pit thread and not being able to keep up with it as I should. I generally only have time for one well thought out (or half thought out) post per day or so, so my replies will be sparser than they should. Again, I start out thinking Pit thread, but the GD post got too long so I cleaved this off here.[/aside] I think it’s conceit. I think that injecting semantics regarding should/does unnecessarily hijacks the thread merely to showcase technical correctness. Whether or not **DCMS** , I, or anyone properly phrased the opening of their response does not speak to the merits of the response. It’s proper and correct to ding a Jeopardy! contestant for failing to answer with a question, and even proper to do so during the Home Version of the Game. But in discussing the answer itself, whether or not it started with a question has no bearing on the answer part of the answer. It’s proper, correct, and relevant to argue --and win-- on standing in a Pledge of Allegiance case. But if people are having a general discussion about the case’s merits, that subtle side issue, though procedurally dispositive, is not germane. Have you really lost the ability to tell the difference between semantical issues and issues on the merits? ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/16 "2009-11-17T18:32:29Z")
Lawyers do battle in the pit! It’s like watching sharks at feeding time. When Lawyers attack… NEXT ON FOX! ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/17 "2009-11-17T18:34:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Missed the edit window: > > How is it not germane?? > > Guy says, " In any event, where in your copy of the Constitution does it protect the right to defraud people?" > > You reply, “I have one of those shiny Constitutions with the First Amendment intact. . . . But if you want to continue to defame the Constitution by criminalizing speech, understand that that’s more repugnant than flag burning, and far more insulting to the honor of those who served to protect the Constitution.” > > So while my insult is to put something snarky here, I’ll just ask openly and honestly: how do you figure that what the caselaw actually says here is not germane to this exchange? Had you stuck with questions of Constitutionality, we could make Constitution and eggs if we some had eggs. This is somewhat illustrative of the question of whether you have lost the ability to tell when you’re playing like a lawyer. You ostensibly have the reading comprehension skills to see that the point of this thread, and the main thrust of the many replies to your hijack (including your own replies) had nothing to do with whether the law was Constitutional or not. You shit on DCMS and others for failing to use the proper could/should/does form. You called him/her out for not being appointed to the judiciary, blah blah blah. That was the sidetrack. That was what I was replying to when I instead put it here. Now you’re trying to shift to “but I was talking about case law.” ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/18 "2009-11-17T18:48:46Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > Lawyers do battle in the pit! It’s a billing nightmare!! ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/19 "2009-11-17T18:53:25Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > Lawyers do battle in the pit! > > It’s like watching sharks at feeding time. > > When Lawyers attack.. NEXT ON FOX! Can we get Dick Cheney to ref? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930/20 "2009-11-17T18:53:29Z")
It’s called pettifogging. It means throwing up small clouds of bullshit to confuse the issue. Real lawyers don’t make a practice of it. I suspect that this tendency of Bricker’s is why he does not actually practice law. Try it in the real world and you lose your credibility very quickly. Try it on the SDMB and you can get a few morons to think you are making a real point. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-you-are-not-a-law-professor/517930.md?page=2)