Hey Fat Bald Guy!

[dnooman]

I’ll try.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Otto

Here’s one of them. Particularly egregious since the correct answer was given, by an actual lawyer, well before FBG chimed in off-key. Had FBG taken the time to actually read the thread before spouting off…but alas that would appear to be too much to hope for.

I don’t see the problem with FBG’s reply. As far as I know, his point seemed valid to me, and worth mentioning in view of the OP. The way I see it, the OP said, "How can they take away my roomate’s driver’s license without a trial, and FBG merely reminded us that driving is a privilege granted by the government, and not an inalienable right, and hence not subject to the same protections. If the issue is simply that the “IANA” crowd should shut up once real experts have come in, well, I really don’t think we need to be that strict here.

[Dante]

@Mockingbird

[Fudd Singing]

Oh, Bwunhilda, you’re so wuvley…

[/Fudd Singing]

And now I’m explaining to my boss why an insurance policy I’m supposedly reviewing is so hilarious…

Carry on.

[pravnik]

@ParentalAdvisory

Agreed, pointless rant. The statement made by FBG is not false. I believe he’s saying, (and IANAPGAP *) if it’s ripped up before signing, it’s basically voided (obviously). But if it’s ripped up after signing, as noted in that thread already, it has been recorded by the court house. There for, it still stands. Funny and factual.
*I am not a pretentious grammatical asshole professional.

Except, as a lawyer also pointed out in that thread, premarital agreements aren’t filed or recorded anywhere.

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

I don’t see the problem with FBG’s reply. As far as I know, his point seemed valid to me, and worth mentioning in view of the OP. The way I see it, the OP said, "How can they take away my roomate’s driver’s license without a trial, and FBG merely reminded us that driving is a privilege granted by the government, and not an inalienable right, and hence not subject to the same protections. If the issue is simply that the “IANA” crowd should shut up once real experts have come in, well, I really don’t think we need to be that strict here.

He stated that constitutional due process does not apply to driver’s license revocation hearings, and that you have no proerty interest in your driver’s license. Nothing against FBG personally, but that’s just plain factually incorrect and bad law. You do have a property interest in your driver’s license such that its suspension implicates the procedural arm of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979).

I don’t have any problem with WAG’s or AFAIK answers when identified as such, and I understand that sometimes you think you know the answer to something and turn out to be mistaken. If someone is incorrect I’ll try to point it out as gently as possible, same as I would want done to me when I am. However, I can understand Bricker’s increasing frustration when bad law is continually passed off as fact in GQ both before and after a correct answer has been posted. It kind of makes you want to throw up your hands and say “geez, why do I bother?”