His postings now in the thread about New Zealand’s smoking ban really show he cannot be an actual lawyer.
Really? I mean, I didn’t necessarily agree with all or maybe even any of his points, but I didn’t see him taking a particularly unreasonable/pit-worthy position in that thread. What particular statement did you find objectionable?
I don’t see any problem with what he’s arguing, either. He’s not going all libertarian or anything. He’s just suggesting a different roll-off plan for everyone. I’d argue he’s brought up valid things to consider about this, even if I side with the idea that it’s better to try a plan that people may support than try to find a perfect plan.
Do we have confirmation that he really is an attorney? I’m dealing with him on what is a public place and his retorts are so full of strawmen it is ridiculous. His self-proclaimed definition changes every post to address the problems with the last one. I’m not an attorney yet I seem to be more familiar with the case law than he is.
If his briefs or pleadings or whatever they’re called were written the same way he argues here, I’m sure the judge would laugh and wipe his ass with them - thus improving their quality. I can’t believe that as a an attorney he’s ever won a case.
He considers it a win if his client gets the maximum sentence and no more.
“My last client served less than a year…(before his execution).”
Does seem to have some knowledge I’d expect from an attorney.
I’ve always chalked it up to 2 things: (1) there’s a lot of different areas of the law and UV is definitely not an expert at most of them or perhaps any of them. I always figured ambulance chaser or somebody who got people off speeding tickets. (2) the person who graduates last from Directional Coastal Law School and can pass the state bar just once (perhaps 40 years ago) still gets to call themselves a practicing lawyer.
He didn’t pass that long ago – I think he told us here when he passed the bar.
Anyway, he has done a good job in some legal threads discussing the law – for example, the awful Texas abortion law – he’s anti-abortion, but did a good job laying out why that law was still terrible.
I agree he’s not great at debate, but lots of lawyer jobs aren’t debate clubs. If he’s a defense lawyer for minor crimes, for example, he probably spends most of his time working on plea deals. That’s really how lots of criminal law gets done.
Then k9bfriender is probably wrong.
UV: The crime has a term of 5-10 with parole eligibility in 3. I’m willing to offer 20 with no parole for my client.
So, a question for the lawyer type Straight Dopers…
In this thread about school prayer, is UltraVires’ discussion of the law re SOCAS correct?
@Monty Well, looks like he’s criticizing the case law, so he’s necessarily saying things the law doesn’t agree with. But he hasn’t said that the law says anything it doesn’t say, if that’s what you mean. Just offered opinions about it that are, you know, his kind of opinion.
He’s definitely a lawyer. It is heartening to see resistance to the idea that an absolute nitwit can be one; alas. Most lawyers are idiots, and sound like idiots, as soon as they (we) leave our narrow field of practice.
I don’t think he’s wrong in that thread. He’s staking out a position that, if SCOTUS allows that, how can they disallow prayer in school. Some people are misinterpreting that to see it has his position or something, but he has been pretty clear to me.
I think his main problem is that he gets a bit Dunning-Kruger in areas of law he doesn’t know. But he’s been doing a lot less of that since his introspection after the sixth (and his giving up on supporting Trump in any way). He’s given some good information since then in some threads, when he doesn’t act like he knows it all anymore.
Is it that or is it that for some topics he confuses what that law is for what he wants it to be?
His comments in the thread are pretty much in line with anyone who has shown even the slightest interest in Establishment Clause jurisprudence: that it’s a mess. Criticizing the Supreme Court’s handling of Establishment Clause cases is up (down?) there with criticizing the Dred Scott decision. Plenty of dead salmon in that cask.
Yeah, I think he’s doing fine there, but I’m not a lawyer. I think his posting style and content has improved tremendously since this thread was started.
I agree with this, to my own surprise.
Sometimes people get Pitted and then get better and become reasonable posters, ruining those Pit threads.
Fucking assholes. 
Yeah, Qin Shi Huang got a few pits, then got better. Hasn’t posted since 2019, though, which, since he’d be of college age now, is perfectly understandable.
Actually, he’s turning 26 this year (like my daughter, who went to HS in the same school district. Not the same school, though). I understood him to have announced his plans to attend Brandeis back in 2014. Hope that worked out for him. Wonder if he’s in grad school.