What happened to Bricker?

[Acsenray]

I haven’t read that entire thread. Is he saying that abortion in case of ectopic pregnancies should be banned?

I know more than one woman who would be dead today were that the law.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Acsenray

I haven’t read that entire thread. Is he saying that abortion in case of ectopic pregnancies should be banned?

He did not express his point very well, but I’m pretty sure that wasn’t it.

[Hellestal]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Victor’s Distinction, I’m saying. It explains a lot.

::reads::

Damn, that’s a great post. That really, really does explain a lot.

[Morgyn]

@Hamlet

Well done, LHOD.

I am not a fan of lawyers using their education and experience to make others feel stupid, score cheap political points, or think they’ve scored some kind of win by someone else’s lack of legal education. Bricker does that a lot. And even worse, he tries to hide behind the whole “socratic method” or “trying to educate” people when he does it.

Hear, hear. I’ve refused to engage with him on any topic at all other than sympathy threads or silly stories ever since he did that to me, way back when in a discussion about the need for voter ID. Boiled down, what he said to me was, “who the hell are you to have an opinion on this when you’re not even a lawyer?” I knew then and there the sort of snob he was and that it was worthless to talk to him about anything substantive. I am not a lawyer, therefore my opinion is worth nothing.

Fuck that shit. Life’s too short.

[elucidator]

Bricker doesn’t sneer at a lack of legal expertise so much as insist that all political arguments revolve on the axis of legality. He pretends that you are arguing that something is illegal when what you are arguing is something ought to be illegal. He then proves that the thing is legal, and therefore, he wins, because you are wrong.

What happened to Bricker is the Republican Party, or at least his version of it. Yusta be, they could pretend to intellectual rigor, the party of Buckley, Hume, and that little bitch Al Hamilton, but now is Trump, Huckleberry and Pence. Men who couldn’t argue their way in to a paper bag, much less out of it. Pobrecito! The conservatism of my misguided youth is gone, they no longer argue that the facts are on their side, now they insist that God is!

But She isn’t.

[Lucas_Jackson]

@Starving_Artist

Has it occurred to any of you guys that by utilizing such techniques, Bricker is both educating the poster on how to state his case more effectively while at the same time leading him to see how he is wrong in a way that is more substantive and persuasive than simply yelling “Cite!” or rattling off the pertinent legalese to disprove it?

Clearly any poster who makes a factual claim without knowing whether it’s true sets himself up to look like a fool when an opponent challenges him to support it. So it’s equally clear that before making such a claim, it would behoove such a poster to get his ducks in row and be able to explain why his claim has merit. Everyone complains about Bricker’s superior debate style, but then when he tries to educate people how to be better debaters themselves, they and everyone else totally miss the point and accuse him of being lazy or insult him in some other way instead.

I’m also of the belief that if you can lead someone to see how and why they’re wrong in such a way that they participate in that discovery themselves, it resonates with them more deeply and becomes part of their internal belief system much more readily than if you were to simply hit them with a wall of text purporting to prove them wrong.

I’m sure some of you will believe that to the degree this is true, Bricker is being a condescending ass. But I don’t see it that way at all. IIRC, he stated once that he was his state’s high school debate champion. And he’s obviously schooled in the techniques lawyers use to try to outwit their opponents. So he’s a pro, highly trained in using the skills he brings to bear in arguments here on the Dope. But how is his attempting to increase the skills and abilities of other here any more “condescending” that if he were a master chef debating with people here over cooking techniques and trying to enlighten them in how to use the correct ones? I doubt that such a poster, were he to appear here, would be dismissed as being condescending…and to those of us here on the board who don’t get into passionate disagreement with him, both Bricker’s posts and his posting style can be quite enlightening and are most definitely welcome.

I find it ironic that here on a board alleged to be devoted to fighting ignorance, one of its brightest lights is being criticized for demonstrating how best to fight it.

Please read the thread before posting. That way, you won’t look like such a twit.

[andros]

@Lucas_Jackson

Please read the thread before posting. That way, you won’t look like such a twit.

He’ll find a way.

[Bricker]

@Morgyn

I am not a lawyer, therefore my opinion is worth nothing.

I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear back then.

That wasn’t the reason your opinion means nothing.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That’s stupid. A layperson, upon learning that a court has multiple times declared the districts unconstitutional, may declare the districts unconstitutional, without developing a legally airtight argument. The case has quite literally been made already.

It’s up to you to dispute it if you want, not just ask snide questions.

Of course, in almost any other area of discussion, a poster who merely offered up an opinion and, when pressed for specifics, airily invited his questioner to look it up himself because he couldn’t be bothered . . . that poster would be roundly condemned.

But the legal realm is different. Here, apparently, it’s fine to parrot conclusions without offering your own arguments, because – let me guess. Reasons. Liberal reasons.

Right?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Lucas_Jackson

Please read the thread before posting. That way, you won’t look like such a twit.

It will take a hell of a lot more than that.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

But the legal realm is different.

Guess what realm this isn’t. :rolleyes:

[Slash1972]

@Bricker

But the legal realm is different. Here, apparently, it’s fine to parrot conclusions without offering your own arguments, because – let me guess. Reasons. Liberal reasons.

Right?

It seems like a lot of gun advocates on this board simply say “Sorry, Heller!” when in discussions about guns and gun control.

Isn’t that the same thing?

[Morgyn]

@Bricker

I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear back then.

That wasn’t the reason your opinion means nothing.

And yours is worth everything I’ve ever paid for it.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Of course, in almost any other area of discussion, a poster who merely offered up an opinion and, when pressed for specifics, airily invited his questioner to look it up himself because he couldn’t be bothered . . . that poster would be roundly condemned.

Like when some smug jackass cites a court case without going into any detail as to what the case was about or how it pertains to the conversation in question?

@Bricker

But the legal realm is different. Here, apparently, it’s fine to parrot conclusions without offering your own arguments, because – let me guess. Reasons. Liberal reasons.
Right?

You do know that you aren’t posting on thelaw.com or some other lawyer-based message board?
Right?

[septimus]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

A poster opines that it’s unconstitutional.

So Bricker posts: [Brickshit omitted]

Man, fuck that bullshit, dude. You know, or should know, what portion of the constitution it allegedly prohibits. Your condescending “education” is unwelcome here.

Of course he could he could … address the standing arguments around page 40, explaining why he disagrees with the court’s conclusions.

Let me see if I got this straight:

We know that when a court has ruled 5-4 in a way that benefits the Kleptocrats, Hypocrites and Cheaters that Bricker so adores, he gets very pretentious: “It’s settled law, so further debate is pointless. Haven’t you even read Scalia’s opinion in Shyster&Shyster v Cratchit et al ?”

But when a court decides against him, he not only ignores the court’s ruling, but insists that the Doper (who’s already disclaimed “IANAL”) prepare a legal brief justifying the adverse ruling. :smack:

Yep. Sounds just like Bricker.

[running_coach]

@septimus

Let me see if I got this straight:

We know that when a court has ruled 5-4 in a way that benefits the Kleptocrats, Hypocrites and Cheaters that Bricker so adores, he gets very pretentious: “It’s settled law, so further debate is pointless. Haven’t you even read Scalia’s opinion in Shyster&Shyster v Cratchit et al ?”

But when a court decides against him, he not only ignores the court’s ruling, but insists that the Doper (who’s already disclaimed “IANAL”) prepare a legal brief justifying the adverse ruling. :smack:

Yep. Sounds just like Bricker.

Even better, despite being an originalist/textualist, he objects to the SCOTUS due to being unelected.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…Right?

Look out, LHOD! Its a trap! Fell for it a hundred times, then I caught on.

[Bricker]

@Slash1972

It seems like a lot of gun advocates on this board simply say “Sorry, Heller!” when in discussions about guns and gun control.

Isn’t that the same thing?

Sorta, but not really. At least Heller is a Supreme Court case. Obviously the Court can overrule itself down the line, but at the moment it’s fair to say that Heller represents the settled law of the land.

In contrast, the mere unadorned claim “unconstitutional,” without reference to any case law at all leaves open the likelihood that “unconstitutional,” is simply a synonym for “this just shouldn’t be legal, and I really REALLY think so.” LHOD points to the on-going court cases as though every invocation of the “unconstitutional” claim incorporates by osmotic reference every prevailing argument made thus far in those cases. I don’t see it that way, and even if I did, I am unconvinced that the ruling will survive the Supreme Court.

So why am I expected to accept an implicit exhortation to do my own research, when that tactic is laughed off in virtually every other context?

[Slash1972]

@Bricker

Sorta, but not really. At least Heller is a Supreme Court case. Obviously the Court can overrule itself down the line, but at the moment it’s fair to say that Heller represents the settled law of the land

So you would except “Sorry, Roe v. Wade!” as a termination of any argument about abortion?

In contrast, the mere unadorned claim “unconstitutional,” without reference to any case law at all leaves open the likelihood that “unconstitutional,” is simply a synonym for “this just shouldn’t be legal, and I really REALLY think so.” LHOD points to the on-going court cases as though every invocation of the “unconstitutional” claim incorporates by osmotic reference every prevailing argument made thus far in those cases. I don’t see it that way, and even if I did, I am unconvinced that the ruling will survive the Supreme Court.

So why am I expected to accept an implicit exhortation to do my own research, when that tactic is laughed off in virtually every other context?

I, personally, usually agree with this. I just don’t think you should do it in General Questions, where people are asking for information from people who can answer correctly.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Of course, in almost any other area of discussion, a poster who merely offered up an opinion and, when pressed for specifics, airily invited his questioner to look it up himself because he couldn’t be bothered . . . that poster would be roundly condemned.

But the legal realm is different. Here, apparently, it’s fine to parrot conclusions without offering your own arguments, because – let me guess. Reasons. Liberal reasons.

Right?

Bricker, what are you even talking about? You weren’t invited to look it up yourself; THE OPINION WAS SUPPORTED WITH CITES IN THE OP.

Your request for support for a position supported with an OP cite is bizarre. And your petulantly blaming ME for your bizarre request, suggesting I criticize it because I’m a damn librul, is just pitiful.