Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

What do you want to bet that this guy also attended an Ivy League Law School

124

Comments

  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,265 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Kaepsknee said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    Fuck, I even know what that is.

    Now all the girls are going to pretend that a "Brady motion" is a commonly seen thing and a frequently used term so they can play gotcha along with Senator Kennedy.

    It isn't, of course. A majority of Daddy's nominees are thankful Kennedy didn't ask them about it.
    Must

    Defend

    Everything

    But TRUMP

    Daddy

    The girls aren't nominated to be a judge

    Guess you didn't know either

    Matchbook law school grad
    Race pretends he knew the term.

    If he didn't know exculpatory evidence has to be shared with the defense, that would be surprising. That he didn't know the defense tool for challenging the prosecution's adherence to that principle is called a "Brady motion", is not that surprising. Most lawyers don't practice criminal law. He's never presided over a criminal case.
    Sounds like a great nominee for Judge then.
    Yeah he hasn’t memorized all US law. Unlike the rest of the judiciary.
    Nominees for judicial positions should be able answer tougher legal questions than "how many people are on a jury?", Dazzler.

    Though - how many people are on a jury, Dazzler?

    It depends, Madam.
    Didn’t ask what adult diapers you’re wearing, misogynist.

  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,949
    edited March 2023

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Kaepsknee said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    Fuck, I even know what that is.

    Now all the girls are going to pretend that a "Brady motion" is a commonly seen thing and a frequently used term so they can play gotcha along with Senator Kennedy.

    It isn't, of course. A majority of Daddy's nominees are thankful Kennedy didn't ask them about it.
    Must

    Defend

    Everything

    But TRUMP

    Daddy

    The girls aren't nominated to be a judge

    Guess you didn't know either

    Matchbook law school grad
    Race pretends he knew the term.

    If he didn't know exculpatory evidence has to be shared with the defense, that would be surprising. That he didn't know the defense tool for challenging the prosecution's adherence to that principle is called a "Brady motion", is not that surprising. Most lawyers don't practice criminal law. He's never presided over a criminal case.
    Sounds like a great nominee for Judge then.
    Yeah he hasn’t memorized all US law. Unlike the rest of the judiciary.
    Nominees for judicial positions should be able answer tougher legal questions than "how many people are on a jury?", Dazzler.

    Though - how many people are on a jury, Dazzler?

    It depends, Madam.
    Didn’t ask what adult diapers you’re wearing, misogynist.

    You thought you knew, didn’t you lady?

    Don’t take it too hard. I still agree with all your takes on Cheetos.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,265 Standard Supporter
    edited March 2023
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Kaepsknee said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    Fuck, I even know what that is.

    Now all the girls are going to pretend that a "Brady motion" is a commonly seen thing and a frequently used term so they can play gotcha along with Senator Kennedy.

    It isn't, of course. A majority of Daddy's nominees are thankful Kennedy didn't ask them about it.
    Must

    Defend

    Everything

    But TRUMP

    Daddy

    The girls aren't nominated to be a judge

    Guess you didn't know either

    Matchbook law school grad
    Race pretends he knew the term.

    If he didn't know exculpatory evidence has to be shared with the defense, that would be surprising. That he didn't know the defense tool for challenging the prosecution's adherence to that principle is called a "Brady motion", is not that surprising. Most lawyers don't practice criminal law. He's never presided over a criminal case.
    Sounds like a great nominee for Judge then.
    Yeah he hasn’t memorized all US law. Unlike the rest of the judiciary.
    Nominees for judicial positions should be able answer tougher legal questions than "how many people are on a jury?", Dazzler.

    Though - how many people are on a jury, Dazzler?

    It depends, Madam.
    Didn’t ask what adult diapers you’re wearing, misogynist.

    You thought you knew, didn’t you lady?

    Don’t take it too hard. I still agree with all your takes on Cheetos.
    I'm not a lawyer. And apparently because you can't answer the question, neither are you, poopy pants.

  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,949

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Kaepsknee said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    Fuck, I even know what that is.

    Now all the girls are going to pretend that a "Brady motion" is a commonly seen thing and a frequently used term so they can play gotcha along with Senator Kennedy.

    It isn't, of course. A majority of Daddy's nominees are thankful Kennedy didn't ask them about it.
    Must

    Defend

    Everything

    But TRUMP

    Daddy

    The girls aren't nominated to be a judge

    Guess you didn't know either

    Matchbook law school grad
    Race pretends he knew the term.

    If he didn't know exculpatory evidence has to be shared with the defense, that would be surprising. That he didn't know the defense tool for challenging the prosecution's adherence to that principle is called a "Brady motion", is not that surprising. Most lawyers don't practice criminal law. He's never presided over a criminal case.
    Sounds like a great nominee for Judge then.
    Yeah he hasn’t memorized all US law. Unlike the rest of the judiciary.
    Nominees for judicial positions should be able answer tougher legal questions than "how many people are on a jury?", Dazzler.

    Though - how many people are on a jury, Dazzler?

    It depends, Madam.
    Didn’t ask what adult diapers you’re wearing, misogynist.

    You thought you knew, didn’t you lady?

    Don’t take it too hard. I still agree with all your takes on Cheetos.
    I'm not a lawyer. And apparently because you can't answer the question, neither are you, poopy pants.

    I answered it. My answer was correct.

    You just don’t know as much as you think you do, Mildred.
  • Bob_CBob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 10,634 Swaye's Wigwam

    The new standard for federal judges is that they know as much as tug posters

    This guy failed that too

    Bob C and Sled knew it

    H didn't

    We are beating epidemiologists and now federal judge appointees. Also head of the treasury.

    Too much winning.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,265 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Kaepsknee said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    Fuck, I even know what that is.

    Now all the girls are going to pretend that a "Brady motion" is a commonly seen thing and a frequently used term so they can play gotcha along with Senator Kennedy.

    It isn't, of course. A majority of Daddy's nominees are thankful Kennedy didn't ask them about it.
    Must

    Defend

    Everything

    But TRUMP

    Daddy

    The girls aren't nominated to be a judge

    Guess you didn't know either

    Matchbook law school grad
    Race pretends he knew the term.

    If he didn't know exculpatory evidence has to be shared with the defense, that would be surprising. That he didn't know the defense tool for challenging the prosecution's adherence to that principle is called a "Brady motion", is not that surprising. Most lawyers don't practice criminal law. He's never presided over a criminal case.
    Sounds like a great nominee for Judge then.
    Yeah he hasn’t memorized all US law. Unlike the rest of the judiciary.
    Nominees for judicial positions should be able answer tougher legal questions than "how many people are on a jury?", Dazzler.

    Though - how many people are on a jury, Dazzler?

    It depends, Madam.
    Didn’t ask what adult diapers you’re wearing, misogynist.

    You thought you knew, didn’t you lady?

    Don’t take it too hard. I still agree with all your takes on Cheetos.
    I'm not a lawyer. And apparently because you can't answer the question, neither are you, poopy pants.

    I answered it. My answer was correct.

    You just don’t know as much as you think you do, Mildred.
    Channeling your inner @MelloDawgFS by refusing to answer or use big words.

    Fuck off.

    Go work on your Russian State narrative homework.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,276
    edited March 2023
    Being the centrist that I yam, I declare:

    1. It’s not a term with same universal recognition as that enjoyed by Miranda such that it can accurately be described by the avg person or even lawyer. Those of us who declined the trial practice don’t remember anything from criminal or con law.

    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    Actually, the Ivy League dodges this one. Black eye for Arizona law school IMO.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,949




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 20,991 Founders Club
    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Losers lose. It’s what they do.

  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,265 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

    You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

    Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,949

    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

    You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

    Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.
    I know you thought it was 12.

    Not always.

    Sorry, Mabel.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,265 Standard Supporter
    edited March 2023
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

    You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

    Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.
    I know you thought it was 12.

    Not always.

    Sorry, Mabel.
    Now you’re a fucking mind reader. You know what I thought

    Still unable to answer the question.

    Cereal box top lawyer.

  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,949

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

    You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

    Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.
    I know you thought it was 12.

    Not always.

    Sorry, Mabel.
    Now you’re a fucking mind reader. You know what I thought

    You're not complicated, Delores.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,265 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

    You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

    Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.
    I know you thought it was 12.

    Not always.

    Sorry, Mabel.
    Now you’re a fucking mind reader. You know what I thought

    You're not complicated, Delores.
    Still can’t answer the question.

    Still a cereal box pretend lawyer
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,949

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

    You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

    Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.
    I know you thought it was 12.

    Not always.

    Sorry, Mabel.
    Now you’re a fucking mind reader. You know what I thought

    You're not complicated, Delores.
    Still can’t answer the question.

    Still a cereal box pretend lawyer
    see what i mean?
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 20,991 Founders Club
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

    You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

    Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.
    I know you thought it was 12.

    Not always.

    Sorry, Mabel.
    Now you’re a fucking mind reader. You know what I thought

    You're not complicated, Delores.
    Still can’t answer the question.

    Still a cereal box pretend lawyer
    see what i mean?
    No.


  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,276
    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.

    I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 20,991 Founders Club

    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.

    I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
    Big belly laughs in Savery Hall.

  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,265 Standard Supporter
    edited March 2023

    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.

    I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
    You can check out any time you want but you can never leave, @creepycoug

  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 20,949

    HHusky said:




    2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

    I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.
    Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.

    I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
    It's a stupid gotcha designed for the stupid in the stupid party. As you suspect, it was never a thing in law school, bar review, etc.

    Our crooked cops on the bored know it from experience.

    Your over investment is nothing compared to mine.
Sign In or Register to comment.