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
Comments
-
You just lack the awareness to understand when you’ve been handed your ass. It’s kind of adorable. But not really. Your rock is calling you.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.
I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
Our crooked cops on the bored know it from experience.
Your over investment is nothing compared to mine. -
The lengths you’ll go to run cover for the Biden admin is commendable.
Any prosecutor or defence atty knows this. It is not unreasonable to expect a federal judge appointee to know it as well.
You and mello are incapable of making an honest argument. Keep goose stepping and make sure you lick those boots clean, you fucking muppet. -
Why are the stupid so likeable?thechatch said:The lengths you’ll go to run cover for the Biden admin is commendable.
Any prosecutor or defence atty knows this. It is not unreasonable to expect a federal judge appointee to know it as well.
You and mello are incapable of making an honest argument. Keep goose stepping and make sure you lick those boots clean, you fucking muppet. -
Shocker that case law that supports defendants aren't really discussed in law school.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.
I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
Our crooked cops on the bored know it from experience.
Your over investment is nothing compared to mine. -
Look, if you couldn't do the time . . .Bob_C said:
Shocker that case law that supports defendants aren't really discussed in law school.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.
I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
Our crooked cops on the bored know it from experience.
Your over investment is nothing compared to mine. -
The difference between the dazzler and me is that I want educated elite attorneys who will follow the written law and apply equal justice as federal justices. The dazzler and the people he votes for want political hacks that act as democratic operatives. Same with their "journalists". An elite educated attorney who had already sat on a federal bench would know about the Brady case. I did. Our mythical attorney didn't. I respect education and balance. Our mythical attorney resents it. We are upset that the Biden administration and federal prosecutors clearly violated giving exculpatory evidence to the defendants attorneys. The dazzler has not expressed the same view, just engaging in defending an affirmative action appointment as he still views January 6th as an armed insurrection. Where is Ray Epps is a question that doesn't concern the dazzler or mello.
-
I think everyone knows those hearings are a performative circus no matter who is at the table. I'm just saying that if I were being nominated for a federal district court seat, I would have studied up hard on all aspects of being the referee in a trial, particularly the procedural rules and all things related to the motions practice. I can't opine on whether "Brady motion" is a common term or not, but it would seem to me that a fairly substantive procedural requirement that applies to the government and is named after a SCT case is probably a term that is thrown around commonly in those circles. But again, I don't really have independent knowledge of it because I operate 100s of miles from that practice.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.
I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
Our crooked cops on the bored know it from experience.
Your over investment is nothing compared to mine. -
It's pretty clear that the federal prosecutors and the US AG know about the Brady motion and decided to violate federal law to over prosecute many of the January 6th defendants. Same with the federal judges that sat by and watched the defendants being held without bail and over prosecuted. January 6 is a huge deal for the left who wants antifa funded but wants inordinate punishment for January 6. This appointment is clearly an AA appointment of a person not qualified for the position.creepycoug said:
I think everyone knows those hearings are a performative circus no matter who is at the table. I'm just saying that if I were being nominated for a federal district court seat, I would have studied up hard on all aspects of being the referee in a trial, particularly the procedural rules and all things related to the motions practice. I can't opine on whether "Brady motion" is a common term or not, but it would seem to me that a fairly substantive procedural requirement that applies to the government and is named after a SCT case is probably a term that is thrown around commonly in those circles. But again, I don't really have independent knowledge of it because I operate 100s of miles from that practice.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.
I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
Our crooked cops on the bored know it from experience.
Your over investment is nothing compared to mine. -
Once you get past Lawrence and Obergefell the Dazzler's legal knowledge is tapped out.creepycoug said:
I think everyone knows those hearings are a performative circus no matter who is at the table. I'm just saying that if I were being nominated for a federal district court seat, I would have studied up hard on all aspects of being the referee in a trial, particularly the procedural rules and all things related to the motions practice. I can't opine on whether "Brady motion" is a common term or not, but it would seem to me that a fairly substantive procedural requirement that applies to the government and is named after a SCT case is probably a term that is thrown around commonly in those circles. But again, I don't really have independent knowledge of it because I operate 100s of miles from that practice.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.HHusky said:
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.creepycoug said:
2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.
I’ve now officially over-invested in this.
Our crooked cops on the bored know it from experience.
Your over investment is nothing compared to mine. -
Despite what the scorecard says, Your guy is doing great, HH. We’re just not as smart as you which is why we can’t understand that it’s not about outcomes. It’s about the symbolism along the way.HHusky said:
Why are the stupid so likeable?thechatch said:The lengths you’ll go to run cover for the Biden admin is commendable.
Any prosecutor or defence atty knows this. It is not unreasonable to expect a federal judge appointee to know it as well.
You and mello are incapable of making an honest argument. Keep goose stepping and make sure you lick those boots clean, you fucking muppet.
Keep licking those boots
