_160.jpg)
Buchanan considers run against Altmire…
Roddey: 50%-50% chance she enters…
Gerlach on Roddey quotes: More evidence Corbett should resign…
Buchanan considers run against Altmire…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
16 Comments
Mr. Roddey's involvement will lead some to believe that she's another "McCain/Dole kind of Republican", one with absolutely no interest in minimizing taxes and regulations, but is committed to fostering bigger government as an opportunity to "help".
Just what we need — another lawyer — and worse — a government lawyer who does not have an understanding of the Constitution that she took an oath to uphold.
When I talked with her about 'letters of marque and reprisal' she had a deer in the headlights moment. She admitted that she heard of it but didn't know what is was.
Just what do they teach in law school? Do they even cover the Constitution or just how to do an end run around it?
And Bill, you are correct. Roddey's endorsement of a candidate signals bad news.
You guys are crazier than usual! Buchanan would be a great candidate and she can win!
We need a candidate that can beat Jason Altmire. His support of the Obama big government agenda is the reason we are in so much trouble in this country. Remember, his first vote every year is to elect Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House.
I hope Buchanan runs.
Actually they do at some schools. I have had two classes and we actually read the text. I think Villanova is an exception to the rule though.
The biggest problem is that most students treat it is an intellectual subject and its hard not to blame them to a certain extent. So little of the law, especially contracts and torts, has little to do with the Constitution or even federal statutes in general.
She would make an interesting candidate. I think the GOP is just trying to find someone with name ID at this point is the problem.
Interesting.
The law is supposed to comport with the Constitution, but it's covered little, if at all. Well, I look at this as just another reason not to vote for an attorney unless they know, value, and adhere to the Constitution.
The average citizen likely knows more about it than the average lawyer and that isn't saying much for either.
Make your case for her. Why should I be excited over her candidacy? Who's backing her? What's her agenda?
Easy Ray. Not all government attorneys are bad. It's just the good ones are low on the food chain. To rise to the top, the others get dirty. To make her case, I would say I was willing to vote out Santorum to tell him and the GOP they blew it. I think some may have gotten the message. Not all. But in 2010, its not about punishing big gov repubs so much as it is about getting the socialists out of the majority. Out here, Carney should be vulnerable. But can you believe I'm hearing from connected GOP'ers that he is in good shape because he seems like a decent guy and brings home the money. What is wrong with these people. We can't vote against Pelosi, Rangel, Waxman. But we can vote out their collegue that helped put them in the majority and in power on these committees.
The PA GOP is failing miserably but hopefully with this budget mess over we get some answers on who is running
All across the country the GOP is recruiting top recruits and yet we are not doing our job
Carney ( he voted for stimulus and cap and trade) there is zero reason he should not face top recruit. In fact, he is easiest to knock off. There are no State Senators or State Reps in this district who want to run? Someone said Fmr Lt Gov Scranton might run? what is situation?
Dahlkemper and Murphy should be facing top recuits ( I like State Rep Evans and hope Fitzpatrick runs again)
I hope Tauzin runs but he needs to say either way if he is or not this week.
I know that they are not all bad. It's just the 99% that give the rest a bad name.
Big government is big government. Why differentiate? Both parties want to control your life and your money. Throw them all out and keep the bad ones out before they have a chance to take root.
It is very interesting indeed. The rationale I have for it is that most legal actions are based off state law. Almost all civil matters are brought in state court based off of state law, which in turn is largely Common Law with some statutory elements sprinkled in. Torts and Contracts are almost exclusively state jurisdictions with only a few Federal constitutional or statutory issues. There are some more constitutional issues in property, but in the day to day practice, you run into them on few occasions.
There are areas were constitutional issues are far more central in Criminal Law, Administrative Law, and Tax Law. Sadly though, the practice in these areas are based off the constitutional issues discussed in case law not so much the text itself.
I would say that most law students and lawyers actually know a good deal about the Federal Constitution, but many choose to ignore what it says for various reasons. Some do believe in the critical legal studies nonsense, but they are a tiny fraction. Most are just concerned with winning their case and will make whatever argument sufficient for their client to win in front of the Court. Others think that the court has interpreted it correctly. Lastly, there are a good deal that find what the Courts have done over the last century to be against original intent. This group is sizable but fractured over what to do about it. Some argue it would be hard to return so they try to make the status quo better. Others like myself just would tear down the status quo and let the chips fall back where they should be.
Willful blindness, expediency, and the desire to 'win' no matter the costs.
Fine group of people that we entrust our laws and lawmaking to.
Sad.
I would say all three are problems found in every profession not just the legal profession.
Arguably they are doing their job if winning is the goal. People do not pay lawyers to lose. That is like people do not pay doctors to have their patients die.
The reason these people are not getting challengers is that everyone knows these districts are going to be radically redrawn before the 2012 elections. Lets face it, SWPA is losing population at a really high rate where as central and SEPA are gaining population. District boundaries are going to have to be radically altered.
Do us all a favor and practice an area of law where you won't get near constitutional issues.
In law, winning is important, but it is not the only thing. In this area, I would allow more leeway for defense attorneys but not for government lawyers or lawmakers.
Truth and justice are the watchwords in the courtroom and absolute constitutional fidelity is required in the halls of Congress.
Thats poor reason ( No offense)
Republicans hopefully will control redistricting so its better to knock off more Dems this cycle so we have greater opportunity to increase our seats
2010 looks to be great year for us we can win back Carney, Altmire, Dahlkemper seats. I think we can knock off Murtha too and pickup open Sestak seat we just need candidates to do so.
i would not write off murphy seat either