Consider this an alternative headline for last night’s post.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
DONATE
Comments
To the point and effective. Now, if Scott Brown could get a couple hundred more of such reponses to Warren and Romney could have several hundred thousand of young adults presenting their cases for him, wouldn’t that be something.
Yes, this should be edited down to a minute and broadcast as a Scott Brown ad in Massachusetts.
Good grief, Prof…I’m out of touch for six days and when I get back you’re on the front page of FOX news.
Cheering, high-fiving and thunderous applause for you. Damn, you’re good!
This here is more better.
Darn tootin It’s slicker than snot on a glass doorknob.
Here’s this moral eqivalancy BS yet again. A handful of supporters doing nothing wrong tho maybe insensitive ; is equivalant to an eletist fraud whose carreer is built on lies , deception & institutional corruption. This is what worries me most , that our side feels the need to pull back instead of responding with the derision this lame ploy deserves. I know , “The press , the in the tank press! will kill us!” Well reacting defensive lends credance to the equivalance.
I had a hard time understanding what he said.
This is good stuff — very good — but the speaker has a very unclear speaking style. Wish he was a bit clearer
I understood the context, but he speaks so soft, fast, and monotonously, it’s a difficult ‘hear’.
This is good: Brown has just demanded that Warren release all of her records of her work on legal cases:
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/26/scott-brown-demands-that-elizabeth-warren-release-list-corporate-legal-clients/4VGxdNCCa6jn3qqBBizqUL/story.html
This issue only works in the Republican echo chamber. When you move beyond that, people don’t care. Once she categorized it as family folklore, then the subject got minimized because the MSM do not want to do the research and reporting that Prof Jacobson did. And, if one of their own doesn’t do it, then the material is suspect in their minds.
It is interesting to see how many commenters at the major online news sites are posting questions about EW’s lack of a MA law license….and how completely they are being ignored by the media.
Which reminds me: Any news on when Warren’s NJ and Texas law licenses lapsed?
I posted this on another of Legal Insurrection’s Warren posts:
Warren stated on Monday “I’ve been inactive in the New Jersey bar for a very, very long time” (Jim & Margery 96.9FM radio show).
And we know from Wm Jacobson’s post yesterday via Rob Eno at Red Mass Group that Warren has been on inactive status in Texas since 1992.
I’m gonna copy my entire post here hoping someone can find out who filed the necessary pro hac vice (= for this occasion) motion(s) in the Mass US District Court:
The US District Court of Mass lays out specific conditions before allowing pro hac vice (= for this occasion) practice. From the USDCMass website:
“Pro Hac Vice Admission
In order to be admitted to the bar of this court pro hac vice, a motion must first be filed in the action in which the attorney seeks to be admitted. The motion cannot be filed by the attorney seeking admission, but must be signed and filed by a member in good standing of the bar of this court. Note, it is the duty of the moving attorney to first verify the bar admission status of the attorney he or she is sponsoring for admission to the court pro hac vice.
The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the attorney: is a member of the bar in good standing in every jurisdiction where admitted to practice; there are no disciplinary proceedings pending; and the attorney is familiar with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Refer to Local Rule 83.5.3.
A filing fee is required with the filing of the motion for each attorney seeking admission. The amount of the fee is posted on the court’s fee schedule and is not refundable should the motion be denied.”
Warren stated on Monday “I’ve been inactive in the New Jersey bar for a very, very long time” (Jim & Margery 96.9FM radio show).
And we know from Wm Jacobson’s post yesterday via Rob Eno at Red Mass Group that Warren has been on inactive status in Texas since 1992.
So how could Warren possibly be eligible to practice since 1992?
And did a Mass bar member in good standing file a pro hac vice motion?
Who? (I don’t know how to find this out.)
Great point in last night’s post: “Warren keeps saying that kids don’t ask their parents for proof. But she didn’t check the box when she was a kid. She waited until she was in her late 30s …”
Suppose her parents never told her the Tooth Fairy was not real. Would she still, as an adult, believe the fiction?