Reed Smith is essentially saying: our associates are incompetent, and we know it. As they become less incompetent, we will give them even more money. Not the best message for the corporate client.

reed smith is a joke

I am competent to the core.

Legalize, regulate and tax.

But then they'll arrest home growers for tax evasion.

Just dissolve the federal and state governments. It's obvious the represent no real majority of the American people, hence their status as a sovereign is farcical and all acts undertaken in that vein are null.

People power!

Mystal is the WALRUS!

SMACK THAT ASS!

Reed Smith is a truly piss poor law firm. It goes without saying that they only would hire piss poor assocaites, because only a piss poor law grad would take a job there.

I'm so high right now.

PE, I assume you were referring to Palin's ass, which I would ram in a second. If you were referring to Reed Smith, I'll leave you to your own perversions.

I'm curious to hear what the conservative folks out there would think if Cali legalizes pot. If you're both anti big federal government and pro moral based law enforcement, what do you think if a state legalizes a recreational drug? Do you support the states rights side or support the Feds enforcement of a law with which you agree?

- honestly curious

Who is dumber, Sarah Palin or those who will buy her memoir?

#11, let me just say that I think Gonzales was the 2nd worst court decision of the past decade. And the amount of money wasted on pot laws is absurd. Never tried it myself, but I'm all for legalizing it.

11, I personally hate stoners and hippies but I support states rights here. States should be free to decide most issues from marijuana to abortion and gay marriage.

11,
My big objection to marijuana is that it destroys good minds. But that threat doesn't exist in California so have at it.

En banc in the Ninth Circuit? I don't believe they have courtroom big enough for a full panel.

So the Reed Smith Associates will be classified as "Junior" based not on their seniority, but because they have failed to yet achieve core competencies. Shouldn't they be referred to as "Incompetent Associates", rather than "Junior Associates?" I want to ask Reed Smith what the billing rate is for the Incompetent Associates.

Tina Fey Sarah Palin is definitely hotter than Sarah Palin Sarah Palin.

You're right 18

I smoked pot every day I was in law school, and I was an editor of the law review and in the top 5%. Prior to law school, I smoked every day through college. It obviously didn't rot my brain, and I'm not from Nutville, CA.

11, real conservatives want the U.S. government out of our bedrooms and back yards, out of our bodies, and out of our wallets.

Weed should be legal along with every other recreational drug, and prosecuting people not only for drug use but for things like failure to pay fuel taxes on fry bin grease they put into their engines, show just how overbearing and overreaching our government has become. Government mandated helmets? Are you freaking kidding me? The founding fathers are turning over in their graves.

People are fined and imprisoned for failure to comply with intrusive, byzantine and absurd tax and other regulations every day and this gets worse all the time. Government by and for the people is a complete joke at this point - we are clearly moving not toward the harm reduction approach of the more enlightened of the Europeans but toward the totalitarian left of the former Soviet block, thanks to Comrade Pelosi and her compatriots. Very sad.

20 equals a guy who is very slow on the uptake. His friends wonder why he needs things explained over and over. Always sad to see. You may still be smart but you operate on a much slower level if you consume as much as you claim.

21 - Your helmet law example is not really apt. Who cleans up your splattered brains when your helmetless head hits the pavement on a public street or highway in a motorcycle accident? The state or local authorities shouldn't pass laws aimed at not having to deal with that? Maybe they shouldn't provide you with a road to ride on in the first place then.

16 - The Ninth Circuit has a modified en banc process where they sit in panels of 11 judges.

11 - I'm a conservative, an I'm all for a state's right to legalize pot. I'm also fine with Nevada or other states legalizing prostitution.

Federal crimes should be limited to crimes that threaten core rights of individuals, or to stop crimes that cannot be effectively enforced by states (such as organized crime).

Yes 23, and likewise, you could fall and break your leg when you step out on the sidewalk and they could be forced to treat you, so you should be locked in a room in a straight jacket for your own safety. And they could be forced to deal with the health consequences of people being fat so Big Macs should be outlawed for your own safety. And they could be forced to provide for people with genetic deformities so there should be mandatory genetic testing and abortion of fetuses that might have this problem. I see.

Moron.

Sarah Palin is oh-so-hot.

That is all.

26/21, you're the moron. You offered up a lame helmet law example, and now you offer up a parade of horribles instead of defending your supposedly unassailable logic on helmet laws after I pointed out the obvious flaws. Slide down your own slippery slope, dumbass, I didn't offer that up.

-- 23

Regarding extraordinary rendition, Samuel Rascoff reads a great anectdote at 34:20 in this panel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltWnKfFJXq0

#11- I am a conservative and I support the states' right to legalize pot. That said, if it does end up rotting your brain, don't whine and bitch to the state asking for state aid. All actions have consequences.

Pro State's Rights Republican here. I'm in favor of laws based on morality, but smoking pot isn't immoral. From my vantage point, there is no conflict between the two. Rape is immoral, murder is immoral, pot smoking isn't, gambling isn't, prostitution absent slavery isn't.

I don't think that states's rights should extend so far as to permit murder and rape, though. So I guess that gets more the heart of the question.

"Richard Lee, a longtime marijuana activist who is behind the measure, says he has raised nearly $1 million to hire professionals to assist volunteers in gathering the signatures." -the NYT Article

Professional signature gatherers?

Please -- no more photos of Sarah Palin in the morning. They cause the milk in my coffee to curdle.

13, it's "Raich." There are about 100 SC cases named "Gonzalez."

Yeah, 32, it's called ACORN. Heard of it?

I wanna see Palin's ( . )( . )

28/23, wrong. You suggest that since the state might have to incur some cost just in case I fall over, it should be acceptable for the state to require me to wear a helmet, irrespective of my own risk preferences or comfort, in order to avoid those costs. Distinguish this from the other examples.

37, tough shit, irrespective of cost I think that a helmet law is a reasonable exercise of the police powers of the state. Same with seatbelt laws. I'm not advocating the absurd overregulation that you posit in your silly hypotheticals, which are unworthy of serious comment. So find someone else to argue those with you. 28/23

23/38, those are not silly hypotheticals dumbass, ever heard of localities outlawing the use of transfats in restaurants? Ever heard of eugenics or the Chinese one child program? (We can't feed 'em, so you better not have 'em, or at least have the decency to drown 'em in the river!) Christ you're ignorant.

And of course, if the police powers of the state include the power to do just about anything to save the state a few dollars, then WHY SHOULDN'T they be able to do any of those things? Care to make a cogent distinction? Of course not - because you can't, other than "what I personally think is reasonable." Brilliant logic, I'm sure, because all bureaucrats will always think just like you, right? YOU are the guy sending someone to jail for putting used fry oil in his car.

39, you again pose absurd hypotheticals. You keep putting up a straw man and knocking him down, but I'm not making those extreme sorts of arguments. I think lawsuits over eating of BigMacs or transfats are ridicilous, if I were a judge I would throw them out. And if I were a legislator, I certainly would not support legislation of that sort. I said NOT said that the police powers of the state should include just about anything to save a few dollars. God, you're dense, or just purposely obfuscating the issue. All that I said was that a helmet law was not a good example to support your point about excessive government regulation, dumbass.

If you can't distinguish between a helmet law to avoid people dying and your hypothetical of locking people up in straightjackets to avoid the risk of a broken leg on a public sidewalk, then you should feel free to ride your motorcycle without a helmet. You have made it quite obvious that if your head were to hit the pavement, no brains at all would be spilling out.

Don't blow up any federal buildings, you piece of shit anarchist skinhead.

There IS actually someone alive who is dumber than Sarah Palin. It's 39.

No way, Palin is still the dumber one.

Uh, that insider trading info came from Sullivan Cromwell.

I think you meant Bob Bennett (not Barnett) regarding the Palin book deal :)

40, yet again, you fail to address the point. Who's obfuscating here?

You said mandatory helmet laws are a reasonable exercise of police power "regardless of cost," right after using the cost of the state cleaning up after accidents as the basis for them being justified in the first place! Nice.

Distinguish the logic behind the acceptability of the helmet law from the law banning transfats please, or shut up and admit you can't form a cogent distinction and stand on "one seems reasonable to me and not the other."

-- 39

P.S. - You know you're losing an argument when you have to use unrelated epithets, let alone fabricate them out of thin air, about your opponent. I am neither a skinhead, nor an anarchist, nor do I think people should be blowing up buildings. I do, however, think our government should not be regulating the informed personal risk choices of adults (e.g., by way of mandating helmets). Clearly you disagree and are angry enough about it to be seething and making up stuff - sorry your inability to justify your beliefs is so hard on you.

45, your reading comprehension is as limited as the rest of your intellectual ability. Go back and read my original post and find the word cost. You won't, dumbshit. That's your take on it. Go ahead and continue to obfuscate, because that's all you seem to want to do. You're probably the kind of guy (and obviously an angry white male) who thinks the government also can't exercise police power to prevent you from taking loaded guns into airports, on airplanes, or other places that need to be secured. Too much of an infringement on your precious freedoms. Give me a break. You simply can't be reasoned with, so I'm not going to continue to waste the time and effort. Go fuck yourself.

46, your post is once again totally disingenuous.

You wrote "Who cleans up your splattered brains when your helmetless head hits the pavement on a public street or highway in a motorcycle accident? The state or local authorities shouldn't pass laws aimed at not having to deal with that?"

So, when you said "aimed at not having to deal with that," you were not addressing the societal cost of dealing with it? What other than that cost, would they be "dealing with"? I hear crickets, because we and everyone else reading knows that is exactly what you meant.

And yet again, you fail to make a distinction between the transfat law and helmet law - because you know you can't.

And yet again, you end with completely fabricated ad hominem attacks about the fictional person you'd like to think I should be in the world of your preconceived notions.

Sorry your inability to defend your reasoning has you so worked up and hateful - perhaps, rather than inventing fantasies about who I must be and what terrible things I must think, and burning with rage, so vile and bitter, for that fantasy person, you should consider what it means that you can't make the logical distinctions we discussed here?

In any case, you won't listen because the lack of a distinction is irrelevant to you - you've made up your mind about what's reasonable and what's not logic notwithstanding, just like the guy who bans transfats. And you can argue that that's unreasonable, and he can call you an anarchist skinhead for opposing such a clearly justified use of the government's police powers and curse at you, and all the while you will fail to grasp that you and he are basically the same person, and look for someone new to blame for your problems. Peace buddy - it's clear you need a little.

*crickets*

47, it gives me immeasurable joy that I got enough under your skin that you felt compelled to come back and post something so long again. BTW, I didn't even bother to read it. Enjoy the view inside your own ass.

47 = TTT lawyer w/o legal reasoning skills

Putting people in straighjackets to prevent broken legs = Helmet laws to prevent death

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA

Okay, 47. I've done enough mocking, I'll give you the serious response that you seem to want.

What is the difference that I see between putting people in straightjackets to prevent them from breaking their legs on public sidewalks and requiring them to wear helmets on motorcycles? It is a matter of line drawing, which is done all the time in law as you obviously know if you're a lawyer. The word reasonable appears everywhere in legal concepts, and here the issue is whether the extent of restriction on freedom is reasonable given the degree of harm that is sought to be avoided. Your example is extreme -- no one, least of all me -- would advocate putting people in straightjackets (a severe restriction on freedom) to avoid the harm of a broken leg on a public sidewalk (a relatively minor injury and unlikely to happen to most people just from walking). Apparently, such balancing tests between reasonableness of restriction and degree of harm are inherently objectionable to you. One of your posts disparaged this as essentially personal decisions by bureaucrats as to what is or is not reasonable. But I don't see it that way. So, I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement there as to the permissibility of lawmaking. Also, with a helmet law, I factor in that people using a public highway give up a certain amount of autonomy and must submit to regulation, even if the regulation is aimed in part at protecting them from harm that they are willing to risk (e.g., falling off their bike and having their helmetless head hit the pavement, or not wearing a seatbelt in a car).

Your transfats example is certainly less extreme, but again there I would as a legislator do a balancing test and find against imposing the restriction. The legislation is aimed at restaurants which are private businesses, the extent of the harm is somewhat speculative at this point scientifically from what I know about the issue, and the restriction is really unnecessary to achieve the legitimate goal of promoting public health. If consumers want less transfat in their food, they can put pressure on the restaurants and the laws of supply/demand will result in restaurants serving less transfat, or at least offering more non-transfat menu options. Public health efforts through education can encourage both consumers and restaurants to avoid transfats. Same with food manufacturers. So, I would not outlaw transfats. Yeah, that's a personal judgment, but all lawmaking is done by human beings who have to make personal judgments.

Finally, a point raised in your original post was that regulations like helmet laws would make the founding fathers "roll over in their graves." Well, that's interesting, because the constitutional law that I studied in college and law school taught that such issues were reserved to the states and their historic police powers and not the subject of constitutional provisions. You apparently take a dim view of those police powers, but they are undeniable. If you really have such a vehement opposition to them, I suggest that you devote your attention to electing lawmakers at the state and local level that share your view that the police powers of the state should not be exercised to promote public health and safety if they restrict personal freedoms.

As for how this back-and-forth all got started, go back and check and you'll see that all I did was question your choice of the helmet law example. You responded by calling me a "Moron." I didn't put any disparaging remarks at all in my original post. Since then, I certainly have because I don't appreciate being called a Moron simply for disagreeing with someone and raising a legitimate question or point about his argument.

It's time to move on and let this pass. Peace to you as well.