Comments on: An Anti-climactic US presidency

By: karlpopper

karlpopper — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:21:02 +0000

We can already do a study – case of the House of Representatives.

Let us pick up all the lawyers who became congressmen or women. Compare their districts along some criteria of development as the the gauge of their performance.

What do we have?

If Bencard becomes a congressman, that case study will be mine.

By: 2ndGenCitizen

2ndGenCitizen — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:24:46 +0000

You can’t start bashing lawyers now, since it seems they are the only ones capable of running a country. Have you seen the Obama staff?

The democratic party has an affinity for lawyers, I guess because book-learning makes people better leaders as opposed to geniuses like Bill Gates who never graduated from college.

The next 4 years will tell if lawyers can make decisions that benefit the whole country instead of decisions that are legal, but damaging to the country.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:33:24 +0000

lawyers or not, the proof of the pie is in the eating. let the “reasoning” speak for itself. he who is mouthing pseudo profundities is the one “grandstanding”.

By: karlpopper

karlpopper — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:27:10 +0000

Even lawyers suffer from poor quality of reasoning – left to their own devices.

Whoever said that because they are lawyers, they have superior form of reasoning in a debate or argument? That is absurd if even stupid.

Enough of grandstanding!

By: Bencard

Bencard — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:49:43 +0000

jcc, who said representing oneself is or is not legal is an issue here? if you’re making it one, then it is a strawman’s argument, for i never said anything for or against its legality.

By: jcc

jcc — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:59:10 +0000

legally, one can be a lawyer for himself and therefore he can dispensed with the regular lawyer. whether he is a fool lawyering for himself is another issue. lawyers, technically can be dispensed with by anyone charged in court.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:34:25 +0000

jcc, thanks, but no thanks. it seems you are trying to have it both ways, but one’s constitutional rights can still be violated even in a democratic society – yes, even in the u.s. just why do you think so many indictments are thrown out because of bill of rights violations. my point is, who do you need when your rights as an accused are violated? pro se? “one who represents himself has a fool for a client”, remember? besides, based on the quality of his reasoning, i don’t think karlpopper can be safely left to his own devices.

By: jcc

jcc — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:51:38 +0000

________________________________________________________________
When in RP we did that, look at what happened. We let GMA assume presidency despite the legal ice floe upon which the whole foundation rests – it can crumble in the heat of legal debate but Davide – the opportunist that he is – banked and capitalized on his exalted position as Chief Justice. DJB
_______________________________________________________________

I have no problem for GMA being the President if I look at the stature of other wannabes. And definitely would have no problem with her over Erap or FPJ.

But I agree with the observation that the SCORP has politicized itself the way the SCORP had been politicized under Mr. Marcos.

And once again, T. Jefferson comes to mind:

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ainpliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in once for life . . . The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

By: jcc

jcc — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:40:02 +0000

karlopper,

i think bencard is telling us that in the hands of a despot you can be picked up anytime, charges or without charges being filed and be thrown behind bars.

but you were correct that it is out of syn because if that can be done to anyone by any despot, that means that there is no longer a functioning court ( or the court itself is in the hands of the despot) and any lawyer would be inconsequential.

in theory atleast you must be charged before you are thrown behind bars, but in practice, people get arrested, tortured or even murdered without any charges being filed. still you need a lawyer or your relatives need a lawyer to fight against all these injustices but one can do it himself without a lawyer if he feels confident that he can defend himself from this injustice under the concept of pro se representation.

By: karlpopper

karlpopper — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:05:37 +0000

by the way, call it simply karlpopper as you don’t wish i call you any other way but bencard??