Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Kia Ora
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and that there are some features you can't use or read.

We are an active community of worldwide senior members participating in chat, politics, travel, health, blogging, graphics, computer issues & help, book club, literature & poetry, finance discussions, recipe exchange and much more. Also, as a member you will be able to access member only sections, many features, send personal messages, make new friends, etc.

Registration is simple, fast and completely free. Why not register today and become a part of the group. Registration button at the very top left of the page.

Thank you for stopping by.

Join our community!

In case of difficulty, email worldwideseniors.org@gmail.com.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Scalia's skill set more suited for a ‘slow track’ institution
Topic Started: Dec 11 2015, 02:49 PM (541 Views)
Bitsy
Member Avatar
Veteran Member
More truth than satire but that is always the case with good satire.

Quote:
 
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A new study conducted by legal scholars indicates that Justice Antonin Scalia would fare better if he served as a judge at a court that was “less advanced” than the United States Supreme Court.

According to the study, Scalia’s struggles to perform his duties in a competent fashion stem from his being inappropriately placed on a court that is “too demanding” for a person of his limited abilities.


“Forcing Justice Scalia to weigh in on complex legal issues that he lacks the background or aptitude to comprehend is, at the end of the day, cruel,” the study said.

The legal scholars theorized that Scalia would be more likely to thrive in a “lesser court where he does not feel that he is being pushed to hear cases that are too challenging for him.”

“If Scalia were reassigned to a ‘slow track’ institution such as a town traffic court, that would be better for everyone,” the study recommended.


http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/study-scalia-better-off-in-less-advanced-court
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darcie
Member Avatar
Skeptic
I really like that one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bitsy
Member Avatar
Veteran Member
Me too, Darcie.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Trotsky
Member Avatar
Big City Boy
Quote:
 
A new study conducted by legal scholars indicates that Justice Antonin Scalia would fare better if he served as a judge at a court that was “less advanced” than the United States Supreme Court.


Something more akin to JUDGE JUDY would suit his personality and expertise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campy
Member Avatar
Handyman Extraordinaire
Judge Judy? Now there's a prime example of unfair justice I have ever seen.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Trotsky
Member Avatar
Big City Boy
Her best line:
"Beauty is fleeting, Dumb is forever."

Do you know they pay her $45 million per year?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campy
Member Avatar
Handyman Extraordinaire
Trotsky
Dec 13 2015, 04:53 AM
Her best line:
"Beauty is fleeting, Dumb is forever."

Do you know they pay her $45 million per year?
Did you know that the litigants get paid to have her try their case instead of going to a legal court?

Otherwise there's no way anyone would put up with her nonsense.

Win or lose you get something.

Excerpt:
Watch the credits at the end and it says something along the lines of "Each participant in each case has been paid an appearance fee, from which the total of the judgment is taken and given to the plaintiff as necessary." So if they're both being paid $5k, and the defendant owes the plaintiff $3k, then the plaintiff gets $8k and the defendant gets $2k.

That being said, the participants still must pay court fees to file and stuff like that, but that's trivial when you compare it to what they're paid (I think it's a few thousand dollars, most likely the amount that the court maxes out at - if you can only sue for $5k, then that's probably the appearance fee, plus you get airfare, hotel, and food, although they try to only get people in who live locally.)

I only know this because I've been on one of these types of shows before, and I've seen that disclaimer on the ends of all the ones I've ever stopped and watched.
Edited by campy, Dec 13 2015, 05:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Trotsky
Member Avatar
Big City Boy
I guess if any of them say "Madame, you are a f**king dimwit'" they don't get their paycheck.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bitsy
Member Avatar
Veteran Member
campy
Dec 13 2015, 05:14 AM
I only know this because I've been on one of these types of shows before, and I've seen that disclaimer on the ends of all the ones I've ever stopped and watched.
You agreed to file or defend a lawsuit on one of these type shows? Yike, whatever possessed you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campy
Member Avatar
Handyman Extraordinaire
Sorry:-) . That's confusing. That was part of the excerpt. It wasn't my personal experience. It was someone elses comment. I should have linked it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bitsy
Member Avatar
Veteran Member
campy
Dec 18 2015, 03:07 AM
Sorry:-) . That's confusing. That was part of the excerpt. It wasn't my personal experience. It was someone elses comment. I should have linked it.
Sorry, I probably should have read more closely, you did identify an excerpt. Thanks for clarifying. I had a hard time imagining you agreeing to that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campy
Member Avatar
Handyman Extraordinaire
I would do it. Just for the experience. It would be fun.

I could even see if she was wearing a real doily around her neck instead of a plastic one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bitsy
Member Avatar
Veteran Member
campy
Dec 18 2015, 03:58 AM
I would do it. Just for the experience. It would be fun.

I could even see if she was wearing a real doily around her neck instead of a plastic one.
I see nothing fun in being sued or suing or being ridiculed on TV...guess everyone is different....that is not my idea of fun.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campy
Member Avatar
Handyman Extraordinaire
Bitsy
Dec 18 2015, 04:19 AM
campy
Dec 18 2015, 03:58 AM
I would do it. Just for the experience. It would be fun.

I could even see if she was wearing a real doily around her neck instead of a plastic one.
I see nothing fun in being sued or suing or being ridiculed on TV...guess everyone is different....that is not my idea of fun.
Those cases are laughable. None of them are very serious.

If my neighbour cut down a tree in my yard, I'm sure I could defend myself without having to get a lawyer.

And I know I would get paid. So why not?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Trotsky
Member Avatar
Big City Boy
I have always thought I would just tell her off but I guess that might forfeit any agreed upon "salary" and of course my segment would get cut.
Edited by Trotsky, Dec 18 2015, 04:33 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Political Humour · Next Topic »
Add Reply