Thanks, Oli.

This is a bit off topic. But while I have you on the subject, I'm watching "JAG" on dvd right now (seriously, as I'm typing this). I have the entire set because I thought it was a fun show, if a little bit far fetched, and it's never on in reruns anymore.

My only problem is with the insubordination that most of the major characters often show. The same thing goes on in the "NCIS" shows (and don't forget, the original "NCIS" was a "JAG" spinoff).

These character often seem to to do whatever the Hell they want, even after they're given direct orders to the contrary. You were in the military. How long would they last in real life?

Well, I was in a frontline unit, so insubordination would be taken more seriously. I would think it's different when it comes to military justice personnel. I guess that's because they are part of the same profession and they're probably given more latitude.

Most of it is funded by the states and local government. And representation is mandated by state and federal constitutions.

you seem to always have something against penalizing the worst of the worst

mothafuckas wouldn't commit heinous crimes as much if they had to die heinous

they should still use the chair

I swear you get dumber by the day. I'm for the death penalty. I was saying the system should be quicker in putting criminals to death.

Not possible. There's a ceiling, and his case, a bottom, for everything.

The state funds federal criminal defense? I don't think so.

My point was more that this whole perception of the scummy rich lawyer is false. Most lawyers I know are struggling to get by.

No. My point is that the overwhelming amount of criminal litigation is held in state/county courts, and therefore more of the public expenditure comes from state and local taxes. The federal defender receives federal money, but their caseloads are smaller. Also, there are very few federal capital cases, compared to state cases.

Our local assistant public defenders start at $80,000, the same as assistant DAs, but you are correct that criminal defense attorneys don't generally pull in the money that big M & A, civil litigation, tax, corporate firms make.

My advice to young defense counsel is to find a niche (DUI, juvenile, traffic) so that you become known as the go-to guy in the field. But for the most part defense counsel also expand into areas like unemployment, workers' comp, SSI, family, and immigration to broaden the practice.

Another problem with criminal practice is that it's the area with the highest incidence of clients not paying their fee. And it's common for judges not to allow an attorney to withdraw from an important stage of the proceeding for lack of payment.

Exactly Kly. As you point out, most alleged offenses are against state laws, not federal. Thus, the caseload for local public defenders can be onerous. Our county pays for such defenders and has even refused to pay in a couple of cases because the amount of payment was considerable.

The public sector attorneys and employees in general make too much, and thats not counting the subsidization of retirement plans. There was a time in this country where the private sector did better than the public sector, but those days have come and gone. If i knew I was going ot make 75% of my highest salary per year for life after I retired I would never save money.

focus, dammit!

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/26054712/daytona-dad-beats-man

Anybody see this? I am curious as to what people think. I think this 18 year old got the worst of the worst, because the dad beat the ever living fuck out of him AND he is going to the bing. Thugs in state prison don't like child molesters, and given this dude's size, I would say he is going to get the ever living shit beat out of him for the foreseeable future. Not too mention, he will probably become a sex slave as well. He would be better off committing suicide.

Sometimes the system works. Because this punk is gonna get turned inside out in a Central Florida prison.

That poor little boy, though .

A Court Ruling Just Blew A Huge Hole In Obamacare
National Journal 53 min ago By Sophie Novack of National Journal

Obamacare was just dealt a major loss in court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday that more than half the country shouldn't be receiving tax subsidies under Obamacare -- a ruling that could cripple the health care law if it's ultimately upheld.

The 2-1 decision in Halbig v. Sebelius is the first victory, in any court, for a legal challenge that says the tax subsidies should only be available in states that set up their own insurance exchanges.

Amazing.

It should have been knocked down for the simple reason that forcing it on people just wasn't right. But over tax subsidies? This is like getting Capone for tax evasion instead of murder .

Clarification:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously struck down a challenge to Obamacare subsidies, ruling unanimously that the people can get insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act through exchanges being run by either states or the federal government.

Just hours earlier, the D.C. circuit court had ruled in a 2-1 decision that subsidies or tax credits can only be available in the state exchanges— cutting out millions in the federal exchange and undermining the coverage goals of the Affordable Care Act. The Obama administration said it would ask the full appeals court for an en banc review.

DENVER (AP) — A federal judge in Denver declared Colorado's gay marriage ban unconstitutional on Wednesday, but he issued a temporary stay of the ruling to give the state until next month to seek an appeal.

Judge Raymond P. Moore's ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed July 1 by six gay couples who asked the court for an injunction ordering that the state's ban no longer be enforced.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Saturday overturned Washington D.C.'s ban on carrying handguns outside the home, saying it was unconstitutional.

"There is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny," Judge Frederick Scullin said in an opinion.

"Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional," he added in his 19-page ruling.

The court ordered the city to allow residents to carry handguns outside their homes and to let non-residents carry them as well.

Scullin made the ruling in the PALMER et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al case, which has been dragging on for five years.

In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s all-out ban on handguns on the basis that it violated the right to bear arms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

An appeals court in 2011 required handguns to be registered.

A key comment on the ruling was provided by Alan Gura, a well-known gun rights activist. He said: "The idea that the city can prohibit absolutely the exercise of a constitutional right for all people at all times,that was struck down" [emphasis added]. I see that as in line with Scalia's previous rulings (in DC and Chicago) that flat-out banned handgun ownership by anyone. But, he emphasized while individual gun ownership is a Constitutional right, the various government entities are not enjoined from passing regulations on gun ownership and use as long as they don't flat-out prohibit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

DC and Chicago had the highest per capita rates of gun crimes while the absolute bans were in effect. They probably still due.

TB, it's an interesting juxtaposition between the quite specific language of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the qualifications that Scalia places on it and other content of the Constitution. As a strict constructionist, it would seem that he would not recognize any governmental limitations on the keeping and bearing of arms.

Ah, but there we have the age-old question of what constitutes a "strict constructionist," or a "liberal" or a "conservative" on the Supreme Court. No doubt that Scalia has a generally conservative record, but I thought he was being very pragmatic in his DC and Chicago rulings--the Supremes are still part of the body politic notwithstanding their exalted status.

Hugo Black was known as one of the Court's great "liberals." But he always called himself a "strict constructionist."

TB, I agree. The definitions you refer to are varied and keep evolving. However, what is so interesting is that such variations are quite evident in the Court's opinions dating back to the early decades of the Union.

Oli and Kly: The University of Chicago Law School six years ago released a study, based on complex statistical modeling, that purported to objectively measure the liberalism or conservatism of Justices who served since 1937. I don't pretend to understand the math here, but if you scroll down to p.46 and beyond, you'll see the actual rankings of Justices. No real surprises:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/404.pdf

Interesting TB. However, despite the academic credentials of the authors or the theoretical framework they use, I am always leary of efforts to classify people or decisions as conservative or liberal. Of course, one challenge is to arrive at a definition of those terms (and such a definition varies) and the other is to determine what places one within either definition.

So am I.

(CNN) -- A Michigan man accused of gunning down an unarmed young woman on his front porch in November was convicted Thursday of second-degree murder, manslaughter and possessing a firearm while committing a felony.

Theodore Wafer, 55, faces a possible life prison term when sentenced on August 21. The jury deliberated for a little less than 9 hours. Wafer claimed he feared for his life when loud banging startled him awake in the early morning hours of November 2, 2013. He opened his front door and fired a fatal shotgun blast into the face of Renisha McBride, 19, who prosecutors say was seeking help after a car accident. On Thursday, a judge ordered Wafer remanded to jail though the defense asked for house arrest.

Here's one for the archives of "Crime Does Not Pay" from today's NY Times "Social Q&A":

A Stolen Snack to Remember

My neighbor left me the keys to his apartment while he traveled for a month overseas. I let myself in to borrow some peanut butter, found a zip-locked bag of lemon cookies and helped myself. It turns out they were pot cookies. Later, I was taken by ambulance to the hospital emergency room. I thought I was having a severe reaction to cold medicine. Now I’m looking at $2,000 in medical bills. Should I tell my neighbor? He may offer to cover some of my expenses, but I’m embarrassed.

Rachel, Denver

You should be embarrassed! When neighbors entrust us with their keys, it’s as a safeguard against emergencies. So we can let in gas company employees if there’s a leak — not gobble up their food or rent out the place on Airbnb. You and your neighbor might have made different arrangements, but he still doesn’t owe a nickel of your medical bills. If you tell him this story, it should be with an apology that, like Goldilocks, you made yourself a tad too comfy in his home.

DT or Kly:

I suppose that wealthy people place their money in trusts. However, if they are determined liable for some tort (such as harming someone in a car accident), regardless of any insurance payment or out of court settlement, etc., does the trust protect their money from a judgement or similar court ruling?

It depends how the trust is established and perhaps who the beneficiary is. If the trust is revocable, meaning that you retain ownership and can change the terms, purpose and amount of the trust, then the assets are not protected against those, who have a legal claim against you. If it is irrevocable, meaning that you give up all control (essentially ownership) of the trust, then creditors and judgments against you can't reach the assets for the most part.

I advise that the best way for most people of insulating yourself and loved ones from creditors, judgments and taxes is through whole life insurance. The assets and payout are free from federal and local tax and any other claim. It also bypasses probate allowing money to pass completely to your loved ones without delay.

Well, Governor Rick Perry was indicted by an Austin Grand Jury for abuse of power. While it's not unusual for a federal grand jury to indict a state elected official, state juries typically don't do so.

In any case, that and the following trial will certainly doom his presidential bid.