YOU'RE FIRED!

[Sommerswerd]

Colin Kaepernick wasn't fired because of his protests though.

I see what you did there... a clever little goalpost switch. Nice try . To recap...You said... and I quoted... this:

There is absolutely no threat to the livelihoods of NFL players over this.

And to that I responded:

Tell that to Colin Kaepernick...

So you then switch the goal post to:

In fact, he wasn't fired at all.

which is an irrelevant response to my statement. You see that don't you? As for the rest of your argument on Kaepernick, @Dachs covered it, so I don't need to repeat.

So while I acknowledge that my argument may not be completely correct, it certainly isn't completely wrong either.

That reminds me of the scene in Independence Day when the Sec of Defense says "Uhhhh Mr. President... That's not entirely accurate." Another way of saying "not completely correct" is "wrong" but I can live with you at least acknowledging being partly wrong.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Do you defend people who aren't paying you?

Sure, if I like them or I feel that they are deserving/worthy of being defended. In other words, I defend whoever I like.

I dont know why you keep repeating that, I've been asking where you draw the line on other rights... and it appears you're okay with rounding up and executing the Klan because they have no rights.

This bolded is a strawman. And I keep repeating my statement because you keep asking the same question no matter how many times I tell you my unambiguous position. You keep trying to hang the "wants to round up the Klan and execute them" strawman on me, when I never said any such thing.

What if they're waving $$$ under your nose?

Again... I am not defending the freaking Klan. $$$ is irrelevant. If the Klan asked me to defend them I would decline.

Do you believe Klan members are entitled to due process or should they be rounded up and executed?

That's a false choice. I don't have to pick between acknowledging the existence of Constitutional rights and committing genocide. Again... I categorically reject the slippery slope argument in this context. People making the slippery slope argument in this context are essentially saying "If you don't let the Klan/Nazis say and do what they want, then the next thing you know, we'll all be in concentration camps"... When the historical truth is exactly the opposite. If you let the Klan/Nazis do what they want, pretty soon we'll have people in concentration camps. The Republic will be just fine with the Klan being marginalized, and there will always be plenty of you (the royal you) falling all over themselves to defend white supremacists. Frankly, the Klan and their sympathizers seem to be doing just fine nowadays. The slippery slope argument is just a lame excuse for defending the Klan.

Are you going to defend them only if they pay you?

Again... "pay" is irrelevant. I am not defending the freaking Klan. Eff those Ay holes..
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I do not like them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I would not, defend them, in the rain.
Not in the dark. Not on a train.
Not in a car. Not in a tree.
I do not like them, Berz, you see.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I DO NOT LIKE THE KU KLUX KLAN!
I don't defend them, Berz my man.

 

[rah]

I think the most relevant piece of information here is that the Dolphins paid Jay Cutler, a disgraced former NFL QB who ended his career on the bench, $10 million to come back and suit up for them despite being even more out of shape than he was with the Bears.

Cutler knew the system they were running, had experience with their management and had his best year as a QB when he was under Gase. That decision had nothing to do with Kaps experience or skills.

Your other arguments may hold water, but don't use this example.

 

[Berzerker]

This bolded is a strawman.

You didn't bold "it appears"... Your unambiguous position is eff the ayholes... They have no right to free speech...so, do they have any rights? Your unambiguous response has been eff the ayholes followed later by straw man and slippery slope... Does this mean you believe the Klan do have rights you'll defend?

Again... I am not defending the freaking Klan. $$$ is irrelevant. If the Klan asked me to defend them I would decline. That's a false choice. I don't have to pick between acknowledging the existence of Constitutional rights and committing genocide. Again... I categorically reject the slippery slope argument in this context. People making the slippery slope argument in this context are essentially saying "If you don't let the Klan/Nazis say and do what they want, then the next thing you know, we'll all be in concentration camps"... When the historical truth is exactly the opposite. If you let the Klan/Nazis do what they want, pretty soon we'll have people in concentration camps. The Republic will be just fine with the Klan being marginalized, and there will always be plenty of you (the royal you) falling all over themselves to defend white supremacists. Frankly, the Klan and their sympathizers seem to be doing just fine nowadays. The slippery slope argument is just a lame excuse for defending the Klan. Again... "pay" is irrelevant. I am not defending the freaking Klan. Eff those Ay holes..

You brought up pay but you do defend the Klan, you oppose rounding them up for the concentration camps, right? Do you acknowledge free speech as a constitutional right? The 'slippery slope' argument had one purpose, to show that you defend the Klan. You just wont do it when they speak. Okay, but thats a rather weak position from which to complain about other people. You accused them of hypocrisy for failing to support the players with the same enthusiasm as the Charlottesville protesters, but where were you? Eff'ing the ayholes.

As for doing fine, I was under the impression 'right wing' protests were being drowned out or cancelled for security reasons... Did you feel that? Felt like we just slipped a little... Eff the ayholes \ end of free speech

 

[rah]

If anyone can determine who deserves rights, then no one has them. As much as I hate the ayholes, I can't deny them the same rights as everyone else. But I may (guiltily) cheer those Blues Brothers moments.

 

[Commodore]

which is an irrelevant response to my statement

It's not irrelevant at all. You have repeatedly stated that NFL players are under threat of being fired over their protests. You then go on to bring up Kaepernick as an example of someone who was fired for protesting. I then pointed out that Kaepernick essentially quit his job voluntarily and it wasn't because of his protests.

In other words, you still have not demonstrated how there is any threat at all to NFL players' livelihoods over this. And since you are always so eager to demonstrate something when you know you are right, the fact that you haven't done so yet leads me to believe you have no real way of demonstrating this mythical "threat" to the livelihoods of players. In fact, now that the NFL has essentially decided to not do anything about the protests, that makes your claim that players are being threatened with unemployment even weaker.

Again... "pay" is irrelevant. I am not defending the freaking Klan. Eff those Ay holes..

Then you shouldn't be a lawyer. You have a professional responsibility to defend any client your firm assigns to you, and defend them to the absolute best of your ability. If you refuse to defend a KKK member as vehemently as you would a BLM member, then you really have no business being a lawyer. Even the ACLU understands that.

 

[Lexicus]

Then you shouldn't be a lawyer. You have a professional responsibility to defend any client your firm assigns to you, and defend them to the absolute best of your ability. If you refuse to defend a KKK member as vehemently as you would a BLM member, then you really have no business being a lawyer. Even the ACLU understands that.

You do know that not all law is criminal law and that not all lawyers are trial lawyers...don't you?

 

[Berzerker]

now there's a straw man

If anyone can determine who deserves rights, then no one has them. As much as I hate the ayholes, I can't deny them the same rights as everyone else. But I may (guiltily) cheer those Blues Brothers moments.

Stop defending the Klan!

 

[JollyRoger]

Then you shouldn't be a lawyer. You have a professional responsibility to defend any client your firm assigns to you, and defend them to the absolute best of your ability. If you refuse to defend a KKK member as vehemently as you would a BLM member, then you really have no business being a lawyer. Even the ACLU understands that.

That would be firm policy, not professional responsibility - and the firm could be violating its ethical rules if it assigned a client to a lawyer where it knew the lawyer had strong reservations about representing the client.

As for Professional Responsibility, here is the relevant Texas Rule for withdrawal from Representation. It is even easier to decline representation. As a solo practitioner, I will not face discipline for declining to represent a klansman. This is true, even if I take in representing every BLM client that comes along. In fact, depending on what matter I am representing a BLM client on, I may have a conflict of interest where it would be unethical for me to represent a klansman.

Rule 1.15. Declining or Terminating Representation

(a) A lawyer shall decline to represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw, except as stated in paragraph (c), from the representation of a client, if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of Rule 3.08, other applicable rules of professional conduct or other law;

(2) the lawyer's physical, mental or psychological condition materially impairs the lawyer's fitness to represent the client; or

(3) the lawyer is discharged, with or without good cause.

(b) Except as required by paragraph (a), a lawyer shall not withdraw from representing a client unless:

(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;

(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes may be criminal or fraudulent;

(3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;

(4) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent or with which the lawyer has fundamental disagreement;

(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services, including an obligation to pay the lawyer's fee as agreed, and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;

(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or

(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

(c) When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.

(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment

 

[FriendlyFire]

Then you shouldn't be a lawyer. You have a professional responsibility to defend any client your firm assigns to you, and defend them to the absolute best of your ability. If you refuse to defend a KKK member as vehemently as you would a BLM member, then you really have no business being a lawyer. Even the ACLU understands that.

Didnt a ton of top Lawyers and top firms refuse to represent President Trump ?

 

[metalhead]

Commodore lecturing Sommer on his professional responsibility as a lawyer is the best thing that ever happened this week.

 

[Commodore]

As a solo practitioner, I will not face discipline for declining to represent a klansman.

Professional responsibility doesn't necessarily mean you will face discipline if you don't do something. There's a lot of things I could get away with not doing at my current job that I technically don't have to do, but I do them anyway because it would be considered unprofessional for me to neglect those tasks.

If there's one thing both lawyers and soldiers have in common, it is the expectation that they be apolitical when carrying out their duties. The difference though is that lawyers can't be punished for letting politics interfere with their job, while soldiers can.

 

[Berzerker]

Commodore lecturing Sommer on his professional responsibility as a lawyer is the best thing that ever happened this week.

Not much of a profession if the people tasked with defending people dont even think they should be defended

 

[Commodore]

You do know that not all law is criminal law and that not all lawyers are trial lawyers...don't you?

Yeah. The point still stands. Let's say Sommer handles civil suits. Given his statements here, can he really be trusted to protect his client's interests in a civil suit if he finds out they also happen to be a white supremacist? He is on record as saying he doesn't believe white supremacists should have their rights defended. He is also on record as saying he personally refuses to defend white supremacists, no matter how much money they offer him. That is him letting his personal politics encroach on his professional career. There's a word for people who do that: unprofessional.

 

[danjuno]

Given his statements here, can he really be trusted to protect his client's interests in a civil suit if he finds out they also happen to be a white supremacist?

What is unprofessional about choosing which clients you do business with as a private practice lawyer, at least within the relative free market we have here in the US? If anything, it would be wise for a private practice lawyer to avoid association with toxic clientele. And whether SW thinks a KKKer's rights should be defended for simply being a KKKer or not is irrelevant if they're never going to do business with them.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You didn't bold "it appears"... Your unambiguous position is eff the ayholes... They have no right to free speech...so, do they have any rights?

The bolded is a strawman. I never said any such thing. once again you're projecting your strawman positions onto me and then demanding that I answer for the strawman positions that you have fabricated from whole cloth. You're asking me questions about the Klan and each time I am responding to you with my unambiguous position... Eff.The.Klan. "Does the Klan this? Does the Klan that?" Eff those guys. I don't care about them. Eff them. That's my answer. Let me give you an analogy. I don't like Raisin Bran cereal (obviously). Eff Rasin Bran, I don't like it. If you ask me "Should Raisin Bran be sold in Walmart or not?" My answer is "I don't care, eff Rasin Bran."

You brought up pay

No I didn't. That is another strawman introduced by you. In this discussion, I said "job" not "pay" or "$$$", those are two distinct concepts. You slid "$$$" in because you were trying to use that to make some kind of a point, once again, strawmanning my position and demanding that I defend the strawman position you projected onto me.

but you do defend the Klan, you oppose rounding them up for the concentration camps, right?

Strawman after strawman. Nobody is rounding up the Klan into concentration camps, and trying to project a position onto me for your absurd hypothetical is just another form of strawmanning. You are trying to insist that I must either support or oppose your absurd hypothetical. I reject that premise out of hand. Once again, I don't defend the Klan. Eff those guys.

 

[JollyRoger]

Professional responsibility doesn't necessarily mean you will face discipline if you don't do something. There's a lot of things I could get away with not doing at my current job that I technically don't have to do, but I do them anyway because it would be considered unprofessional for me to neglect those tasks.

If there's one thing both lawyers and soldiers have in common, it is the expectation that they be apolitical when carrying out their duties. The difference though is that lawyers can't be punished for letting politics interfere with their job, while soldiers can.

Are you kidding me? How many lawyers are in Congress? How many have practices with a political bent? How many choose their pro bono cases based on their politics?

I have certainly played off the known political leanings of a judge when crafting an argument that would persuade him.

Yeah. The point still stands. Let's say Sommer handles civil suits. Given his statements here, can he really be trusted to protect his client's interests in a civil suit if he finds out they also happen to be a white supremacist? He is on record as saying he doesn't believe white supremacists should have their rights defended. He is also on record as saying he personally refuses to defend white supremacists, no matter how much money they offer him. That is him letting his personal politics encroach on his professional career. There's a word for people who do that: unprofessional.

I am confident he could be trusted to ethically terminate the relationship. I certainly try to screen out clients that would be miserable for me to represent based on their personality. If I find that I have unwisely let a jerk retain me, you can bet I am looking for an ethical way out. Plenty of other lawyers that will take on the burden an I usually try to find such a lawyer to hand my client off to.

For the record, I am not for rounding up the klan and putting them in concentration camps. That's what we have FEMA Camps for.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The 'slippery slope' argument had one purpose, to show that you defend the Klan.

Yes I'm aware of that and it failed in that purpose, because once again, I reject the slippery slope argument as its patently absurd. Underlying the slippery slope argument in this context is the idea that "We need to do/tolerate something really bad in order to prevent some hypothetical fantasy also bad thing in the undefined hypothetical future." It's a hogwash argument that people use to cover the simple reality... It's fun and intellectually masturbatory to play devils advocate, and/or play the martyr/the bigger person.

That's all this really is about for many people. The reason I say this is because you gave away earlier that your prior stated reason for defending the Klan, the "Passionate about Freedom of Speech" claim was, as I suspected, not entirely accurate. Once we stripped away the typical varnish defense we always hear, ie "I'm not defending the Klan I'm defending Free Speech!" and got you to realize that defending the Klan's rights is defending the Klan... you then quoted me asking Commodore point blank:

Why are you defending the Klan?

and you answered for yourself:

The Golden Rule

Which is decidedly not "because I'm passionate about Freedom of Speech"... See in that moment you gave yourself away... you admitted that for you its all about feeling like your living up to a higher moral standard... in other words, feeling like you're being the bigger person, being the better person... putting on you WWJD hat... "I defend the Klan because of The Golden Rule" is a highly intellectually masturbatory position to be taking... and ultimately its a farce, here's why...

Do you see that by treating the Klan how you would want to be treated (ie treating them according the to The Golden Rule) is simultaneously treating others, gays, jews and blacks for example, how you would not want to be treated... specifically by enabling, protecting and elevating people who are trying/wanting to do them harm? Another nuance is that if one of their goals is to intimidate jews, treating them how you would want to be treated if you were them is by letting them intimidate jews, but what about treating them how you would want to be treated if you were you? Frankly if I was mistreating jews... how I'd want to be treated, is for someone to tell me to stop... and if necessary... punch me in the face.

So see, "The Golden Rule" doesn't really work in this context, but I understand what you were doing by invoking it... trying to invoke some higher morality in defending the Klan... which frankly, I reject.

 

[metalhead]

Not much of a profession if the people tasked with defending people dont even think they should be defended

Which is of course not anything that anyone in this thread has ever said.

Lawyers aren't required to take every case that walks through the door, nor is there an expectation that they be free from political opinions.

Ethics requires that if a lawyer believes their own views will interfere with their ability to represent a given client, that they decline to try to do so anyways. This is in the best interest of the client.

I don't know where anyone got this ridiculous notion that lawyers aren't expected to be actual human beings. The whole point of legal ethics is to protect clients from the human failings that all lawyers have, what with them being human beings and all. Trying to gotcha us with, "Oh lol you aren't soulless automatons!" is ridiculous.

 

[Dachs]

Cutler knew the system they were running, had experience with their management and had his best year as a QB when he was under Gase. That decision had nothing to do with Kaps experience or skills.

Your other arguments may hold water, but don't use this example.

There are some similarities between the plays that Gase's Dolphins have been running and the plays that Gase has used before, but saying that Cutler "knew the system" is a bit much.

I can, however, buy that Gase and Dolphins management were dumb enough to think that what happened in 2015 meant that Cutler, who pretty much everybody else in football and sports media knew was going to be atrocious, might have had a future. Problem is, when the Dolphins' best argument involving "football reasons" is "we fooled ourselves into something everybody else knew was dumb for football reasons", that doesn't say much in their favor.