He's wrong, as I showed you. He's a political commentator now, not a lawyer. Levin in his professional life has never not been a lawyer. Get your facts straight.
From Wikipedia:
"B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. Levin also earned a Juris Doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law.
"Beginning in 1981, Levin served as adviser to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor (BTW for you, "freedomwarrior 998" that means "lawyer") of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
"He has practiced law in the private sector (OOPS! there's that "lawyer" term again), and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia."
Yeah, he's not a lawyer. He's just a commentator. [/sarc]. A noted author in the context of the history of law, as well: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto was released on March 24, 2009, and became a No. 1 New York Times best seller for eleven of twelve weeks [ref. Wikipedia].
Just curious: Have you ever been a practicing Attorney General, yourself?
And again, just curious -- have you any personal experience practicing before the same courts as Levin has, or have you any experience arguing any of the points you are trying to make here before any court of law?
Cuccinelli IS a CURRENTLY PRACTICING lawyer and it just so happens that he is the current serving AG for the State of Virgina. It is he and his team who crafted the challenge.
I'll wager that Cucinelli knows ALL the prevailing law and context of decisions better than any "blogger" on this board. You provide no context to the cases you cite, hence the relevance of the language you quote is meaningless.
Having progressed his case successfully thus far, I am content with Cucunelli's opinion with regard to his anticipated success over yours -- whether you happen to write as just another "arm chair lawyer" yourself, or not.
Levin in his professional life has never not been a lawyer. Get your facts straight. You should get your facts straight. Just because one has a J.D. doesn't mean that one is a lawyer. In fact, one can get a bar card, practice law, and then later quit. Levin's trade is political commentary now, not law.
From Wikipedia:
Did you actually just cite Wikipedia? BWWWWWWWAAAAAAHHAHHAHAHA!
Yeah, he's not a lawyer. He's just a commentator. [/sarc]. A noted author in the context of the history of law, as well: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto was released on March 24, 2009, and became a No. 1 New York Times best seller for eleven of twelve weeks [ref. Wikipedia].
Uh huh, and it's a book meant for the masses, not an entry in a legal journal on the severability doctrine, which of course is what is relevant to the context here.
Just curious: Have you ever been a practicing Attorney General, yourself?
Fallacious.
And again, just curious -- have you any personal experience practicing before the same courts as Levin has, or have you any experience arguing any of the points you are trying to make here before any court of law?
Yes.
Cuccinelli IS a CURRENTLY PRACTICING lawyer and it just so happens that he is the current serving AG for the State of Virgina. It is he and his team who crafted the challenge.
Did you even read Cuccinelli's brief? Virginia is challenging the mandate, not the entire law.
I'll wager that Cucinelli [sic]knows ALL the prevailing law and context of decisions better than any "blogger" on this board. You provide no context to the cases you cite, hence the relevance of the language you quote is meaningless.
Look up the cases yourself. The severability doctrine is well established. Whether you like it or not, the lack of a severability clause does not mean that the Court will strike down the entire bill because of one Unconstitutional provision. You can stick your fingers in your ears, stamp your feet, throw out fallacious appeals to authority, or do whatever else you want, but the FACTS of the situation are exactly as I have outlined to you. Pretending otherwise won't change that.
Having progressed his case successfully thus far, I am content with Cucunelli's [sic] opinion with regard to his anticipated success over yours -- whether you happen to write as just another "arm chair lawyer" yourself, or not.
You can't even spell his name correctly. In any case, Virginia is challenging the mandate, which is most likely Unconstitutional. However, even if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, does not mean that the rest of the bill will be. Whether or not you like the way that the Courts have established the severability doctrine, the doctrine is settled law.