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.
He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.I suppose next you'll say something irrelevant like, "Well, he doesn't practice as many hours a week as I think he should to be called a real lawyer."
Cuccinelli of VA and McCollum of FL are both under that impression. I've heard each of them on several occasions state that if SCOTUS finds just on part of ObamaCare unconstitutional, then the *entire* law goes down because of its lack of a severability clause.
Sounds like you may be speaking more for yourself than anyone else.
In fact, one can get a bar card, practice law, and then later quit.
True, but one is still by definition no less a lawyer. Unless, of course, assuming you were ever one, it was you who quit -- or were forced to quit. In that case you are free to consider yourself a has-been, possibly even a disbarred lawyer.
That said, one needn't necessarily be disbarred and not practice law, but in your case I could make an exception.
Levin's trade is political commentary now, not law.
It is one of his trades, but certainly not his only trade. As president of Landmark Legal Foundation, Levin advises preparation of cases as a lawyer. Are you alleging that his bar status is not current, or that he doesn’t advise the preparation of cases, and sign briefs prepared by Landmark in representation of Landmark’s legal interests in his capacity as a lawyer?
Did you actually just cite Wikipedia? BWWWWWWWAAAAAAHHAHHAHAHA!
Was there something inaccurate in the biographical information found in Wikipedia that you’d care to point out, or is it just that your jealousy is showing through again?
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.
You have read far too much into what I said, and in so doing my point completely escaped you. One imagines this happened to you under cross-x on more occasions than you’d ever truthfully admit.
I named Levin as a legal historian, even as I made the reference to his fine book. I did not say that Levin spoke to the severability clause in this text. You read that in -- very poor debate form on your part.
In that Levin demonstrates a command of the history of law and legal precedent in way in which so far you have failed to demonstrate the same on behalf of yourself, I am more inclined to hold Levin’s legal opinions in a higher regard than yours. It’s really no more difficult to comprehend than that.
Me: Just curious: Have you ever been a practicing Attorney General, yourself? You: Fallacious.
Busted.
Let the record show that the Competency-to-comment score now stands at Cuccinelli (1), “freedomwarrior998” (0).
Me: 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? you: Yes.
Yes, to one, or both? Name the case(s) where you argued the points that your are trying to do here re: severability in the context of the current “Obamacare” lack-of-severability clause issue. This should be quite revealing.
Did you even read Cuccinelli's brief? Virginia is challenging the mandate, not the entire law.
If you understood anything about the pivotal importance of the severability issue in the present context you’d also know Cuccinelli doesn’t have to.
Look up the cases yourself.
You make the point, you cite the case, you defend it. The obligation is yours alone to show that you even know the facts of the case(s) and that the context for each is even relevant to the topic. So far, you’ve just been blowing smoke.
The severability doctrine is well established.
And that’s really all we ever needed to know isn’t it? Thank you for conceding that point finally.
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.
One can never be 100% certain of an outcome. But the severability issue is relevant and it can be used in this instance to strike down the whole law. All your pretending won’t change that.
And that’s why you are wrong.
You can't even spell his name correctly.
Incorrect, and here you resort to hyperbole. Again -- very bad debate form. I demonstrated earlier that I spelled his name correctly, I just didn’t happen to do so here. I can tell that “arm-chair lawyer” dig really got to you.
What is becoming ever more clear at this point in the discussion is that your position is inherently weak, as your attempts to sidetrack the debate merely demonstrate your penchant for becoming distracted.
In any case, Virginia is challenging the mandate, which is most likely Unconstitutional.
Most likely? You have some doubt? Can you name the provision in the Constitution which mandates that an individual purchase anything? I know Obama once claimed to have been a Constitutional “professor” at one point, but are you at all familiar with the US Constitution yourself ?
However, even if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, [sic.] does not mean that the rest of the bill will be.
My point originally was simply that Cuccinelli would disagree with you. Since Cuccinelli is in the position he is in and it is a position your demonstrated level of “talent” has never held, or likely has ever come close to holding, he knows more about the likelihood of success of his case than a wannabe like you could ever possibly hope to know. So does Levin and for similar reasons.
Whether or not you like the way that the Courts have established the severability doctrine, the doctrine is settled law.
Can you name the law that settled “the doctrine”? U.S.C. citation will do.
I have no problem at all with the severability “doctrine.” It only makes my point much more substantial. It is your argument which fails in the face of it.