At the risk of incurring the wrath from high upon the thing, I'm returning to take another whack at the dead horse...
Take, for example, the comment, "Granting the motion to add Laurie Roth was a gratuitous slap in Jablonski's face. Nothing more. It was a one-fingered salute." I don't see a lot of speculation there. I see an implication that a judge ruled based on personal animosity, so that's what I wrote.Do you have a better explanation of why Judge Malihi granted the motion? A legal argument as to why the motion should have been granted? Do you see any speculation on why the ALJ gave Jablonski (or President Obama) a "one-fingered salute"? Do you think anyone mistook this for other than the opinion of the person who posted it? (a person who's opinion has been frequently shown to be accurate, by the way...)
Plus, I don't think I ever got a straight answer on how, were the personal-history thing real, Jablonski would fail to protect his client from it. I thought that in this case Jablonski fell far short of his reputation, but I never implied he was that bad.Because Jablonski should have known what the ALJ was going to do? Again, the ALJ may have been playing partisan games rather than personal ones--or something else entirely, but there doesn't seem to be sound legal arguments for several of his rulings.
Yet you could hardly be unaware that I constantly write that I have not seen anyone here sink to birther depths, as I did in this case.No, you say something along the lines of "you people aren't as bad as birthers, but..." after which you go on to suggest that the boogle is behaving similarly to birthers in some way. To me, this seems to be damning with faint praise followed by a passive-aggressive attack.
Especially considering that you repeatedly maligned Mr. Jablonski for not showing up when you were repeatedly told that the decision wasn't his--it was his client's.
I don't believe you know what legal advice Jablonski decided to give.Okay, you're the one pulling out birther tactics here--namely a straw man. I never said anything about what legal advice Jablonski gave--I said that the decision wasn't his. The lawyers here seem pretty clear on the fact that no lawyer* would fail to show up to represent his client without the client's prior approval. Do you honestly think that Jablonski was a no-show on his own initiative?
* birther lawyers excepted
What we know is that with other attorneys, team Obama pitched a no-hitter every time, mostly perfect games. I keep explaining the point, but you keep pretending I'm saying this other thing that you want to put me on. Jablonski did win, but when an empty table wins, what would lose?How many games has team Obama pitched? Three or four? Maybe a half dozen or so? Why do you think that the catcher called the pitches for the others but Jablonski waved off the sign? And the question is not "what would lose?", the question is "would showing up have resulted in a better outcome?". I (and others here, I believe) think that the answer to that is a resounding "NO!". If Jablonski was there, he would have been forced to object to just about everything, turning the hearing into even more of a circus. He would have dignified the worlds worst lawyer and her sidekicks Tweedledee and Tweedledum with the honor of arguing against the representative of the POTUS, he would have raised the media profile of the event, and he would have lessened the embarrassment of the birther FAIL that occurred. I don't know (not being a lawyer), but I suspect that, legally speaking, the recommendation that came against the empty chair is much more devastating to future birther pleadings that the result of a hearing Jablonski attended would have been. Furthermore, you are comparing apples to oranges as those cases were dismissed before they got this far (as this one should have been--at least according to Judge Wright). In the few previous cases where "Team Obama" was prepared to pitch, the opponents were disqualified before the start--that didn't happen here.
Not to mention the fact that Mr. Jablonski's appearance would have lent gravitas to the plaintiffs and almost certainly would have exacerbated the circus that Orly brought into court.
Yet other lawyers showed up, and were helpful in shutting down the Taitz show, as I've cited in this thread. Any of the other hearings you think would have gone better were Taitz unopposed?None of the other cases got to this point (against President Obama's lawyers), so how can a reasonable comparison be made?
What's particularly weird is clinging to the slights of Malihi after his order. He easily could have written it up as a default, without suggesting that he was taken in by any of the birther nonsense.If Malihi was wrong not to dismiss the case before his recommendation (not an order), then he was still wrong not to have done it afterwards. It boggles my mind that you think the standard should change--it seems fundamental to me that one shouldn't use double standards.
You don't seem to have any evidence or reasoning which would imply the 9th circuit acted inappropriately (rather than just misunderstanding the level of batshit crazy incompetence in front of them--something that seems unremarkable at that point),
I have evidence for exactly what I claimed, and that's why you needed to snip it and pretend the issue was something else. As I explained, yes, the Court of Appeals for the 9'th Circuit lacked mastery of crank-management. We questioned the wisdom of some of their decisions but we always assumed good faith on the part of the Court. Look at what the Administrative Court does. There's no way it could be prepared for the level of guano it faced. Yet when the Admin Court makes questionable decisions, the judge's motives get attacked -- even the same decisions as made by the Circuit Court, such as granting a motion to videotape, the particular point that sparked this strand.The other courts were (apparently) acting appropriately, if naively. Judge Malihi (in the opinion of some) was acting inappropriately and there were indications that he understood what was going on and was encouraging it (such as the change of venue). You keep trying to draw false equivalences (in an effort to suggest that people are behaving in a manner reminiscent of birthers) while suggesting that people should be using a double standard--WTF?
If you think that the lawyers who commented on Judge Malihi's behavior were acting like birthers, then I don't think you understand the difference between the bad faith uniformly displayed by birthers and legitimate criticism.
Wow. You act like I've been accusing Fogbowers of arguing in bad faith, opposite to my position. Everyone, including us, is biased. That's not bad faith, just reality. No one gets to judge their own cause. If we want to assess a court's work, the last place to look is cases where we have taken a side.First off, I never implied that you accused members of the Fogbow of acting in bad faith (and you did compare them to birthers by saying [and I'm paraphrasing here] that they weren't as bad as birthers, but...), I accused you of not understanding the difference between birther bad faith and the legitimate (in my opinion) criticism that was going on here. As for your argument--to follow your statement to its logical conclusion, you just said that no one here is competent to asses a court's behavior in any birther case because we are all on the anti-birther side. Heisenberg taught us that objectivity is an ideal we can never reach, but, as in physics, we can generally do quite well if we try, and, as in life, it's the striving for it that's important (my personal opinion). And (again, my opinion) if you are going to judge anyone, you should start by judging yourself--taking the standards you wish to hold others to as the minimum that you require of yourself.
Slartibartfast, are you capable of grasping the bad faith issue? Don't like some of Judge Malihi's ruling, fine, disagree. There's no cause to suggest bad faith.
calling you a birther or a troll--I just think you are taking some positions that cannot be logically justified*, you are failing to acknowledge facts that invalidate your arguments**, and that what you are advocating has the effect*** of stifling the sort of open, productive discussion that is what I love about the Fogbow.
Okay, that's it for the post-mortem pony pummeling for me--if Brygenon replies and I decide to answer, I'll do it in a PM as Raicha suggested...