Say Anything Blog

Are you serious, Rob?  Do you really think that an “ordinary” citizen should not be able to cross the Bar? Is that not saying that there is an elite, the Bar Association, who really run things, and if we don’t go through them we have no rights? I agree we are off the deep end lawsuit happy, but I still think that these people have the right to represent themselves, instead of being told that they don’t have the ‘status’ or ‘merit’ to do so because they are not in the proper club. As the son of a lawyer who has exposed the elitism and fallacies of the ‘legal’ system in this country to me I reject the notion that someone should not be allowed self-representation.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.  I agree they shouldn’t get a free ride, but it seemed to me you were saying they should HAVE to hire a lawyer....

jSpin, when I said “of course people have to hire their own attorney” I didn’t mean to exclude the possibility that they represent themselves.  I just meant to say that people should pay for their own legal representation if they choose to sue (though I would also agree that awarding someone payment of their legal fees after winning a lawsuit can be appropriate).

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The story you linked to is rather incomplete, so I’m not sure which they mean, but I had just assumed this case was an argument to represent one’s-self.  I believe that there are special requirements you have to meet to even argue a case in front of the Supreme Court and it stands to reason to assume there are similar requirements to argue in front of any federal court, which is what the story mentions specifically.

I believe that the parents are simply arguing their right to respresent themselves and make their own case without a designated representitive.

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

The Supreme Court has its own bar and lawyers who argue in front of it must be admitted to that bar.  I believe that’s the argument here.  I suspect that the parents have acted as their own attorney until now.  I’m sure they have reasons why they want to argue the case themselves, but the court rules don’t allow that.

I can understand why that might be.  The Supreme Court isn’t some county courthouse for yokels.  It is the big-time.  It wouldn’t do to allow any moron that wante to argue a case there to come in and fap his gums.  It could lead to chaos and a general lack of decorum.  The problem is that once you allow the first person to do this, you have to allow every one of them.

"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James