<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: For the lawyers in the audience</title>
	<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html</link>
	<description>Coffee, Cocktails &#38; More</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:52:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-330133</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 15:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-330133</guid>
		<description>Pro se is Latin for "have no idea what I'm doing but I'm going to get very indignant about imagined slights, lie to the court, and make life hell for the lawyers, judge, and anybody else I encounter."

Not that my recent experience with pro se parties has left me bitter or anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pro se is Latin for &#8220;have no idea what I&#8217;m doing but I&#8217;m going to get very indignant about imagined slights, lie to the court, and make life hell for the lawyers, judge, and anybody else I encounter.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not that my recent experience with pro se parties has left me bitter or anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-330128</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 14:58:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-330128</guid>
		<description>He got at least one blog to talk about it, so he probably succeeded in his true mission.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He got at least one blog to talk about it, so he probably succeeded in his true mission.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-330111</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 14:13:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-330111</guid>
		<description>Is &lt;i&gt;pro se&lt;/i&gt; Latin for "for shits and giggles?"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is <i>pro se</i> Latin for &#8220;for shits and giggles?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-329661</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 01:14:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-329661</guid>
		<description>That's true Ben, but I also can't remember why exactly.  It makes me think of the whole Clinton vs. Paula Jones thing, where the Clinton administration was trying to extend that immunity to civil claims as well.  The court didn't go for it.  

This seems like a pretty ridiculous case, and I suspect the plaintiff filed it &lt;i&gt;pro se&lt;/i&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s true Ben, but I also can&#8217;t remember why exactly.  It makes me think of the whole Clinton vs. Paula Jones thing, where the Clinton administration was trying to extend that immunity to civil claims as well.  The court didn&#8217;t go for it.  </p>
<p>This seems like a pretty ridiculous case, and I suspect the plaintiff filed it <i>pro se</i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-329621</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 23:28:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-329621</guid>
		<description>Also, I have this vague feeling that you need to impeach and remove a president before you can prosecute him.  I can't remember why, but I'm pretty sure prosecuting a sitting president just ain't happening.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, I have this vague feeling that you need to impeach and remove a president before you can prosecute him.  I can&#8217;t remember why, but I&#8217;m pretty sure prosecuting a sitting president just ain&#8217;t happening.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RumorsDaily</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-329587</link>
		<dc:creator>RumorsDaily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 22:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1095.html#comment-329587</guid>
		<description>Heroin - no way. 

Oil prices - clever, but come on. 

Murder - his claim is about American troops, and Bush doesn't want American troops to die.  If his claim had focused on foreign troops or civilians, he'd have a slightly better argument. 

The real issue is that all of these have to do with foreign policy and the conduct of the war, which is squarely within the President's authority.  US Const. Art. 1 s.2.  If there's some discrepancy between the President's authority in this area, and his Congressional mandate, we'd probably have a non-justiciable &lt;a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question" rel="nofollow"&gt;political question&lt;/a&gt; (the courts just don't get involved in such things).  But we don't.  He's acting, more or less, within his authorized powers and regardless of whether we like the outcome as of late, we're stuck with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heroin - no way. </p>
<p>Oil prices - clever, but come on. </p>
<p>Murder - his claim is about American troops, and Bush doesn&#8217;t want American troops to die.  If his claim had focused on foreign troops or civilians, he&#8217;d have a slightly better argument. </p>
<p>The real issue is that all of these have to do with foreign policy and the conduct of the war, which is squarely within the President&#8217;s authority.  US Const. Art. 1 s.2.  If there&#8217;s some discrepancy between the President&#8217;s authority in this area, and his Congressional mandate, we&#8217;d probably have a non-justiciable <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question" rel="nofollow">political question</a> (the courts just don&#8217;t get involved in such things).  But we don&#8217;t.  He&#8217;s acting, more or less, within his authorized powers and regardless of whether we like the outcome as of late, we&#8217;re stuck with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
