• 2 Posts
  • 925 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: August 17th, 2024
  • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.usOPtoMalicious Compliance@lemmy.world•[REPOST] Lawyer has to convince judge of no jurisdiction to return deported man but achieves the opposite
    41·
    2 years ago

    It looks more like he was doing the best he could to behave ethically.

    Agreed, 100%

    He can’t lie to the judge so he didn’t.

    Again, in 100% agreement.

    There’s not really anything else he could have done without violating his duty to the court.

    I addressed this in my comments about the case. So apparently the US attorney general said this,

    “He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said.

    Now, it wasn’t clear to me if a DOJ lawyer can avoid taking on a case like this, as Bondi seems to be saying. But Google’s AI did report this to me, below.

    If Google’s AI is accurate or Bondi is correct, then Reuveni could have passed on the pass and let someone else argue it. And if every legit ethical lawyer in the DOJ was allowed to pass on the case, it’d end up in the lap of some newly appointed MAGA lawyer guy who might have struck lightning and someone convinced the judge that reversing the deportation is not possible - or at least gotten additional delays in, prolonging Abrego Garcia’s suffering.

    So my case is that he didn’t do the minimum (which was the pass on the case) but he took it and then did the minimum on the case, ensuring a victory for the other side.

    From Google’s AI:

    Yes, a lawyer within the Department of Justice (DOJ) can pass on a case, but it’s typically done through a formal process and with the approval of superiors, not simply by choosing to ignore it.
    Here’s a more detailed explanation:
    DOJ Lawyers are Assigned Cases:
    DOJ lawyers, like other government lawyers, are assigned cases by their superiors or within the legal team they are part of.
    Reasons for Passing on a Case:
    There are several reasons why a DOJ lawyer might pass on a case, including:
    Conflict of Interest: If a lawyer has a conflict of interest, they may need to be removed from the case.
    Lack of Expertise: A lawyer might not have the specific expertise or experience necessary to handle a particular case.
    Overload: A lawyer might be overloaded with other cases and unable to take on additional work.
    Case Strategy: A lawyer might believe that the case is not worth pursuing, or that the best course of action is to pass it on to another lawyer or unit within the DOJ.
    Formal Process:
    Passing on a case is not something a lawyer can do unilaterally. They must follow a formal process to request to be removed from a case, which usually involves:
    Consulting with Superiors: The lawyer must first discuss the reasons for wanting to pass on the case with their supervisor or other relevant authority.
    Documentation: The reasons for passing on the case should be documented.
    Approval: The request to pass on the case must be approved by the appropriate authority.
    Consequences of Passing on a Case:
    There can be consequences for a lawyer who passes on a case, including:
    Loss of Trust: If a lawyer passes on a case without a valid reason, it could damage their reputation and the trust of their superiors.
    Negative Impact on the Case: If the case is important, passing it on could have a negative impact on the outcome.
    Alternative to Passing on a Case:
    Instead of passing on a case, a lawyer might seek assistance from other lawyers or units within the DOJ, or they may request additional resources to handle the case.
    Generative AI is experimental. For legal advice, consult a professional.

  • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.ustoOut of the loop@lemmy.world•Why Democrats criticize Schumer if his vote is to prevent a shutdown?
    1·
    2 years ago

    I appreciate that you want honest discussions,
    Then I looked through some of your other takes and intentionally voted it down because I thought you were in the wrong

    So this is exactly why I ask - I’m curious then as to what you thought was wrong. One comment that got downvoted was me thanking another commenter for an explanation behind Schumer et al, and another was just me asking someone else about their downvote - so presumably there’s a diverse range of viewpoints and opinions that you could share here. And if you chose to do so, I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging discussion on them.

    I reverted my original downvote because it was not intentional.
    do I really need to care whether or not you let anything “go”.

    Well, I just meant that I don’t usually ask for folks to reverse or revert their downvote if it’s a misclick or some other accidental thing. Getting a downvote undone is actually pretty rare in this case.

    but policing other people’s reactions

    I’m asking for an opinion, not policing them! That’s more like in lemmy.world/c/politics (where mods had explicitly set up the rule that you shouldn’t downvote just because you disagree - see rule no. 5 there).

    I mean, you can see that I didn’t even downvote you back in retaliation.

    That being said, I need not careful

    Not when it comes to me, to be sure. I don’t police and often don’t even downvote back as I wrote above. And of course I have no objections to you downvoting as long as it’s done intentionally - it’s just another way to express your opinion. (I just like asking why since it’s a chance to have a good discourse and maybe learn something.)

    But in general, I do think one should be careful to avoid downvoting by misclicking or otherwise by accident - downvotes and upvotes are public and folks are trying to figure out how to use this to make bots that check for other bots, autoban users (I think st.itjust.works is already using one) and so on. So being careful and deliberate with your up and down votes is helps to avoid getting caught in some kind of dragnet.

    is really just your reaction to someone else’s content

    This part, I didn’t understand.

    does not help you attain your goal.

    My gut feel on this is that:

    2 out of 10 times, the downvoter doesn’t respond to my post (explaining the reason for downvoting isn’t obligatory on most magazines after all), so I don’t gain anything (but neither do I seem to lose anything just by asking).

    1 out of 10 times, the downvoter downvoted because they legitimately disagree, but we both end up particpating in a good convo about the issue.

    3 out of 10 times, the downvoter misunderstood what I said, but wouldn’t have downvoted if I had gotten the point across in the beginning.

    4 out of 10 times, it’s just an accident.

    So 8 out of 10 times I attain my goal. I think that’s a pretty good track record, don’t you?

  • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.ustoOut of the loop@lemmy.world•Why Democrats criticize Schumer if his vote is to prevent a shutdown?
    11·
    2 years ago

    Basically I’m in the same boat as AOC and all the folks feeling betrayed, and I’m skeptical of Schumer’s intention because the news articles I’ve browsed over don’t include any detailed reasoning on why Schumer voted the way he did - but others on this thread have since provided a decent explanation.

    And … when folks reply to me saying that my point is unclear, I’m always happy to clarify my meaning. Typically, that engagement turns out to be fulfilling on both ends.

    A lone misclick isn’t a big deal - accidents happen and technology can sometimes be hard to use, so I tend to let these go. That said, I noticed that after writing your reply, you went ahead and downvoted three more of my comments on this post… so please try to be more careful with the misclicking. Especially considering that downvotes are essentially public.