I suspect her speech will likely make the convention wish they were nominating her. After all, who better to present the "you didn't build it" meme than the author? And, who better as the face of the DNC than the woman who wishes we could be more like China?

As they say here, what could go wrong?

The ad is so serious, unlike the math:

The first problem is mathematical. U.S. gross domestic product is about $15 trillion a year. Increasing infrastructure “investment” to the 9% Chinese level that Ms. Warren cites would mean an additional $1 trillion a year in government spending. That’s an immense spending increase. To put it in context, the entire federal government spent about $3.6 trillion in 2011, on revenues of about $2.3 trillion.

Where would this money come from? Not tax increases, right? Ms. Warren has already reportedly promised nearly a trillion dollar tax increase, spread over ten years, by raising the estate tax, imposing the Buffett Rule, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning $250,000 a year or more. But that money, she has said, would go toward deficit reduction. If Ms. Warren really wants to spend $1 trillion a year more on infrastructure, she’d need to eliminate all national defense spending ($705 billion) or all Social Security spending ($730 billion) and then find another more than quarter trillion dollars. Or else she’d have to go on the biggest borrowing or taxing binge in American history.

Hey, why should a law professor be bound by the law, or even by her school's regulations?

If we weren't in the PRM, she would get buried. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/el ... e-problem/

She wouldn't be getting a boost in the polls recently or anything, would she?

I'm not sure on the jurisdiction thing, but isn't the real question which courts she was dealing with, rather than where her office sat?

Her New Jersey license would have sufficed to allow her to represent Travelers and other clients at the US Supreme Court. The underlying case for Travelers came out of a New York bankruptcy court. Why in heck would she need a Massachusetts law license to work on a New York bankruptcy appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court? Show me where she represented someone in a Massachusetts state court and then you will have something. I don't see anything wrong her having her address for legal correspondence at the Massachusetts law school where she taught when you she was doing work for other jurisdictions. How is that practicing law in Massachusetts? Let's say a lawyer has a national practice and represents appeals from all over the country at the US Supreme Court. He is going to be to licensed in one state but clearly his legal work is going to have nothing to do with whatever state he resides in. So must he reside in the state where he is licensed in? I don't think so. His address for the U.S. Supreme Court is simply to indicate where legal correspondence should be sent from the court or other attorneys.

Brown is clearly getting desperate.

freeman2 wrote:Her New Jersey license would have sufficed to allow her to represent Travelers and other clients at the US Supreme Court. The underlying case for Travelers came out of a New York bankruptcy court. Why in heck would she need a Massachusetts law license to work on a New York bankruptcy appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court? Show me where she represented someone in a Massachusetts state court and then you will have something. I don't see anything wrong her having her address for legal correspondence at the Massachusetts law school where she taught when you she was doing work for other jurisdictions. How is that practicing law in Massachusetts? Let's say a lawyer has a national practice and represents appeals from all over the country at the US Supreme Court. He is going to be to licensed in one state but clearly his legal work is going to have nothing to do with whatever state he resides in. So must he reside in the state where he is licensed in? I don't think so. His address for the U.S. Supreme Court is simply to indicate where legal correspondence should be sent from the court or other attorneys.

Brown is clearly getting desperate.

One question: did you read the link?

If so, you aren't a careful reader. But answer the question please.

danivon wrote:She wouldn't be getting a boost in the polls recently or anything, would she?

I'm not sure on the jurisdiction thing, but isn't the real question which courts she was dealing with, rather than where her office sat?

They're mixed.

Did you read the link? If so, why are you asking about her office? The answer is in there.

First of all I know lot more about this area than you do, DF. So quit with the smugness about reading the link (I did). If you have something to say, say it. By the way, your poster is not a lawyer either. You can look at the comments on the link as well and there is someone who says Warren is a Marxist but says this is a ridiculous story. You know why he said that even though he doesn't like Warren? Because he is a lawyer who practices in state and federal court and knows something about this area, whereas the author of your link is not a lawyer and knows nothing.

Or read the link below the excerpt following....

The fact that Charles and I happen to be licensed in Massachusetts is immaterial. That wasn’t the reason I could practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was an inactive member of the California bar as well, which was all that was needed,” Tribe says.

Tribe adds that Warren fully met all of the Supreme Court’s requirements for filing briefs and petitions with that court.

“This was not and could not be a violation of any Massachusetts rule,” Tribe says. “In fact, any state rule that interfered with a federal filing would be null and void under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. Elizabeth complied with all applicable federal rules

.

”http://masslawyersweekly.com/the-docket-blog/2012/09/24/warren-law-license-matter-called-non-issue/

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:She wouldn't be getting a boost in the polls recently or anything, would she?

I'm not sure on the jurisdiction thing, but isn't the real question which courts she was dealing with, rather than where her office sat?

They're mixed.

And Federal. Find one at a Mass court and it'd be interesting.

Did you read the link? If so, why are you asking about her office? The answer is in there.

Yes, and furthermore I checked the dockets to see which court they were related to. The 'answer' is actually that there is no strict definition of practicing law, and the ones he uses have qualifications, such as 'generally' in them.

It looks like a smear, and it seems clear why the Mass GOP and their supporters are resorting to it.

danivon wrote:And Federal. Find one at a Mass court and it'd be interesting.

Where is she currently licensed?

Yes, and furthermore I checked the dockets to see which court they were related to. The 'answer' is actually that there is no strict definition of practicing law, and the ones he uses have qualifications, such as 'generally' in them.

Re-reading it, "generally" isn't much of a qualification, as it would demand some sort of exclusion from what is "generally" accepted.

It looks like a smear, and it seems clear why the Mass GOP and their supporters are resorting to it.

It's nothing like a "smear," unless that means "the truth." She was unlicensed and was practicing law. She said as much on a radio show.

She will lose. She will lose because she's a liar (about her heritage) and a bad candidate (like proposing a $1T annual increase in spending). She'll be close, but only because this State is so corrupt and so Democratic--and I do apologize for the repetition.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And Federal. Find one at a Mass court and it'd be interesting.

Where is she currently licensed?

I think it's accepted that she recently dropped he license, but as she's comapaigning for election I'm not sure her current position is relevant (unless you can show current legal work). As per freeman2's quote, you don't need to be licensed in State X in order to practice at Federal level as long as you qualify somewhere. You do think that the Constituion is important, right? Why should a State be able to block someone from working at a Federal level?

Yes, and furthermore I checked the dockets to see which court they were related to. The 'answer' is actually that there is no strict definition of practicing law, and the ones he uses have qualifications, such as 'generally' in them.

Re-reading it, "generally" isn't much of a qualification, as it would demand some sort of exclusion from what is "generally" accepted.

Such as 'unless working on cases in a superior jurisdiction such as the Supreme Court'? As the definitions are vague (which your linked article readily admits), such exclusions may not even be expressed to exist.

It looks like a smear, and it seems clear why the Mass GOP and their supporters are resorting to it.

It's nothing like a "smear," unless that means "the truth." She was unlicensed and was practicing law. She said as much on a radio show.

it's true that she's not licensed in Mass, and wasn't. But that doesn't mean that it is 'the truth' that she broke any laws, and you know full well that this is the crux of the allegations.

She will lose. She will lose because she's a liar (about her heritage) and a bad candidate (like proposing a $1T annual increase in spending). She'll be close, but only because this State is so corrupt and so Democratic--and I do apologize for the repetition.

If she does win, will you eat your hat?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And Federal. Find one at a Mass court and it'd be interesting.

Where is she currently licensed?

I think it's accepted that she recently dropped he license, but as she's comapaigning for election I'm not sure her current position is relevant (unless you can show current legal work). As per freeman2's quote, you don't need to be licensed in State X in order to practice at Federal level as long as you qualify somewhere. You do think that the Constituion is important, right? Why should a State be able to block someone from working at a Federal level?

Assuming it's legal to practice law in Federal court without being licensed anywhere, she still may have State issues--using her office to practice law without being licensed. Of course, counting on Democrats to punish her is kind of . . . well, it isn't too likely.

Such as 'unless working on cases in a superior jurisdiction such as the Supreme Court'? As the definitions are vague (which your linked article readily admits), such exclusions may not even be expressed to exist.

You might be right. If so, it would certainly seem logical that Ms. Warren would say so when she was on the radio.

it's true that she's not licensed in Mass, and wasn't. But that doesn't mean that it is 'the truth' that she broke any laws, and you know full well that this is the crux of the allegations.

Actually, no, the crux of the allegations is that she ripped her client off. This is from a center-left radio host:

Now there’s another albatross around her neck, based on another Herald scoop in July 2012: She got $212,000 from Travelers Insurance, while the asbestos victims she says she tried to help wound up with about $5,555 apiece.

In fairness, Warren says she created an important legal tool allowing future victims to collect damages. But when you’re the supposed champion for the little guy, and the little guy gets peanuts while you get six figures, you don’t do a moot court argument over minutiae, as she did yesterday. You don’t blame what happened “after I left the case.”

You say you’re sickened by the outcome, even if it wasn’t your fault. You say you wish you’d done better. You concede a mistake. Maybe two. You say you’re very, very sorry.

She's got credibility problems. You may not like that, but it's true.

If she does win, will you eat your hat?

No, but I would be surprised. There are enough people here who actually think. They don't always make a difference, but in a situation like this, I think they will.

Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, no, the crux of the allegations is that she ripped her client off.

Ah, that's why the article you first linked to went into that allegation in such detail, because it was the main point, not some rubbish about whether she's licensed or not?

Oh, I read it again, just in case, and while it mentions the case, and her earnings from it, it does not say anything about clients being ripped off. So perhaps it's now 'the crux' because you are on quicksand over the license baloney...

I've not seen much about the actual detail of that case, the second link adds no real context. For example: who was her client, Traveler, or asbestos victims? How much money in total was at stake? What was the status of these 'asbestos victims' vis-a-vis the compensation - what was it for, and were they able to get compensation elsewhere? If she had not done the work - if no-one had - would they have gotten more, less, or the same?

It may be that what she did was reprehensible (or it may be that there is not that much to it), but that's not the allegation you jumped into the thread with at first, which is that she was acting illegally.

I'm sure she does have credibility problems. She's a US politician for a machine party. I can't think of many Republicrats who don't have some credibility problem, frankly.

On the issue that you don't go into, but which is also beng used to attack her, the 'Native American' thing, I'll say this: Families have legends about their past that sometimes turns out to be untrue, and sometimes turns out to be true. Until a couple of months ago, I had been led to believe that my father's side had some European Jewish roots. A bit of genealogical research has turned up no evidence of such forebears, despite it being something that was believed by at least three generations. Had I been asked before July, I would have said that I have Jewish heritage, knowing only what my grandmother had told me. Would that make me a liar?

And how does anyone know Warren does not have Amerindian ancestry?

danivon wrote:So perhaps it's now 'the crux' because you are on quicksand over the license baloney...

Hey, you're the one with the crux.

On the issue that you don't go into, but which is also beng used to attack her, the 'Native American' thing, I'll say this: Families have legends about their past that sometimes turns out to be untrue, and sometimes turns out to be true. Until a couple of months ago, I had been led to believe that my father's side had some European Jewish roots. A bit of genealogical research has turned up no evidence of such forebears, despite it being something that was believed by at least three generations. Had I been asked before July, I would have said that I have Jewish heritage, knowing only what my grandmother had told me. Would that make me a liar?

Only if you tried to raise it to get ahead or continued to claim it when there was no supporting evidence and you were confronted with it:

The facts, as they have dribbled out, are these: Ms. Warren has in the past claimed an American Indian lineage, though she has no tangible proof of it. A genealogist who initially said he had discovered that she might be one thirty-second Cherokee subsequently said he could not locate the original documents.

She listed herself in a legal directory in the 1980s and ’90s as a minority in what critics say was an attempt to advance her academic career. In 1996, a Harvard official described her to The Harvard Crimson as a Native American. A Fordham University law review article in 1997 quoted that same official as saying she was Harvard’s “first woman of color.” In 2005, a decade after she left the University of Pennsylvania, it listed her as one of eight “minorities” who had won a particular award.

Ms. Warren has said she learned through “family lore” that she was descended from the Cherokee and Delaware tribes. She has said she listed herself in the legal directory as a minority in order to meet people like herself, though the listing did not specify her ethnicity. She has said she was unaware that Harvard and other colleges had put her forth as a diversity hire.

Officials from the law schools where she has taught have insisted that her ancestry played no role in her hiring and have scoffed at such suggestions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/us/po ... wanted=all

And how does anyone know Warren does not have Amerindian ancestry?

She's been offered the opportunity to take DNA tests . . .

Her defense is "I was told . . . "

Okay, so then the question is, "Did you use your ancestry to get ahead?" In other words, did she "check the box" so she would get the benefit of "affirmative action?" Her answers have been erratic and she has refused to allow access to relevant documents.

Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, you're the one with the crux.

You what? Is this third grade now? You were moving goalposts and you know it.

So, did you find any more about her (as you put it) 'ripping off her clients'?