Talk Elections

For the purpose of political consulting, and, well....legal services.  Headed by FairBol, self-styled "Atlas Attorney At Law" (note that I don't claim to be a lawyer IRL, LOL)  :)

If I remember I will email you the fact hypothetical for fantasy Supreme Court after work if you are still interested. The plaintiff is a local government employee in the south fired for political social media posts.

I'm down! Yeah, send it on over....thanks! :)

Lobby of the main office, based in Arlington Virginia.  

()

Entrance to the consulting office, in West Palm Beach FL. 

()

The firm has been retained as legal representation in the matter of LouisvilleThunder vs. Region of Lincoln. 

Well, I was 1-0 (due to having a previous case decided in my client's favor), but it looks like I'm going to be 1-1 now.  :(

BREAKING NEWS: Opening an office in Nashville, Tennessee (as I have just been appointed Southern Attorney General).  A top assistant will continue our private practice in Arlington. 

Back open for business.  :)

Today on "Ask The (Sim) Lawyer"....


;)

If you haven't already heard, the Supreme Court of Atlasia has reached a decision in the matter of Politics Fan v The South (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=358908.msg7294369#msg7294369).  In my capacity as president of this firm, here's my response to the issues raised/opinion. 

The matter before the Court was the constitutionality of the South's "Abortion Safety and Guidelines Act".  Specifically, the petitioner argued that Clause 2 of the law is unconstitutional; thus, the entire law is unconstitutional.  The clause in question reads that "all second-trimester or third-trimester abortions must be performed in hospitals". 

First, the Court discusses the matter of standing to file suit. 

The defense alleged that petitioners had not shown themselves to be wronged or "personally affected" by the law in question.  As such, they argued that petitioners had no standing to bring the entitled action.  On this, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs indeed did have standing, by virtue of being citizens of Atlasia.  I disagree with this decision. 

The opinion offered by this Court, specifically that being a registered citizen of Atlasia grants one standing to file a legal action, is not one that is shared by actual American courts.  On the contrary, American law requires any petitioners to show how they have been "irreparably harmed" by relevant statutes.  In Part I of their ruling, the Court has disregarded this legal principle.  Realizing that this game is largely based on the laws and precedents of the United States, I find the Court to be in error on this point. 

Second, the Court takes up the question of abortion rights. 

In their ruling, the Court declares that the "right to privacy" is specifically protected by the Constitution.  The Court also says that since there is a "right to privacy", there is also a "general right to abortion access".  Again, I disagree with the Court's decision. 

The Constitution implies that a "right to privacy" does exist.  However, this right is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the text.  What is specifically mentioned is the existence of "certain inalienable rights; (that) among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". 

Now, there are those that will argue that a fetus is part of a woman's body, and nothing but a "clump of cells".  Yet, even regarded as such, a fetus satisfies all scientific requirements regarding "living organisms" (it can take in and expend energy, grow/evolve, respond to stimuli, etc.).  If a fetus is indeed a living thing, then there is no right to, based on a whim or desire, take its life.  Indeed, nobody has the right to take another's life, except in self-defense (or defense of the nation). This is generally regarded as murder, and punishable by law.  The Court would do well to consider this argument. 

In Part III of the decision, we again come to a discussion concerning the rights of the people. 

The Court opines that although the Constitution guarantees certain rights, the associated rights are not absolute.  They clarify that in this case, the relevant authority did not overstep its governmental authority.  On this issue, I agree with the Court's decision, without further comment. 

Finally, the Court considers the possibility of the law's immediate enaction.  I note that this does not seem to be an issue raised by the petitioners, but by the Court itself. 

The Court declares that because some "hospitals may not yet be equipped" to comply with the new law, women of certain states would not be able to get abortions.  This, the Court says, is an "uneven application of the law", and a "limitation on the people's rights".  As such, the honorable Justices have seen fit to order a ninety-day injunction against enforcement of this law.  I must again disagree with the Court's ruling. 

For the reasons discussed earlier (regarding the perceived right to abortion access), I believe that the Court has erred in ordering this injunction.  Furthermore, I believe this to be an instance of unwarranted judicial activism. 

I do not take issue with the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of this injunction.  I trust the Justices to reasonably determine such, and if the injunction is indeed needed.  My concern is that the Court is improperly making law, whereas it is solely within the scope of Congress to do as such.  I believe the proper role of this Court is, as described in Marbury v Madison, "to say what the law is", and nothing more. 

In its final analysis, the Court rules that

 

• The law as passed is constitutional:
• The immediate implementation of the law is unconstitutional: and that
• The law is prohibited from going into effect for ninety days. 

Although I partially dissent with the opinion of this honorable Court, I agree in principle with the final outcome.  Thank you to all for a most stimulating case. 

The firm has been retained as legal representation for the petitioner in the matter of Tmthforu94 v. Region of Fremont (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=368901.msg7291308#msg7291308).

New office coming soon. 

Back open for business.  Currently arguing in the case of OSR v DoFE. 

Putting it here just because...

...Issue 3 of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9062429#msg9062429) has just hit newsstands! Go check it out!

Just now finished working on the fourth issue of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9070083#msg9070083).  Have a look!

The long-awaited fifth issue of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9088708#msg9088708) is here!

I am hiring Fairboi and Eagle Consulting as my counsel for future needs.

Please keep up this good work.

The sixth edition of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9092242#msg9092242) has just hit newsstands.  Go check it out!

Just did a thing.

Amicus Brief (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=550796.msg9123959#msg9123959)

Since I don't have a heck of a lot else to do right now...

...ah hell, here's the seventh edition of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9124096#msg9124096). 

Go read the expanded eighth edition of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9130932#msg9130932)...

..."on newsstands now"!

The huge-ass ninth edition of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9137193#msg9137193) is out now (it took me awhile to write).  Go have a look!

The late-breaking tenth edition of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9150409#msg9150409) just hit newsstands.  Go check it out...and take the poll!

As promised, here's the eleventh edition of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9190256#msg919025).

Sprucing up the place a bit. 

Here's the lobby of the Main Office, based in Arlington, Virginia.

()

And here's the entrance to the Consulting Office, located in West Palm Beach, Florida. 

()

The latest edition of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9203230#msg9203230) is out....so check it out!

PS: It's damn hard to write and eat pizza at the same time.  LOL.  ;)

Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9219662#msg9219662)

Another edition of The Lincoln Tribune (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=547334.msg9257339#msg9257339) just released.