She was too young. When my father was about to marry her, he discussed the matter with me and I said all I cared about was whether she was older than I was. She cleared that hurdle by two years, but was born well after WWII.
Coincidentally, my father died 9 years ago today. His second wife, whom we all liked, was Japanese, and my father and I had a running routine where I'd call on 12/7 and we'd bat jokes back and forth about surprises, sneaky things, and the weather ("a nip in the air"). We never knew whether she got it.
This. There are lots of ways to skin the health care cat. Many of them work very well, and, since they exist, they must be affordable. I don't care which of the many reasonable ways we go. Let's pick one and do it.
Not likely to help. Much of opportunistic federalism involves pure pocketbook issues. Many a big business prefers to deal with a single bureaucracy and a single set of regulations than with fifty, so we see such intrusions on traditional state authority as the Class Action Fairness Act and federal laws preventing states from applying their product liability laws to firearms. Almost everyone cares far more about the substance of the laws than about the "appropriate" level of government to make them, and will push for what they want at whatever level of government is most likely to give it to them. Principle be damned. When anyone outside of the ivory tower talks federalism, he could be sincere, but that's not the way to bet.
This isn't a partisan issue. Almost nobody, left or right, wants Federalism For Real. Not that there aren't a few principled federalists. By my count there are 37 of them.
I have in my library a copy of an ABA publication on law firm management published in 1962. I wish I had it at hand to quote directly, but the gist of the section on hourly billing was that a busy lawyer could reasonably expect to bill about 1200 hours annually, and should set hourly rates accordingly. Hard to believe it was ever like that.
So how do you come out on the dog-walking question?
I haven't had to bill my time for many years, but I tried that very same experiment once, just for the hell of it. But the right way to do the math, and the correct way to bill, is to use six minutes as a minimum, regardless of the time taken, and the right way to scam is to make a two-minute call for Client A, bill six minutes, spend three minutes e-filing something for Client B, spend another two minutes doing something minor for Client C, bill six minutes, then spend two minutes on another call for Client A, bill six minutes, spend another three minutes on something for Client B, bill six minutes, and so on. So far, you have done four minutes of work for Client A and billed twelve, although you could have done both calls back-to-back and gotten both in for the six-minute minimum.
You can easily bill two to three times the actual working hours by breaking up the tasks, though that is not only bad for the client, but inefficient for the lawyer.
I remember a prominent black leader who told me he disagreed with Jack Kemp's politics but believed he was not a racist because: "he has showered with more black people than most Republicans know."
This is getting repetitious, but the subject at hand is not immigration, legal or illegal, in general, but birthright citizenship. There are lots of economic arguments, good or bad, about immigration, but I haven't yet seen anyone even try to show that the economic impact of birthright citizenship is anything other than small potatoes.
It doesn’t need a Constitutional Amendment. It’s baked right into the 14th which says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” People here without the knowledge or consent of the federal government are not under the “jurisdiction thereof” or they would’ve been deported.
I, and most of the rest of the legal profession, disagree with you.
I haven't made an argument for unlimited birthright citizenship, and don't even have strong feelings about it. All I say is that, for good or ill, that is the current rule, baked into the Constitution, and that I have yet to hear anyone explain what the problem with it -- birthright citizenship, not immigration in general -- is and why it is a big enough problem to be worth ginning up the Constitutional amendment process for some unspecified other system. What I have heard doesn't encourage me to extend the benefit of the doubt.
Chip may want to speak for himself, but I thought he was asking not about immigration restriction in general -- for which there are non-racist economic arguments, not very good, but non-racist -- and the topic under discussion, birthright citizenship. The arguments over that probably aren't economic because it is small potatoes. Or so we are entitled to think for all anyone has said.
You're wasting your time. You'll never get an answer; only the assertion that one could be against birthright citizenship for non-racist reasons. And of course one could, but in the absence of any evidence of a problem worth solving and any specific program to solve whatever the alleged problem is, that's not the way to bet.
Why would anyone "run" on birthright citizenship? It is already the law. I don't see that many people running on a constitutional amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship, and little evidence that it's a priority issue for any reachable voter.
I understand the political value of being aware of what s**t people believe so we can deal with it. Most of the time, however, we already are aware of it, and can't figure out how to deal with it. In the absence of some practical suggestions along that line, I do get tired of arguments based on what "the perception is" or what "[t]he widespread belief is" instead of what's so.
There's nothing sacred about birthright citizenship; it's just the current rule, encoded into the Constitution and, thus, beyond the reach of Congress or the President. Even though one could legitimately argue for a different system, what are the current facts? Is the actual state of birthright citizenship a big enough deal to gin up the amendment process? Who wants it changed that badly? And why? The likelihood that this is motivated by actual knowledge about some genuine problem seems to me slim.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “When a Feller Needs a Friend: Lucille”
Whom?
On “Linky Friday: Pearl Harbor”
She was too young. When my father was about to marry her, he discussed the matter with me and I said all I cared about was whether she was older than I was. She cleared that hurdle by two years, but was born well after WWII.
"
Coincidentally, my father died 9 years ago today. His second wife, whom we all liked, was Japanese, and my father and I had a running routine where I'd call on 12/7 and we'd bat jokes back and forth about surprises, sneaky things, and the weather ("a nip in the air"). We never knew whether she got it.
On “How To Pay For It”
No fair bringing in real numbers.
"
This. There are lots of ways to skin the health care cat. Many of them work very well, and, since they exist, they must be affordable. I don't care which of the many reasonable ways we go. Let's pick one and do it.
On “Guiltiest Feeling: The Phone”
How many movie and novel plot lines have been ruined by the cell phone?
On “The Miracle and the Moment”
I'm not sure they haven't "improved their skills" -- or learned that they had skills they didn't know they had, which may be much the same thing.
On “Let the People Gerrymander Themselves”
Not likely to help. Much of opportunistic federalism involves pure pocketbook issues. Many a big business prefers to deal with a single bureaucracy and a single set of regulations than with fifty, so we see such intrusions on traditional state authority as the Class Action Fairness Act and federal laws preventing states from applying their product liability laws to firearms. Almost everyone cares far more about the substance of the laws than about the "appropriate" level of government to make them, and will push for what they want at whatever level of government is most likely to give it to them. Principle be damned. When anyone outside of the ivory tower talks federalism, he could be sincere, but that's not the way to bet.
On “The Democratic Party Was Not Always This Way”
Chad, LeeEsq., you can't be spoiling the kids' fun by bringing up old stuff like that.
On “Let the People Gerrymander Themselves”
This isn't a partisan issue. Almost nobody, left or right, wants Federalism For Real. Not that there aren't a few principled federalists. By my count there are 37 of them.
On “Wednesday Writs for 11/21”
I have in my library a copy of an ABA publication on law firm management published in 1962. I wish I had it at hand to quote directly, but the gist of the section on hourly billing was that a busy lawyer could reasonably expect to bill about 1200 hours annually, and should set hourly rates accordingly. Hard to believe it was ever like that.
So how do you come out on the dog-walking question?
"
I haven't had to bill my time for many years, but I tried that very same experiment once, just for the hell of it. But the right way to do the math, and the correct way to bill, is to use six minutes as a minimum, regardless of the time taken, and the right way to scam is to make a two-minute call for Client A, bill six minutes, spend three minutes e-filing something for Client B, spend another two minutes doing something minor for Client C, bill six minutes, then spend two minutes on another call for Client A, bill six minutes, spend another three minutes on something for Client B, bill six minutes, and so on. So far, you have done four minutes of work for Client A and billed twelve, although you could have done both calls back-to-back and gotten both in for the six-minute minimum.
You can easily bill two to three times the actual working hours by breaking up the tasks, though that is not only bad for the client, but inefficient for the lawyer.
On “Stan Lee 1922-2018”
I have often said, in complete, literal seriousness, that Stan Lee was the most influential moral philosopher of our time.
On “Are There Earnest Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship?”
I remember a prominent black leader who told me he disagreed with Jack Kemp's politics but believed he was not a racist because: "he has showered with more black people than most Republicans know."
"
This is getting repetitious, but the subject at hand is not immigration, legal or illegal, in general, but birthright citizenship. There are lots of economic arguments, good or bad, about immigration, but I haven't yet seen anyone even try to show that the economic impact of birthright citizenship is anything other than small potatoes.
"
It doesn’t need a Constitutional Amendment. It’s baked right into the 14th which says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” People here without the knowledge or consent of the federal government are not under the “jurisdiction thereof” or they would’ve been deported.
I, and most of the rest of the legal profession, disagree with you.
"
I haven't made an argument for unlimited birthright citizenship, and don't even have strong feelings about it. All I say is that, for good or ill, that is the current rule, baked into the Constitution, and that I have yet to hear anyone explain what the problem with it -- birthright citizenship, not immigration in general -- is and why it is a big enough problem to be worth ginning up the Constitutional amendment process for some unspecified other system. What I have heard doesn't encourage me to extend the benefit of the doubt.
"
Chip may want to speak for himself, but I thought he was asking not about immigration restriction in general -- for which there are non-racist economic arguments, not very good, but non-racist -- and the topic under discussion, birthright citizenship. The arguments over that probably aren't economic because it is small potatoes. Or so we are entitled to think for all anyone has said.
"
You're wasting your time. You'll never get an answer; only the assertion that one could be against birthright citizenship for non-racist reasons. And of course one could, but in the absence of any evidence of a problem worth solving and any specific program to solve whatever the alleged problem is, that's not the way to bet.
"
Why would anyone "run" on birthright citizenship? It is already the law. I don't see that many people running on a constitutional amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship, and little evidence that it's a priority issue for any reachable voter.
On “Wednesday Writs for 11/7”
Have you ever pondered the ethical problem posed by the ending of Witness for the Prosecution? No spoilers.
On “Are There Earnest Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship?”
I understand the political value of being aware of what s**t people believe so we can deal with it. Most of the time, however, we already are aware of it, and can't figure out how to deal with it. In the absence of some practical suggestions along that line, I do get tired of arguments based on what "the perception is" or what "[t]he widespread belief is" instead of what's so.
"
Let's see what people say if you run for President.
"
Lots of them. Every few weeks at the local federal courthouse, a new bunch gets made up.
"
There's nothing sacred about birthright citizenship; it's just the current rule, encoded into the Constitution and, thus, beyond the reach of Congress or the President. Even though one could legitimately argue for a different system, what are the current facts? Is the actual state of birthright citizenship a big enough deal to gin up the amendment process? Who wants it changed that badly? And why? The likelihood that this is motivated by actual knowledge about some genuine problem seems to me slim.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.