Friday, September 30, 2011

See you Monday

Here's what's up:
1. Did Bill Buckner appearing on Curb cause the Sox to lose?
2. I love when pro-se litigants win.
4. Is this guy for real, arguing that mandatory guidelines are good? I would challenge him to a debate, but he'd never accept.


Anonymous said...

Given the liberal attitude that the Courts apply to pro se, if you are a half way intelligent person you might be better off going pro se. This is especially true if you don't have deep pockets.

The "Fellow nerds unite" chart is great! I'm on book 10 of the Wheel of Time (WARNING: read this series only if you are patient. The author could have written this series in half the pages.) and plan on moving to The Dark Tower when I'm done.

Anonymous said...

Ender's Game; The Forever War -- best SF books ever.

Anonymous said...

The alternative to mandatory guidelines is what we have now: a sentencing regime riddled with inter- and same-offense sentencing disparities. The same-offense disparity problem affecting white-collar crime is a joke. You have judges like Jed Rakoff (S.D.N.Y) who've completely unmoored from the Guidelines while others treat them as binding. The upshot is a sentencing regime where identically situated white-collar criminals are treated differently based solely on the sentencing judge they appear before. While you're right in suggesting mandatory guidelines aren't the answer; the post-booker mess sure as hell isn't either.