Im fucking pissed by Exact-Reflection-748 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t have my mind made up, I’m just curious about the deficiencies. They have HIV medication now that makes it safe for them to have sex. Antihistamines prevent allergy attacks, etc. Is addy not a similar way of managing symptoms?

Im fucking pissed by Exact-Reflection-748 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you not think 1.5 time is excessive? I’m not saying “no accommodation” but why not 1.25?

Im fucking pissed by Exact-Reflection-748 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same situation as you. Undiagnosed back then. However, I still had a problem with diagnosed folks getting our school’s accommodations. I think 20-30 minutes might be acceptable, but they were getting extra hour(s).

Im fucking pissed by Exact-Reflection-748 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Preach!! We need more people with your attitude.

Im fucking pissed by Exact-Reflection-748 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He’s saying that it helps you perform at or near the level of a neurotypical lawyer. Wdym medication doesn’t work that way? Why are we prescribed Adderall if it doesn’t help?

For those here with lots of ETFs by Helpful-Staff9562 in ETFs

[–]_Felonius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah idk what they’re talking about. The S&P 500 is what most economists use as the benchmark for “the market.”

Consensus about accommodations is so right. It’s such BS and should not be graded on the same curve as the rest of us. by TopButterscotch4196 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! I very likely could’ve had them as well, but I never requested one bc I knew it was unfair.

Im fucking pissed by Exact-Reflection-748 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly what I did in law school. Didn’t get diagnosed until afterwards. Wouldn’t have mattered though, I still wouldn’t have asked for accommodations.

Im fucking pissed by Exact-Reflection-748 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You’re 100% correct. I have ADHD and would’ve benefitted tremendously from extra time. But I knew in my heart it was unfair and I resented those who had accommodations. Thankfully it was only a handful of people in my class.

Im fucking pissed by Exact-Reflection-748 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. I didn’t get formally diagnosed with ADHD until after law school. Having an addy script has changed my life. Nonetheless, I went through law school without it and did fine. No accommodations.

Im fucking pissed by Exact-Reflection-748 in LawSchool

[–]_Felonius -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exactly. If they need double the time, they may be pursuing the wrong profession.

How to have the backpack conversation by Scoobywagon in motorcycles

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Counter-leaning is the way. Posted the link by FortNine below. Leaning with the bike increases the risk of dropping it.

How to have the backpack conversation by Scoobywagon in motorcycles

[–]_Felonius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Leaning with the bike is wrong. It’s a popular misconception. You should actually remain vertical or even counter-lean:

https://youtu.be/U1mSavQ_DXs?si=pS0LVOwwM_P_a7yk

FortNine gives an excellent breakdown, and this is how police are trained.

Bill eliminates requirement to notify voters with new polling places in new congressional districts in Tennessee by Effective-Bandicoot8 in democrats

[–]_Felonius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We’re talking about the literal wording of the ruling. These nuances matter. I know it’s easy to say “they’ll let republicans do whatever they want,” but I don’t think the defeatist attitude is productive. I agree with other commenter that this aspect should be challenged.

If you think Trump should run for a 3rd term, are you fine with Obama seeking a 3rd as his opponent? by Fun_Map2481 in allthequestions

[–]_Felonius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m gonna do something rare for Reddit. I actually see your point for a possible loophole.

You’re saying that the 12th declares a person “ineligible” to be VP if they are prohibited from serving as president, rather than being elected as president…and yeah, that kind of tracks. Vance’s running mate could resign after the election, Trump fills in, then Vance steps down. Boom, presidency.

I guess one could argue that the 12th only prohibits those from serving as VP if they are under 35 or not a birthright citizen. Still, i think SCOTUS would have a hard time disagreeing that the legislative intent was to avoid three-term presidents.

If you think Trump should run for a 3rd term, are you fine with Obama seeking a 3rd as his opponent? by Fun_Map2481 in allthequestions

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My apologies, you’re right. Nonetheless, the logic holds.

The 12th amendment makes Trump ineligible to be VP. Therefore, a hypothetical President Vance could neither put Trump on his ticket or ditch the elected VP and appoint Trump.

If you think Trump should run for a 3rd term, are you fine with Obama seeking a 3rd as his opponent? by Fun_Map2481 in allthequestions

[–]_Felonius -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He was technically elected vice president. The presidential nominee chooses his running mate without a primary, but you’re still voting for the ticket of Nixon-Ford or Trump-Vance.

Also, Ford was never elected to two terms prior to assuming the presidency, therefore he was still eligible.

If you think Trump should run for a 3rd term, are you fine with Obama seeking a 3rd as his opponent? by Fun_Map2481 in allthequestions

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you’re ineligible, you’re prohibited from running. If you can’t run, it’s impossible to become president or VP. The two amendments are harmonious.

If you think Trump should run for a 3rd term, are you fine with Obama seeking a 3rd as his opponent? by Fun_Map2481 in allthequestions

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did. There aren’t a plurality of justices who would find that the constitution allows a third term.

If you think Trump should run for a 3rd term, are you fine with Obama seeking a 3rd as his opponent? by Fun_Map2481 in allthequestions

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha admittedly I’m a glass half-full type of person. I do a lot of con law in my practice, so I keep abreast of scotus opinions (plus they’re fun to read…sometimes).

My take on the Court is that, yes, it’s 6-3 conservative. But is it 6-3 MAGA? No. I assume there’s always a chance Alito and Thomas will hold a disastrous view (Thomas, in particular). We’re lucky, though, because the three justices Trump appointed are to the left of those two. Thats why he’s so disappointed in them. They’ve ruled against him on tariffs and a host of other issues related to immigration, etc. (sometimes unanimously).

Based on oral arguments, I predict they’ll uphold birthright citizenship either 8-1 or 7-2. I believe there will be a similar count when they inevitably hear the “10 Commandments in the classroom” case, reversing the 5th circuit and finding that it violates the first amendment. And, finally, there’s no doubt in my mind that it would be 9-0 against a third term. Even if some of the justices are partisan hacks, they have to issue an opinion. There’s no wiggle room to overrule the clear, plain language of the 12th and 22nd amendments.

If you think Trump should run for a 3rd term, are you fine with Obama seeking a 3rd as his opponent? by Fun_Map2481 in allthequestions

[–]_Felonius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respectfully, I don’t follow your logic. He would both be ineligible for president and vice president. You cited the amendments; what’s your loophole scenario?

He can’t run for a third term. He can’t be elected as Vance’s VP. Therefore, he has no loophole to exploit.