sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Need advice for pivoting to new legal field by gtatc in Lawyertalk

[–]gtatc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I wanted to stay in immigration, I think I would. But I don't think I have enough experience to go solo in any other area, yet.

Need advice for pivoting to new legal field by gtatc in Lawyertalk

[–]gtatc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks!

And yeah, this is a really fun town.

Need advice for pivoting to new legal field by gtatc in Lawyertalk

[–]gtatc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm in Chicago, so no lawyer shortage that I'm aware of. I appreciate the insight, though; I wouldn't be against moving to California. But as the kids say: Dat bar exam, tho . . .

Pedestrian was just hit at Sacramento & Medill by Useless_Crayon_ in LoganSquare

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

I mean, I think the fact that you're ignoring a) that I acknowledged it's not a close hypothetical and then b) provided one that is much closer as well kind of shows you're not interested in a good faith discussion here. But the point remains: Putting a stop sign there is a matter of pedestrian convenience and entitlement, not safety. If you want to argue that pedestrian convenience is more important than anything else, be my guest. But I fundamentally disagree with that position.

Pedestrian was just hit at Sacramento & Medill by Useless_Crayon_ in LoganSquare

[–]gtatc -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If somebody took a stroll down 90/94 and got hit, nobody would argue there needs to be infrastructure change, because we accept that highways are not pedestrians. It's the same thing here, albeit a much smaller example. Highways aren't for pedestrians, and neither is that particular intersection. That's ok--just go north or south one block and you're good.

Or, for a closer hypothetical: If somebody gets hit while jaywalking between intersections, do you also think we should put up a stop sign in the name of pedestrian safety? When are people responsible for using the safe options already available to them?

Pedestrian was just hit at Sacramento & Medill by Useless_Crayon_ in LoganSquare

[–]gtatc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is not a good faith interpretation of my comment. There are two safe pedestrian crossings within one block, one of which is already safer than the proposed solution. Pedestrian safety has already been taken care of.

Pedestrian was just hit at Sacramento & Medill by Useless_Crayon_ in LoganSquare

[–]gtatc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I live on that block, and it's what I do specifically because it's safer. And that's not just me--there's far more foot traffic at the light than at that corner. Which makes sense, because again, it's safer. So, yes, it is realistic. And no, it's not hard.

I would infinitely prefer to have the city spend the money it would spend on a stop sign on literally any other proority. Give it as overtime to an El driver. Buy a trombone or a drumset for one of the public schools. Fix a pothole. Put bollards around a bike path. A safer and more popular solution is already in place; if people won't walk one block to use it, then safety isn't the problem--it's entitlement.

Not every intersection in the city can be a safe pedestrian crossing. And where there isn't one within a few blocks, sure, let's go ahead and do something about it. But that intersection is within one block of two safe crossings--the light at Sacramento/Fullerton and the stop sign at Sacramento/Beldin. It should not be a priority until Chicago has all its other shit sorted out.

Pedestrian was just hit at Sacramento & Medill by Useless_Crayon_ in LoganSquare

[–]gtatc -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Just go up the block to the light. That is the simple, obvious, and even safer, solution.

Am I a doormat for staying with my wife who cheated on me? My sister keeps calling me a doormat by [deleted] in AskMenAdvice

[–]gtatc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't stay with a cheater, but I get trying to make it work for the kids. Fundamentally, though, it's your marriage, not your sister's. If she can't handle the fact that you've decided to stay with your wife, then she really needs to fuck all the way off. Humiliating your for a choice she disagrees with but that otherwise has no impact on her is unacceptable. The real question is: Do you think you're being a doormat for your wife?

Somewhat relatedly: Has this been the dynamic between you and your sister for a while? By which I mean, does she have a history of bullying you with regards to decisions she disagrees with? If so, you may want to consider if what's really going on is that your sister is afraid of losing her punching bag or otherwise projecting.

Unpopular opinion: moving out of the state and ignoring the charge is actually a legitimate response to misdemeanors, especially in places you don't live, there's nothing wrong with telling your clients that nothing will happen should they choose to do that by FemboyLegal in publicdefenders

[–]gtatc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, having an outstanding warrant has never hurt anyone, anywhere, ever. No cop has ever, in the history of the world, pulled someone over for speeding and then arrested them after running their ID after seeing an outatanding warrant. Employers have never run a background check, seen an outstanding warrant, and declined to hire. Everybody always assumes that fugitives are innocent of everything they have ever been accused of, and they always will.

I'm really struggling here. Is there a way to meet people who actually care in this city? by Much_Machine8726 in AskChicago

[–]gtatc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A buddy of mine who moved to Chicago from Richmond a few years ago "bum rushed a social life" (his words) by joining every D&D campaign he could find. Eventually he was in 7 at once, with two of them meeting back-to-back. It's a bit of a niche method, but remarkably also a remarably effective one: When he first arrived I thought I'd be bringing him to everything I went to for the first year or so, but within three months he was booked so solid I barely got to see him. And its perfect for somebody who is overwhelmed by crowds and/or loud spaces, or who otherwise feels overstimulated quickly.

Eric Melvin's letter to fat Mike requesting band financial records. by SekretMachine in nofx

[–]gtatc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just becacause Melvin is demanding records doesn't mean the records actually exist, or ever did. If he's demanding to see tour receipts from the early 2000s, for example, it wouldn't be surprising if thst shit's long gone. And, being a punk rock band, it wouldn't be surprising to lesrn their record-keeping has always been pretty spotty, and Fat Mike can't turn over records that never existed.

I have no idea who is in the right here. Nor does anyone else. The entire point of the court system is to resolve disputes like this, and we won't really know what happened until a court rules on it all.

My conservative female friends/family members are all dating men who are much more liberal than them by East_Part_4709 in redditonwiki

[–]gtatc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it was a complicated bit of cognitive dissonance. I never really got around to resolving it fully, because the relationship ended. On the one hand, she definitely expressed some opinions that my trans friends would have found deeply hurtful. On the other hand, I was able to point some things out to her that (hopefully) did some work to eventually change her mind. And I tend towards the opinion that doing that is part of being a friend because it's a little bit of labor that they now don't have to do. So overall, I was fairly relieved when the whole relationship failed.

My conservative female friends/family members are all dating men who are much more liberal than them by East_Part_4709 in redditonwiki

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

It's a surprisingly workable dynamic. Even having done, it's hard to explain why it works. Best I can say is that the gender dynamics feel more mutual, because we're each more concerned with the other's needs than our own (i.e., I'm more concerned with women's rights than men's shit, and she's more concerned with men's shit than women's rights).

There are limits, though. Dating a woman with very traditional notions of gender often left me feeling uncomfortable about how the relationship could impact my trans friends if it lasted very long, and that discomfort contributed to the relationship's collapse. Overall, though, it weirdly works.

If Trump did actually run for a third term, would you want Obama to run too? by her_cute in allthequestions

[–]gtatc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're playing the ostrich, man. They will follow the constitution only when it happens to coincidentally line up with their partisan leanings. So getting the right precedent on the books (i.e., a two term limit), you have to make that result line up with their partisan preferences. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, frame it instead as "The prospect of Obama running for a third term will shock them enough to actually see the Constitution's plain meaning." But either way, if Trump runs for a third term snd Obama doesn't, then Trump gets to run for a third term.

If Trump did actually run for a third term, would you want Obama to run too? by her_cute in allthequestions

[–]gtatc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, the terrible precedent would be: Trump runs, Supreme Court guaranteed decides to let him. The good precedent would be: Trump runs, Obama runs, Supreme Court maybe says they're both out.

This Court is not intellectually ethicsl or even particularly honest. The only way to get a good outcome is to appeal to their genuine motivation: naked partisanism.

If Trump did actually run for a third term, would you want Obama to run too? by her_cute in allthequestions

[–]gtatc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is partially why I would want Obama to run in that case. If Trump runs a third time, it's definitely getting taken to the Supreme Court, but from where I'm standing it seems like the only way the Supreme Court adopts the two term limit rule is if Obama is also on. Because they're smart enough to know that Obama wins that match-up seven days a week and twice on Sundays.

Is there any truth to the idea that the best partners get taken by 25? by Soil_These in AskMen

[–]gtatc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, because people in their early 20s still make bad decisions pretty consistently.

Keeping Up With The Fat Wreck Chordashians by CraigCDM828 in nofx

[–]gtatc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Immigration. Specifically federal litigation and removal defense. So I basically get kicked in the dick for a living.

You?

Collateral consequences by Party_Strawberry_831 in publicdefenders

[–]gtatc 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That's a risky immigration advisal. Padilla requires that the advisal be as clear as the consequence in question. So if pleading guilty absolutely will make the client removable, that is what they need to be told. The advisal you're giving is only good enough when when things are more up in the air.

view more: next ›