Comments on: Judges, Just Ta Hold Grudges In Da Courtroom http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/ Unfair ... Imbalanced Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:38:09 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Friggin’ Lawyers « FITSNews For Now http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4049 Friggin’ Lawyers « FITSNews For Now Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:53:15 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4049 [...] - the S.C. Bar Association folded faster than cheap suit yesterday in an effort to curry favor with the Justices. In a statement praising the “integrity” of the bar admissions process, the association [...] [...] – the S.C. Bar Association folded faster than cheap suit yesterday in an effort to curry favor with the Justices. In a statement praising the “integrity” of the bar admissions process, the association [...]

]]> By: Rule 8.2, SCACR http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4048 Rule 8.2, SCACR Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:45:41 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4048 Membership in the bar is a privilege, not a right. If you enjoy making unsubstantiated allegations about the highest court in this state while cowardly hiding under the shroud of anonymity this half-wit provides you, please continue. Membership in the bar is a privilege, not a right. If you enjoy making unsubstantiated allegations about the highest court in this state while cowardly hiding under the shroud of anonymity this half-wit provides you, please continue.

]]> By: NCLawyer http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4024 NCLawyer Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:16:31 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4024 #29, Is that said out of concern; or because you want to quell discussion; or because you fancy yourself to be a know it all? Plus, what wins: US Contitution or SCACR? #29,

Is that said out of concern; or because you want to quell discussion; or because you fancy yourself to be a know it all? Plus, what wins: US Contitution or SCACR?

]]> By: Rule 8.2, SCACR http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4044 Rule 8.2, SCACR Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:19:09 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4044 I would remind those posters who claim to be attorneys of Rule 8.2 that prohibits any statement that calls the integrity of a judicial officer into question with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity. If you are relying on the reports from this website (controlled by a juvenile political lackey of the governor) and the State newpaper to make accusations of impropriety, you are taking a very loose interpretation of the rules. I agree that further explanation is greatly desired, but to forclose the possibility of a legitimate explanation and make accusations of impropriety without ANY proof is reckless and, in my opinion, worthy of a complaint to ODC. You are lawyers and you should act as such. Anyone who thought the SCBar's statement was mild or written for the benefit of the Chief Justice should confine themselves to reading Curious George books (or this blog). The Bar expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court and called for further explanation. Essentially, they are calling the CEO to task and asking for an explanation of an executive decision. I was shocked at the tone, but I agree with it whole-heartedly. Considering the muck-raking that has taken place over this issue, we all need further information to put it to rest or engage in further investigation. I would remind those posters who claim to be attorneys of Rule 8.2 that prohibits any statement that calls the integrity of a judicial officer into question with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity. If you are relying on the reports from this website (controlled by a juvenile political lackey of the governor) and the State newpaper to make accusations of impropriety, you are taking a very loose interpretation of the rules. I agree that further explanation is greatly desired, but to forclose the possibility of a legitimate explanation and make accusations of impropriety without ANY proof is reckless and, in my opinion, worthy of a complaint to ODC. You are lawyers and you should act as such.
Anyone who thought the SCBar’s statement was mild or written for the benefit of the Chief Justice should confine themselves to reading Curious George books (or this blog). The Bar expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court and called for further explanation. Essentially, they are calling the CEO to task and asking for an explanation of an executive decision. I was shocked at the tone, but I agree with it whole-heartedly. Considering the muck-raking that has taken place over this issue, we all need further information to put it to rest or engage in further investigation.

]]> By: The Observer http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4047 The Observer Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:45:17 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4047 Hey WOW - KMA Jackass- Hey WOW -

KMA Jackass-

]]> By: Bar Member http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4054 Bar Member Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:35:57 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4054 #25, I don't really see the significance of your the fact that people had to fail another section as well. I think that we all know this. Please elaborate more on the accuracy of these sources from which you have obtained this 50% CSOL pass rate information. #25, I don’t really see the significance of your the fact that people had to fail another section as well. I think that we all know this.

Please elaborate more on the accuracy of these sources from which you have obtained this 50% CSOL pass rate information.

]]> By: Scared http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4051 Scared Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:46:25 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4051 Do not EVER forget ----- Queen Jean and her 4 do-boys OWN the SC BAR. See South Carolina Appellate Court Rule 410. Do not EVER forget —– Queen Jean and her 4 do-boys OWN the SC BAR. See South Carolina Appellate Court Rule 410.

]]> By: anon http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4040 anon Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:55:54 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4040 Credible sources are saying the initial bar results were so poor for Charleston School of Law (i.e. under 50% passage rate) that the results had to be altered to provide for a higher passage rate for CSOL graduates. Only later did the grades get altered for a second time (during Toal-gate scandal) allowing 20 extras to pass. Frankly, I find the former situation more disturbing than the latter.... Also, people have lost sight of the fact that to fail the bar exam you must fail two sections. Therefore, all 20 who benefitted from Toal-gate either failed another essay section or the Multistate section. FITS.. confirm with your sources... Credible sources are saying the initial bar results were so poor for Charleston School of Law (i.e. under 50% passage rate) that the results had to be altered to provide for a higher passage rate for CSOL graduates. Only later did the grades get altered for a second time (during Toal-gate scandal) allowing 20 extras to pass. Frankly, I find the former situation more disturbing than the latter….

Also, people have lost sight of the fact that to fail the bar exam you must fail two sections. Therefore, all 20 who benefitted from Toal-gate either failed another essay section or the Multistate section.

FITS.. confirm with your sources…

]]> By: Skeptic http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4042 Skeptic Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:31:47 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4042 I am very pleased with the Board of Governor's statement. It is very professionally and respectfully worded, and doesn't make allegations. Moreover, it requests exactly what the vast majority of bar members want: an explanation of what happened. I'm glad the bar spoke up and said something (anything). Individual lawyers are unwilling to risk retribution by speaking up. The bar association is a good alternative because it can speak as a unified body on behalf of all SC lawyers, thereby reducing the risk of retribution toward any one member. I am very pleased with the Board of Governor’s statement. It is very professionally and respectfully worded, and doesn’t make allegations. Moreover, it requests exactly what the vast majority of bar members want: an explanation of what happened.

I’m glad the bar spoke up and said something (anything). Individual lawyers are unwilling to risk retribution by speaking up. The bar association is a good alternative because it can speak as a unified body on behalf of all SC lawyers, thereby reducing the risk of retribution toward any one member.

]]> By: Susie Q http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/11/15/judges-just-ta-hold-grudges-in-da-courtroom/comment-page-1/#comment-4041 Susie Q Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:01:28 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=2092#comment-4041 The SC Bar statement is as nice as 99% of the SC Bar could possibly be even to CJ Toal's face. She is probably going to have to consider stepping down. The SC Bar statement is as nice as 99% of the SC Bar could possibly be even to CJ Toal’s face. She is probably going to have to consider stepping down.

]]>