Phil,

The flame on this site is pretty high and I was wondering if there was a simple way to close the valve a little bit and still allow people to have their say.

Several commenters on both sides are posting comments several times a day that are devoid of any new information. These multiple posts make it hard to find any new and interesting information that is posted.

Surely each commenter can chose a topic or two to comment on and accept a posting limit of one or two comments a day? Not a total ban, but kinda like the sharing and self restraint you were taught in preschool.

If a maximum number of daily posts is instituted, some people might try to hog the comments by switching from frequent posts to every long posts, and the post length might have to be limited too.

Just a thought. Don’t want to see anyone shut out, especially the people who might have a good idea or two.
KJ

The only effective means to impose what you’re suggesting is for me to revert back to my “no comments get through until after I’ve moderated every comment.” While that’s certainly not terrible, I’ve had lots of positive feedback that the currently open means of discussion tends to suit individuals better.

Regarding how heated the discussions can be at times, I think that’s the risk of having an open debate. And while I have seen certain individuals calling each other “liar,” I think that’s about as strong as it’s gotten, to date. Yet, charges of “racism,” “bigotry,” and what not will, unfortunately, always be lobbed by the opposition to questioning this President’s background on topics such as eligibility.

As long as things keep to a dull roar and the threads keep moving forward, I’m OK with that. I also invite anyone who chooses to to become involved in the discussion. Just because someone says “You’re wrong” doesn’t mean that you don’t have a right to your opinion.

After all, most individuals here are merely armchair-quarterbacking legalities and what not anyway.

-Phil

She didn’t “give up her law license”, she’s Inactive. All she has to do to become active again is give notice she intends to change her status, pay her dues to the bar and get malpractice insurance. Attorneys who go into professions other than the legal profession go inactive all the time. There is no reason to pay your bar dues, which also requires you to carry Malpractice Insurance, if you are not engaged in actively practicing the law. Michelle Obama will not practice law as the First Lady. One of the foremost reasons for becoming inactive is to avoid the impropriety of being in a situation where someone thinks you’re giving them legal advice or representation. 2/3 of the US Congress are trained attorneys and members of the bar, yet it is common practice while serving in elected office to become inactive. How strange that you would take “voluntarily inactive” and stretch it all the way to “giving up her license, have to take the bar all over again.” I swear you people must live in caves or something.

The flame on this site is pretty high and I was wondering if there was a simple way to close the valve a little bit and still allow people to have their say.

Several commenters on both sides are posting comments several times a day that are devoid of any new information. These multiple posts make it hard to find any new and interesting information that is posted.

Surely each commenter can chose a topic or two to comment on and accept a posting limit of one or two comments a day? Not a total ban, but kinda like the sharing and self restraint you were taught in preschool.

If a maximum number of daily posts is instituted, some people might try to hog the comments by switching from frequent posts to every long posts, and the post length might have to be limited too.

Just a thought. Don’t want to see anyone shut out, especially the people who might have a good idea or two.
KJ

SisBoomBa…Change We Can Believe In…Yes, We Can
___________________________________________________________________
Wow Pat…A direct recycle of a internet rumor except you took out the words “Black Woman”…

This was the actual quote of the question you used….And it was from October of 2008

“Why would a black woman who worked at a prestigious law firm in
Chicago, who had graduated from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and who had endured the grueling task of sitting for the bar exam TWICE, then voluntarily give up her law license?”

From Wikpedia….

“In 1996, Obama served as the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago, where she developed the University’s Community Service Center.[28] In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as executive director for community affairs and, beginning May, 2005, as Vice President for Community and External Affairs.[29] She still holds the position, though she is working part time in order to devote more time to being a mother.[30]”

Maybe she gave up her law license (when inactive) because she had become a mother and her job did not require her to have her law license active…So why pay for the dues, fees, and malpractice insurance if you don’t need to…I know a couple of attorneys that have done the same thing… Unless you have some evidence of other reasons why she had it go inactive, this is just you birthers recycling the same debunked theories because you have nothing else. Just pathetic.

Birthers…The same crap for idiots to believe it…

SisBoomBa…Change We Can Believe In…Yes, We Can

“Last week, Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei at Politico reported that the White House planned on making deficit reduction a centerpiece of the next State of the Union address. Allen and Vandehei called the decision “practical” saying that “Obama has spent more money on new programs in nine months than Bill Clinton did in eight years, pushing the annual deficit to $1.4 trillion. This leaves little room for big spending initiatives.” This fact is taken completely out of the context of the recession. The title of the article refers to the White House’s “spending binge.” The deficits, tax cuts, and spending of the previous administration are ignored entirely.

It’s not exactly news that most members of MSM are almost purposely amnesiac. There is no greater insult to a reporter than to call his story “history.” And yet once upon a time, it was only yesterday that was old news. Nowadays, with the new neverending cable/talk-radio/blogosphere-driven news cycle, we are all supposed to have forgotten the past fifteen minutes. (There is actually a headline on the Drudge Report as I write this that the Associated Press went to the trouble of looking at the record and seeing whether any of the outrageous claims made in Sarah Palin’s memoir are true. The idea appears to be if it says so in a book, it’s wrong of a journalist to actually check the record. The (surprise, surprise) Fox News story contains no link to the AP story, further making the point that the record is really irrelevant to the story.)

The Bush tax cuts: When the Bush tax cuts sunset at the end of 2010, the previous administration will have left the government holding the bag for well over $2 trillion in lost revenue. The extraordinary debt and deficits accrued during Bush’s tenure have been compounded by the implosion of the financial system. In addition, the estimated eventual costs of the costly, unnecessary, and counterproductive Iraq war are now in the trillions to say nothing of the costs of more than six years of failure in Afghanistan. What have they done for America?

As David Cay Johnston, a former New York Times reporter, recently noted, based on data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, by the time the Bush tax cuts expire next year, people in the top one percentile of annual household incomes will have received 23.5 percent of all the savings in the cuts. The combined savings of the bottom three income brackets was less than that.

The Bush war: The opaque appropriations process for funding the Iraq war has generally allowed the Bush administration to shield itself from a great deal of scrutiny by the public on the total cost of the war. Congress approved “bridge funding” and emergency spending requests and so the full costs of the war were kept out of the budget. None of the dollar amounts for the funding requests have been included in the Pentagon’s annual operating budget.

So what does the Iraq war really cost? As early as 2006, Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Blimes estimated that the cost of the war could exceed $2 trillion, including health care for veterans and other expenses. The Congressional Budget Office, in 2008, called it a $1
trillion war, but a trillion strikes us as an overly modest estimation today.

Afganistan: The legacy of Bush’s runaway military spending and his tax cuts is doing more than just destroying the fiscal health of our government—it is also endangering our security. Look at Afghanistan. According to a recent report in The New York Times, “Some administration estimates suggest it could also cost up to $50 billion over five years to more than double the size of the Afghan army and police force, to a total of 400,000. That includes recruiting, training and equipment.”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/ta111909.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_11/021103.php

You need some relaxation, here is the latest anti-Obama billboard in Wheat Ridge, Colorado – oh, I know, I know, those bitter guys in
Brooks suits…

“PRESIDENT OR JIHAD?”
But as Obama’s latest move of bringing his Muslim fellows to a favorable New York trial shows, the billboard is a bit wrong – dba Obama is just KINDA, TEMPORARELY a president, but SURELY A JIHADIST -

Have fun:
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-obama-billboard-112009,0,2612065.story

She was not 756′ed she was DISCIPLINED PERSUANT TO RULE 770

Rule 770. Types of Discipline

1. There is no mention of Rule 770 anywhere on the screenshot of Michelle Obama’s license status, nor on the site itself as of 30 seconds ago.

2. Once again, Rule 770 has changed over time. Rule 756(7) refers to people on voluntarily inactive status pursuant to Former Rule 770.

3. If Michelle Obama was disciplined there would be a note of that.

4. The “Report” you refer to refers to whether Michelle Obama reported carrying any malpractice insurance. She did not, because she is on voluntary inactive status.

5. At the time Michelle Obama voluntarily relinquished her license, a court order was required to go to that status.

Evidence that the 770 you’re citing is not the same at the time Michelle Obama gave up her license:

http://www.iardc.org/orginfo_annualreport.html

The 2000 total, which reflects an increase of only 147 attorneys over the number who registered in 1999 (as compared to average increases of 1,600 each year for the previous five years), was impacted by amendments to the rules governing registration categories and inactive status, first effective for the 2000 registration process. The amendments eliminated from Rule 756 the out-of-state registration category under which lawyers could pay a reduced fee if they did not reside, have an office in, or practice in Illinois, and deleted Rule 770, which had provided for a court-ordered inactive status that did not require annual registration or payment of any fee. At the same time, the amendments added to Rule 756 an inactive status registration category, which requires the payment of a reduced fee and annual registration, as well as a new retirement registration status, which requires no fee and no annual registration for lawyers. Lawyers who choose to register under either of those categories are not authorized to practice. The 10,400 attorneys who had previously registered as out-of-state had to choose either active, inactive or retired status. In addition, several hundred lawyers who were previously on court-ordered inactive status returned to active status and then chose one of the new registration categories, most often choosing retired status.

You are a LIAR. Michelle Obama is Voluntarily Inactive. She has not been disbarred, she has not been disciplined and to continue to insist so without citation is disgusting on your part.

RSOL readers: Go Here: https://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp

Put in Obama, Michelle and you can see to that Michelle Obama’s status is Voluntarily Inactive.

She was not 756′ed she was DISCIPLINED PERSUANT TO RULE 770

Rule 770. Types of Discipline

Conduct of attorneys which violates the Code of Professional Responsibility Rules of Professional Conduct contained in article VIII of these rules or which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute shall be grounds for discipline by the court. Discipline of attorneys may be:

(a) disbarment;

(b) disbarment on consent;

(c) suspension for a specified period and until further order of court;

(d) suspension for a specified period of time;

(e) suspension until further order of the court;

(f) suspension for a specified period of time or until further order of the court with probation;

(g) censure; or

(h) reprimand by the court, the Review Board or a hearing panel.
(i) No Effect on Disciplinary Proceedings. The provisions of this rule pertaining to registration status shall not bar, limit or stay any disciplinary investigations or proceedings against an attorney.

——
What Is the ARDC? (this is NOT the Illinois Bar-where one can voluntarily be inactive) As our name implies, the ARDC is the agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois which registers attorneys and investigates complaints of misconduct filed against attorneys holding a license to practice law inIllinois.

Our principal purpose is to assist the Supreme Court to determine a lawyer’s fitness to practice law in Illinois. If a complaint is made that an attorney, licensed to practice law in Illinois, has engaged in illegal, unethical or dishonest conduct, we will investigate and, if warranted, bring formal disciplinary charges. TheSupreme Court of Illinois will then ultimately decide if a lawyer should be censured (publicly rebuked), suspended (having the law license to practice either taken away for a certain period of time or placed on a probationary period) or disbarred (having the law license taken away indefinitely).

We cannot impose fines, imprison, obtain monetary damages, enforce remedies between the lawyer and client, or seek civil or criminal relief against a lawyer as part of the disciplinary process. We can affect only the lawyer’s ability to practice law inIllinois.

We are not funded by taxpayers’ money. We are funded entirely by the annual registration fees paid by attorneys authorized to practice law inIllinois.

What Is a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney?

It is a request to us that we look into the conduct of an attorney who you believe has acted improperly. We will review your request to determine if an investigation is warranted. In most cases, we will initiate an investigation where the information you provide us suggests that the attorney engaged in illegal, dishonest or unethical conduct. Filing a request accusingan attorney of unethical conduct is a serious matter to the lawyer. We recommend that, whenever practical, you try to resolve any differences or disputes that do not concern claims of unethical conduct directly with the lawyer.

How Do I Request an Investigation of an Attorney?

By mailing to our office, either in Chicago or Springfield, a request that you want an attorney to be investigated by our office. Your request should be in writing. No special form is necessary. For your convenience, you may download a Request for Investigation form. Please return the Request by postal mail or hand-delivery. The ARDC does not accept an e-mail transmission of a Request for Investigation.

READ CAREFULLY WHAT THE COURT WROTE IN MICHELLE’S FILE

““NO MALPRACTICE REPORT REQUIRED AS ATTORNEY IS ON COURT ORDERED INACTIVE STATUS””

She would otherwise have a MALPRACTICE REPORT if she had not gone on COURT-ORDERED INACTIVE STATUS.
COURT ORDERED IS NOT MICHELLE ORDERED
COURT ORDERED IS NOT VOLUNTARY
Jeez she got into lawschool on affirmative action then lost her law license after only 4 freeking years due to malpractice!!

WTF don’t you brainstemobots understand? It’s right there in front of you!!!

siseliar: I did original research on the disciplinary code, idiot.

Your research was faulty, as you overlooked Rule 756(7). The current Rule 770 is not the same as the one in effect when Michelle Obama relinquished her license.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the accusation you make, but then again, that’s nothing new for a birther.