I am proud of this and hope the idea catches on. The bar exam is eminently subject to critique as a means of fulfilling its avowed purpose of ensuring quality and ability within the membership. It is a gate that exists for gatekeeping's sake, and I dislike mandatory guilds.

In Oregon, one can seek admission without the bar exam. I believe a JD is required, but there's now an apprenticeship program for admission.

Canon is unsettled. There is a school of thought that "James Bond" is itself deep cover, a repeating code name like the number 007, and the agents' birth names are never used.

The idea of James Bond Canon is, inherently, a flawed one. I think of it more as "traditions." Or "tropes," if you prefer.

Today is 11 November 2025. Thank you, veterans!
Greenland: Danish
Panama Canal: Panamanian
Canada: Canadian
Russia: at war against Ukraine
12 large grade-A available at Safeway near me: $2.99
Tomatoes: $2.08/lb
Haitian immigrants who have eaten household pets: 0
President's felony convictions: 34

IKR? In-house counsel for a winery, working on site in Paso Robles. Compensation includes one case of product per month.

Is he talking about the B3? The B21? Does he even know what he's talking about?

Same. I have considered trying to put my CA l8cense in voluntary suspense but haven't figured out CalBar's mechanism for doing so -- it looks like they'll only accept it if ALL my licenses are in a similar stature and I'm not practicing at all. I suppose there's a rationale for that.

We cannot expect Trump to treat the Constitution better than any other law; it is either a tool he can use to achieve an objective, or an obstacle to be overcome on his way to an objective. And the objective is going to be some kind of benefit to himself. So it is little wonder he dismisses it thus.

So hey I'm sour on the court ignoring the law too. My comment is aimed more at predicting the result. Thank you for pointing out what true fidelity to the law would demand. Alas that the majority of the high court have abandoned this ethic and would that they were replaced by judges of good faith.

Not hard to predict a court refusing to look past the veneer, and saying "a tort claim is not 'compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives' so 27th Amendment doesn't apply here."

And there is the question of standing; I say, anyone has standing, but again, the court won't.

Hey, SCOTUS could surprise me. And like you, I see through the pretense of creating a cause of action in court for what it is.

But:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

An interesting theory! I predict it will fail before SCOTUS, which has a history of very narrow interpretation of anti-corruption statutes, narrow to the point of reading them effectively out of existence. The unprincipled nature of it applying to asenators but nit Representatives won't bug them.

Join me in wishing them plentiful spiders

WaitI thought that was a young robert downey junior back when he was still doing all the coke

I don't care if this is real. I love it!

You are a cruel, cruel man, Dave.

Hoping for better than 3-3 at the end of regulation over here