Damn. And to think only eight months ago, it was Clinton's Depression.
(Only because John Cole said it was "unspoofable.")
In other spoof news, here a world-besotted wingnut attempts to imitate Swift, and ends up not so much lacerating his breast as serving human stupidity.
Following are highlights of a proposed bill authorizing the dismantling of the current framework of law practice and instituting socialized legal care.
Ha ha ha that is an intriguing comedic premise! How caustic and incisive!
But dopey. The government already does run the legal system in what I guess by current standards is a "socialist" fashion.
To wit. There exist such creatures as "public defenders," although I don't think that's quite who Dr. Rafal has in mind here. I think he means "expensive trial lawyers" of the sort who sue wealthy doctors for malpractice, and sometimes win.
However, there exist entire classes of lawyers who are not public defenders, and not trial lawyers. We call these people "judges" and "prosecutors." And here's where the "satirical" point made by our preeminent Manhattan dickhead doctor becomes completely obnoxious:
The "lawyers" we're supposed to be thinking of here are expensive criminal defense lawyers of the sort out of the price range of most Americans.
But let's flip this around, and since we're talking criminal cases as per dickhead's example, we'll stick with that. There is never one set of lawyers in a criminal courtroom; there are (at least) three: defense, prosecution, judges. Of these, only the defense lawyer, unless he's a public defender, as he probably is in most cases, gets to set his or her own fees, or more likely, their firm does.
And that's good! Our legal system kind of sucks, but the fact that we don't let prosecutors or judges set their own fees for "easy" or "difficult" cases is not, precisely, the reason it sucks.
Judges and prosecutors are supposed to be disinterested (in the motherfucking correct use of the word, gobshites). It doesn't really work out that way in reality, but at least the rewards of pushing for or delivering a particular verdict are not immediately and obviously financial. Do I think if you spend enough dough you can get a good verdict? Fuck yeah! Do I think most prosecutors or judges are taking bribes? Fuck no! It's not so crude.
The point is, it would shock us, and be against the law, for a judge to have a financial stake in how a particular case is resolved. For prominent surgeons, where the stakes are presumably even higher... ?
A judge has no more natural right to charge by the case than does a surgeon. Motherfucker.
We have a weird system, though if this weird system has made you rich and unaccountable, I guess I can see how you see things differently, fucknose.