It's a shame they can't suspend the father.

Throw the mom in there too. way to teach your kid hate. Wait I better not let Jackson wear that "Cheney is the devil" shirt anymore...............

  Kidding!!!!!!!!!!   It's mine LOL and yes I am kidding

I am not saying being a lawyer is the only thing you need , but it is an important key to being good at that job.

I have to disagree with you Jodi.  If that were true that would mean that any President who wasn't a lawyer was not a good President.   It it's an important key to being good at the job then without it you can't be good at the job.

It may give someone a different point of view, but it doesn't make them any better or any worse for the job.  Now someone in the judicial branch I would say being a lawyer was an important key to being good at the job, but not the executive branch.

Yes, I'm sure the ambulance chasing variety does that out of a love for the law.  :P

So people injured by negligent acts, including wanton negligent acts, should not be compensated for their losses?  Tort law is not an evil, Scott.  Very often it is an equalizer. 

Dalton’s suspension was for willful disobedience and defiance, not for wearing the shirt.

Wait.  That makes no sense.  If you exclude wearing the shirt since they said that wasn't why he was suspended, there was no mention of disobedience or defiance.  You can't count denying the request to turn the T-Shirt inside-out because if they had no problem with the shirt then there would be no reason to request it be inside-out.  The suspension was purely because he wore the shirt.

Fifth grader suspended for wearing anti-Obama shirt.....

That's just sad. 

************

It's sad on a lot of levels. Clearly, the boy's father is trying to provoke a confrontation with the school system. He probably hopes to sue the district and get a settlement. Christopher is right - it's a shame they can't suspend the father.

But despite knowing this, the school system played right into his hands by suspending the kid. If they had simply ignored the boy's plea for attention, or found a less confrontational way to address it, this wouldn't have been a national news story.

Instead, they've created a massive stink for themselves that probably will cost the local taxpayers a sizable chunk of change in legal fees.

Yes, I'm sure the ambulance chasing variety does that out of a love for the law.  :P

----

So people injured by negligent acts, including wanton negligent acts, should not be compensated for their losses?  Tort law is not an evil, Scott.  Very often it is an equalizer. 

That's not what I said.  If they desire to contact an attorney and sue, more power to them.  I specifically said "ambulance chasers".  The sleezy kind who go through the paper and contact people who have had accidents.  If the person wants a lawyer, wait until they contact you.

Dann Dalton, the boy’s father — a “proud conservative” who has taken part in anti-abortion protests — told MyFOXColorado.com that the school is making a mistake by suspending his son.

“It’s the public school system,” he said. “Let’s be honest, it’s full of liberal loons.”

I'm kind of turned on, this guy is a keeper. LOL

I am not saying that only lawyers should be president, but I do value that educational background. If you have a good man with a law degree running against a good man without one, I would go with the one that had the degree in law.

Now someone in the judicial branch I would say being a lawyer was an important key to being good at the job

I agree with you on this.

That's not what I said.  If they desire to contact an attorney and sue, more power to them.  I specifically said "ambulance chasers".  The sleezy kind who go through the paper and contact people who have had accidents.  If the person wants a lawyer, wait until they contact you.

But it is what you said and it is what you meant.  You clearly meant tort lawyers as that is the euphamism for that type of lawyer.  What is the difference how the business is solicited* if the case is just?  If a guy is an "ambulance chaser" (your term, decidely not mine) but his client got hurt and deserves compensation why is that substantively different from a client calling him from the phone book?

I don't dispute that there are some bad apple lawyers, as there are bad apples in every profession, but to use a euphamism that brands a certain type of lawyer is unfair particularly when the brander is disparaging the essence of being a lawyer: the appreciation and respect for the law and for advocating on behalf of your clients. Thats the point. 

*Assuming that the attorney is following the Rules of Professional Conduct in his or her solicitation of business.

That's not what I said.  If they desire to contact an attorney and sue, more power to them.  I specifically said "ambulance chasers".  The sleezy kind who go through the paper and contact people who have had accidents.  If the person wants a lawyer, wait until they contact you.

----

But it is what you said and it is what you meant.  You clearly meant tort lawyers as that is the euphamism for that type of lawyer.

Whaaat? 

Go read "what I said".  I specifically called out ambulance chasers and referred to them specifically as that.  I most definitely did not include all tort lawyers and called out a very specific subset of them.  So, please don't presume to tell me "what I meant".

That's not what I said.  If they desire to contact an attorney and sue, more power to them.  I specifically said "ambulance chasers".  The sleezy kind who go through the paper and contact people who have had accidents.  If the person wants a lawyer, wait until they contact you.

----

But it is what you said and it is what you meant.  You clearly meant tort lawyers as that is the euphamism for that type of lawyer.

Whaaat? 

Go read "what I said".  I specifically called out ambulance chasers and referred to them specifically as that.  I most definitely did not include all tort lawyers and called out a very specific subset of them.  So, please don't presume to tell me "what I meant".

Note what you did not quote from my post:

I don't dispute that there are some bad apple lawyers, as there are bad apples in every profession, but to use a euphamism that brands a certain type of lawyer is unfair particularly when the brander is disparaging the essence of being a lawyer: the appreciation and respect for the law and for advocating on behalf of your clients. Thats the point. 

Are corporate lawyers "ambulance chasers?"  What about Commercial Litigators?  How about tax lawyers, or criminal defense, or estate and trust attorneys, or patent lawyers?  Who, but tort lawyers, would be described by the euphamism you chose to use?  Tell me, Scott.  Until then your ex post facto explaination rings hollow.