Lol

What a buffoon.

And the courts agree

Did anyone else follow the hearing this morning?

It seems like this will go against McDuffie. If it does, it will obviously be a very interesting race down the stretch.

the appeal

https://www.scribd.com/document/571075097/McDuffie

this would be such a bad look

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people here really suggesting that someone with a law license who hasn’t practiced in over a decade should become the city’s chief lawyer? If you needed major surgery would you pick an MD who hadn’t been in an operating room in over a decade? This is an illustration of so much of what is wrong with DC.

This.

McDuffie isn't statuatorily or professionally qualified. Being a councilmember for the last decade, and not a practicing or managing attorney is the tell.

I am at a complete loss for why people believe he is qualified. I guess when this became an elected position it was inevitable that it would become more political than legal, but elected legal positions are still generally filled by lawyers who have actually practiced sometime in the past 10 years. Name me another state attorney general who hadn’t practiced law in the 10 years before being elected AG.

Anonymous wrote:Are people here really suggesting that someone with a law license who hasn’t practiced in over a decade should become the city’s chief lawyer? If you needed major surgery would you pick an MD who hadn’t been in an operating room in over a decade? This is an illustration of so much of what is wrong with DC.

This.

McDuffie isn't statuatorily or professionally qualified. Being a councilmember for the last decade, and not a practicing or managing attorney is the tell.

Are people here really suggesting that someone with a law license who hasn’t practiced in over a decade should become the city’s chief lawyer? If you needed major surgery would you pick an MD who hadn’t been in an operating room in over a decade? This is an illustration of so much of what is wrong with DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he wins on appeal based on subpart (d) - an attorney in the district of columbia employed by the District of Columbia

Wrote the person who doesn't know the legal threshold to overturn an admininistrative decision.

Find me a reading of that subsection that requires a candidate to practice law under D, where that candidate wouldn't already be qualified under part A.

The Board of Elections has ruled. The barrier to having that overturned on appeal is really high. Find me an example of such an appeal being overturned. Read the filings in this case and then the Board opinion. It is pretty airtight. That doesn't mean a judge won't overturn it, but it is highly unlikely.

statutory interpretation should be de novo. I don't care enough to look into appeals from the DC board of elections, but that's the standard everywhere else

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he wins on appeal based on subpart (d) - an attorney in the district of columbia employed by the District of Columbia

Wrote the person who doesn't know the legal threshold to overturn an admininistrative decision.

Find me a reading of that subsection that requires a candidate to practice law under D, where that candidate wouldn't already be qualified under part A.

Is a sitting councilmember who happens to be a lawyer but is not practicing law not a perfect example?

That sounds like who D should apply to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he wins on appeal based on subpart (d) - an attorney in the district of columbia employed by the District of Columbia

Wrote the person who doesn't know the legal threshold to overturn an admininistrative decision.

Find me a reading of that subsection that requires a candidate to practice law under D, where that candidate wouldn't already be qualified under part A.

Is a sitting councilmember who happens to be a lawyer but is not practicing law not a perfect example?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he wins on appeal based on subpart (d) - an attorney in the district of columbia employed by the District of Columbia

Wrote the person who doesn't know the legal threshold to overturn an admininistrative decision.

Find me a reading of that subsection that requires a candidate to practice law under D, where that candidate wouldn't already be qualified under part A.

The Board of Elections has ruled. The barrier to having that overturned on appeal is really high. Find me an example of such an appeal being overturned. Read the filings in this case and then the Board opinion. It is pretty airtight. That doesn't mean a judge won't overturn it, but it is highly unlikely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC Board of Election rules that McDuffie is *not* qualified to run for AG because he has not been a practicing attorney in many years. A massive blunder by McDuffie, who gave up his Council seat to run for AG.

https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1516101791733198848

That's ridiculous. A councilmember should be able to run for AG.

Considering that Council members are allowed to have outside employment, it's a bit silly that McDuffie failed to maintain a law practice for so many years. The law is the law.

Adding to this - all this ruling will do is incentivize Council Members who are lawyers to keep up a part-time law practice while in office. It will divert their attention from the work of the Council, if they have aspirations for higher office.

Long live officially sanctioned corruption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he wins on appeal based on subpart (d) - an attorney in the district of columbia employed by the District of Columbia

Wrote the person who doesn't know the legal threshold to overturn an admininistrative decision.

Find me a reading of that subsection that requires a candidate to practice law under D, where that candidate wouldn't already be qualified under part A.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC Board of Election rules that McDuffie is *not* qualified to run for AG because he has not been a practicing attorney in many years. A massive blunder by McDuffie, who gave up his Council seat to run for AG.

https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1516101791733198848

That's ridiculous. A councilmember should be able to run for AG.

Considering that Council members are allowed to have outside employment, it's a bit silly that McDuffie failed to maintain a law practice for so many years. The law is the law.

Adding to this - all this ruling will do is incentivize Council Members who are lawyers to keep up a part-time law practice while in office. It will divert their attention from the work of the Council, if they have aspirations for higher office.