Could be because they figured out that there will be a lot more out-of-work lawyers if the drudge work is automated.

For those of us that don't have $150 dollars an hour, do you have a better option?

And how does that malpractice against a lawyer work exactly? How rich does someone have to be to absorb your fees, the lost lawsuit, then float the losses and second lawyers costs for years through appeals? Why can't the cheaper "lower quality" provider be sued for incompetence just the same as you?

The implication of your argument is that those that can't afford quality legal advice should have no legal advice. WebMD and/or Google is good for the vast majority of cases. LegalZoom type services are also good for the vast majority of everyday cases. You need to see a doctor/lawyer if you have something that is complicated or uncommon. For those that can't afford the doctor/lawyer, how does removing the legalzoom/WebMD/Google options make them better off?

Does the member of the bar actually stand behind his work? What are you going to do if he does shoddy work? Hire another lawyer to sue him? Good luck with that.

Just because you have extended a courtesy once does not mean you must extend it to all. The Nazis did not produce and seek publicity of their atrocities and worst actions. The Nuremberg trials were done to ensure that those actions were well documented and widely known and a public trail was an excellent way to accomplish both. OBLs actions were already widely known and well documented. If you really want to get all legal about it, under what authority did the US try the Nazis? At what time did the Nazis commit crimes that were within the jurisdiction of a US court? The only authority behind those trials was the right of the victor over the vanquished.

Some people just need killing. No need to feel guilty about it.

They were subjects of King George and so had a good reason to expect treatment as any other subject of the King. The French and Spanish had no expectation of being treated according to English law while outside of England.

Your countries way of doing things is your business. I think it's a good thing that we agree how a country should treat its citizens, but those methods aren't guaranteed to you by the US Constitution if you are not a US Citizen nor inside the US.

The presumption of innocence and a trial only apply to US citizens and people within the borders of the US. If Osama had been hiding in Michigan then he would have been arrested. Non-US persons outside the US do not fall under the Constitution and do fall under the category of "military targets". Unless of course you think we should have arrested and tried all those German boys on top of Pointe-du-Hoc.

You know, some things never go out of style.

That would require federal legislation to authorize. They might get it, but it isn't as easy as just restructuring tuition and fees. After a couple of years and millions of dollars in lobbying they might get authorization to peoples IRS records.

At the school I go to, extra engineering costs are billed based on the course instead of your major. Everybody pays the same tuition for english classes, and everybody pays the same extra fees/credit hour if they take an engineering course. I expect this method to become dominant, otherwise there will be large numbers of "English" majors taking senior engineering courses.

If they want a percent of income after graduation, they will need to come up with some significant enforcement measures. Otherwise every STEM grad will be making 15k/year at McDonald's when they come asking.

They cut 2 billion from the DOD budget.

At 25? Elsewhere he would be sitting in a cubicle ala Dilbert.