I'm sorry you and your buddy have only met truly reprehensible lawyers. I know several who are good, honest, thoughtful people who genuinely try to make the world around them a better place. Granted, I've also met a hunch who are slimeballs I would just as soon push in front of a bus, but I've met a lot of people who are slimeballs that I would just as soon push in front of a bus who aren't lawyers, so it doesn't seem fair to say lawyers are necessarily any worse than the rest of humanity.

If anything, I've met a greater percentage of sales and corporate management types who would contribute more to the benefit of mankind by dying messily than I have lawyers, but YMMV.

Do you really think they wouldn't be able to afford him? This is a new Star Wars movie being made by Disney, they can and will spend whatever amount of money they need to get whatever it is they want, and they'll still turn a profit even if it sucks.

Yeah, when I tell people to play it, I'm always a little stumped when they ask what makes the gameplay so good... frankly it isn't: it has a lot of bugs, the graphics are less than impressive, the controls are far from ideal, the magic system borders on useless, the combat is unchallenging, and NONE OF THAT MATTERS AT ALL.

The point of Torment isn't any of those things, the point of Torment is the chill that runs down your spine during conversations with Ignuus, the point of Torment is feeling you heart race as the Lady's shadow falls over you, the point of Torment is the soul crushing revelation of What Can Change The Nature Of A Man. None of those things make any sense in a 30 second demo, or even in a 30 minute demo.

" If a person was using their popularity to further a point you found agreeable, would you make it known that you will patronize them?"

Not the GP, but this is a pretty common practice.

"What if the person quietly held the belief you found reprehensible? What would be your response then?"

If a tree falls in the forest, and doesn't land on a mime, does anyone care? They wouldn't be using their fame to spread a belief I vehemently disagree with, and as such I wouldn't be terribly worried about that belief.

The right to Free Speech doesn't mean you cannot suffer for what you choose to say, merely that the government cannot punish you for it (some exceptions may apply).

The Right Honourable Professor Sir Robin Jacob, Retired Lord Justice has never been, nor ever will be a Federal Judge.

He is British, and his tenure as a judge was served in the United Kingdoms.

As to your list:

1) He is currently a professor at University College London (thanks Wikipedia!). It is fairly common for professors of law to also work in that field: Alan Dershowitz is a full-time professor at Harvard, and I once took a class with a professor who was, at the time, representing a man held in Guantanamo (IANAL, it was an intro class).
2) Yes, it seems safe to say he is at least partially literate. What exactly do you think he would write about, and who exactly do you believe would pay him to do so?
3) Again, yes, safe assumption. Who would he speak to? What about? Why? Who would pay him to do so?
4) He's in his 70s, and has already performed many decades of government service by working as a judge. Why would he do this?
5) Again, he's in his 70s and has been working in law for his entire adult life. What field would you expect to see him in?
6) The man is in the IP Hall of Fame (not making this up, check Wiki!). Do you really think that there are going to be many companies who care about his expertise and have not been directly or indirectly impacted by his decisions?
7) Why would he do this? That sounds like the sort of thing a shark trying to build up a law firm should do... this is a VERY respected retired judge.
8) Fair enough... though again, no Federal benefits will be going his way (the UK government probably offers benefits too, though).

Election outcomes are, generally speaking, easier to predict than professional sporting events, and the NFL is particularly resistant to accurate prediction.

Academy Award winners are somewhat closer in predictability to politics than sports, so it stands to reason his analysis will be somewhat more accurate.

"There's nothing that says you *have* to play the latest and greatest games the moment they come out."

What about all of the time-sensitive achievements and/or vanity items and/or swag and/or super-OP multiplayer spiffs? Peer pressure? Consumerist programming? You really ought to get back in line and conform, all the cool kids are doing it and it will get you so laid.

"Just running around and pretending to shoot each other with sticks, climbing trees, etc. is not fun for adults."

I must not be an adult, because that sounds pretty damn fun to me. Maybe you should try to lighten up a bit.

I'm not seeing any particular reason that the time spent searching could not be supervised; no privileged information is going to be shared with the attorney before contacting them. Electronic supervision would be the obvious choice, but frankly I would rather see an officer putting physical eyes on suspects: it gives a more immediate means of challenging questionable use and it avoids any illusion on the suspect's part that they are not being watched.

That said, the access itself should probably be fairly open. The detained would be well-advised to do at least minimal research on whoever will potentially represent them in court, and an overly broad block on access might restrict them from pertinent information.

Which taxes were raised? When?

Frankly, you seem convinced that something happened which is the polar opposite of reality (there have been budget cuts, though not as deeply as many would like and largely offset by stimulus spending, and taxes have also been cut, not raised).

Please do some research and try again.

Unless it covers coastlines, which are also borders, and along which the majority of the US population lives.

It gets even bigger if every international airport counts as a border and gets a 100 mile radius 4th Amendment-free zone as well, covering virtually every major city in the nation.

Overall inflation has been shockingly, distressingly, low for the past decade. It certainly IS NOT a runaway problem that is bankrupting America.

Why is that a meme?

I do not disagree with the premise that unlocking a phone should be legal: indeed, I feel that creating criminal penalties for doing so is a travesty, and might border on treasonous for the legislators involved.

But...

I was not aware that Canada had joined the Union and become a state. That would be a legally relevant point of interest.

Yes, actually. In most jurisdictions (I believe that Quebec is one) planning a crime is, itself, a crime. If somebody catches you "casing the joint" you need a better defense than "I haven't stolen anything yet" or you can be convicted.

It is 100% illegal for you to try and force the latch on my window, just to make sure the new one is secure. Also, depending on jurisdiction, that might be considered legal justification for me to use lethal force to protect my home. I strongly advise that you DO NOT try that in Texas.