Is placing the ability to suspend habeas corpus in some kind of legal historical context useful or not? Like the Emoluments Clause, the Constitution literally provides:
That's in Article I, relating to the powers of Congress, and Section 9, powers denied to Congress. Does the denial to Congress then vest that power in the executive? Or does it reserve the power to Congress, but only in "Cases of Rebellion or invasion"? This is, to a greater or lesser degree, a legitimate question. The Constitution clearly contemplated suspension of the right. The question becomes by whom and when.
The only time in US history a President unilaterally suspended habeas corpus, it was Abraham Lincoln. And when the courts ruled that unconstitutional, Lincoln ignored them. Ethical crisis? Should all of Lincoln's lawyers have been disbarred? Should he? Or does his being on the right side of the Civil War make it all ok?
There are two sides to every legal dispute. No matter how wrong Bozo thinks one side is (and I agree), some lawyer somewhere is gonna take that case. Same as it ever was. Even if the answers are more obvious and the stakes much higher (those are, after all, subjective not objective).
Should losing lawyers be disbarred every time they lose on a case with constitutional dimensions? After all, they were representing a side that was ultimately found to be advocating an unconstitutional position, thus an "anti-American" position. And their clients might actually be shitheels, or maybe not.
It's not one side or the other that produces "democracy" or the American way or whatever, its the putting of the dispute to the adversarial system, which tends to require representation of both sides.
And that's before you get to the political/legislative influences on the system at the peripheries and the "top-down."
Would it be kinda cool if all the lawyers refused to represent Trumpco? Yeah, probably. But what about other heinous criminals who are obviously guilty? Maybe less cool.
Are the lawyers that take Trumpco cases ethically compromised? The answer to that question is not provided by the "barriers to entry" to the legal profession, or the literal text of ethics rules.