Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If it undermines the rule of law and empowers the executive branch to act with impunity, that impacts about 340mm people in the US, and another ~7.6B less directly.  If it empowers the president to unilaterally imprison, deport and attaint, that’s a huge problem.
The number of deportations is more or less irrelevant to the magnitude of the threat.


 

 

1000% this. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, immamac said:

like how widespread it is and how many people it is actually having an impact on. 

It's an issue that seriously erodes the lawfulness of this country, and that does have broad impacts, but it's not completely fucking out of control sending people by the 10s of thousands a day etc. We are sub 10k total still for the whole fucking year, they are actually doing a completely shit job at deportations, less than Biden in 2024 pacing. 

I cannot overstate how fucked up it is that even a single person is being deported without due process and being sent to other countries illegally, but lets not sit here and claim its 100k+ people so far. 

Here's CBP interactions by month for the last year. 

pb-2025-100days-fig1-encounters.png

This graph is the most misleading BS in the entire history of the political landscape, "interactions" could be somebody showing up at a border crossing and asking for asylum, it is a nothingburger number that could actually be a bad thing for border crossings because they make up their minds to pay a coyote.

Trump's deportations on the other hand are going to overdrive and if you get caught by ICE you could also be deported to any Gulag, it is so bad right now I warned everybody I know to avoid all border crossings regardless of status, it is that bad.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We are in a five alarm fire.  The White House is openly threatening to suspend Habeas Corpus.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5292820-white-house-miller-immigration-crackdown/
 

Habeas Corpus has been suspended four times. During the Civil War, during reconstruction and Ku Klux Klan insurrection, during an early 1900s Philippines rebellion, and in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor. 
 

This isn’t even the Constitution. Habeas Corpus predates Magna Carta.  It is the great writ that separates freemen of England from despotism elsewhere. It’s encoded in our nation’s DNA.  It is insane to even contemplate it, and it is the threat of a tyrant. 

Bit of perspective, for whatever it's worth.  Although the Constitution (Art. 1, s. 9, cl. 2) provides for suspension of habeas corpus in times of invasion or rebellion, both times it has been suspended in the US were pursuant to acts of Congress providing the president with authority to do so.  Lincoln's attempt to suspend it without Congressional authorization was ruled unconstitutional by Chief Judge Taney of the Supreme Court in a procedurally oddball decision.

Also, the Phillipine thing was kind of a one-off, it was authorized by the governing body of the Phillipines at the time.  Similar situation in Hawaii.  Neither was a presidential suspension of the writ.

So, despite the language of the Constitution, there's no precedent for it.  

That, of course, means jack shit, but still.

And yes, it is an hideous threat of a dictator, Lincoln notwithstanding.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Bit of perspective, for whatever it's worth. 

I really do appreciate your contributions, but you don’t even think the legal profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I really do appreciate your contributions, but you don’t even think the legal profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis.

The profession encompasses a shit ton of lawyers, and most of us don't feel we're in any sort of crisis not applicable to the population at large.

The DOJ is in a crisis, for sure.

I suppose the problem is that, closely related but actually external to the legal profession is politics.  Laws come mostly from legislatures these days.  The ultimate interpreters of those laws and the "common" ones that don't originate from legislative bodies, that is, SCOTUS and the courts of appeal to a lesser extent, are and always have been political creatures making basically political decisions that filter through varying degrees of legal analysis.  Because the politics are corrupt and craven, so too are their mostly political decisions.

Posted
41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The profession encompasses a shit ton of lawyers, and most of us don't feel we're in any sort of crisis not applicable to the population at large.

Can I go practice law, in that case? To be honest I am shocked by the sentence quoted above. Need I remind you that you are not the population at large?  Need I remind you that your learned profession has high barriers to entry, in part to ensure a high standards? And while you claim that law is no worse than  the population, the crisis is not at work  among CPAs or broadly among other licensed or chartered professionals.

42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose the problem is that, closely related but actually external to the legal profession is politics.  Laws come mostly from legislatures these days.  The ultimate interpreters of those laws and the "common" ones that don't originate from legislative bodies, that is, SCOTUS and the courts of appeal to a lesser extent, are and always have been political creatures making basically political decisions that filter through varying degrees of legal analysis.  Because the politics are corrupt and craven, so too are their mostly political decisions.

If only lawyers had some special and specific ethical obligations or “Rules of Professional Conduct” that were unique to the practice of law that were specifically relevant to the statement above.  Such as:

Quote

1. A lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Lawyers, as guardians of the law, play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship with and function in our legal system. A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct

4. A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer's duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The profession encompasses a shit ton of lawyers, and most of us don't feel we're in any sort of crisis not applicable to the population at large.

The DOJ is in a crisis, for sure.

I suppose the problem is that, closely related but actually external to the legal profession is politics.  Laws come mostly from legislatures these days.  The ultimate interpreters of those laws and the "common" ones that don't originate from legislative bodies, that is, SCOTUS and the courts of appeal to a lesser extent, are and always have been political creatures making basically political decisions that filter through varying degrees of legal analysis.  Because the politics are corrupt and craven, so too are their mostly political decisions.

I think what bozo doesn't want to say out loud is maybe you should think before you say out loud what you want to say when your mind triggers into "well, actually" mode. you are smart, not like everybody says. 

but your lawyer cya other side consideration makes you their bitch in normal discourse

meant friendly

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

I think what bozo doesn't want to say out loud is maybe you should think before you say out loud what you want to say when your mind triggers into "well, actually" mode. you are smart, not like everybody says. 

but your lawyer cya other side consideration makes you their bitch in normal discourse

meant friendly

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:

Quote

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

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.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

tl/dr

As much as we hate #bothsides, there are actually usually two sides to a legal dispute.  One side is usually wrong, the other right.  

I like to understand the #bothsides, if for no other reason than to figure out why the wrong side won.  Although corruption may supply the answer to that, it's often more nuanced.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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?

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.  

There was a war though, the Civil War rewrote the constitution in more ways than just ignoring the Supreme Court on habeas corpus. Including things after it finished like forcing amendments without southern states input. Trump is laughably trying to create false flags to excuse it but there is no war, he would have to start a real second civil war, one that he would lose.

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, linux said:

There was a war though, the Civil War rewrote the constitution in more ways than just ignoring the Supreme Court on habeas corpus. Including things after it finished like forcing amendments without southern states input. Trump is laughably trying to create false flags to excuse it but there is no war, he would have to start a real second civil war, one that he would lose.

 

 

 

I don't think I disagree.

But if we want to pretend that there is some universal code of ethics that isn't tempered or altered by the situation, or the interests of the client, then I guess there was an ethical crisis in the legal profession around 1861-1862.

Fun note, although the ruling that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional came from the Chief Justice of the United States, it was clearly not a ruling of the nine justices of the entire Supreme Court.  It seems it was roughly analogous to a Court of Appeals decision.  On this basis, much like Trumpco, some at the time and later justify his actions as not contrary to a final decision of SCOTUS.  And his action was later "justified" by Congress.

In the absolutest or strictest sense, Lincoln ignored the orders of the federal courts.

FDR stopped just short of ignoring the orders of the federal courts, but engaged in a lot of executive overreach with poorly drafted and obviously unconstitutional orders, just like you-know-who.

FDR and Lincoln proved to be on the right side of history, for the most part, Trump will be proven to be on the wrong.  But they did the same shit, objectively.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think I disagree.

But if we want to pretend that there is some universal code of ethics that isn't tempered or altered by the situation, or the interests of the client, then I guess there was an ethical crisis in the legal profession around 1861-1862.

Fun note, although the ruling that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional came from the Chief Justice of the United States, it was clearly not a ruling of the nine justices of the entire Supreme Court.  It seems it was roughly analogous to a Court of Appeals decision.  On this basis, much like Trumpco, some at the time and later justify his actions as not contrary to a final decision of SCOTUS.  And his action was later "justified" by Congress.

 

Might equals right, I have always been a realist regarding the constitution, including the most famous poison pill that it was never a "suicide pact" I just need people to understand that the genie is out of the bottle, there is no going back from Trump blatantly disobeying the SCOTUS right now, if and most likely when his second coup fails, if we try the "gee whiz Biden administration, I got unlimited unchecked power but I am not going to use it to save the country and its people, part II" we are just kicking the can down the road. The Post Civil War was a constitutional convention and we need another, deeper one.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 5/10/2025 at 9:25 AM, linux said:

Might equals right, I have always been a realist regarding the constitution, including the most famous poison pill that it was never a "suicide pact" I just need people to understand that the genie is out of the bottle, there is no going back from Trump blatantly disobeying the SCOTUS right now, if and most likely when his second coup fails, if we try the "gee whiz Biden administration, I got unlimited unchecked power but I am not going to use it to save the country and its people, part II" we are just kicking the can down the road. The Post Civil War was a constitutional convention and we need another, deeper one.

It's really not yet blatant.  They're pussyfooting around it in court and seem actually to have backed down in AARP.

I'm not counting the ejaculations of clowns like Leavitt and Miller here.

Posted
On 5/9/2025 at 4:56 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Bit of perspective, for whatever it's worth.  Although the Constitution (Art. 1, s. 9, cl. 2) provides for suspension of habeas corpus in times of invasion or rebellion, both times it has been suspended in the US were pursuant to acts of Congress providing the president with authority to do so.  Lincoln's attempt to suspend it without Congressional authorization was ruled unconstitutional by Chief Judge Taney of the Supreme Court in a procedurally oddball decision.

Also, the Phillipine thing was kind of a one-off, it was authorized by the governing body of the Phillipines at the time.  Similar situation in Hawaii.  Neither was a presidential suspension of the writ.

So, despite the language of the Constitution, there's no precedent for it.  

That, of course, means jack shit, but still.

And yes, it is an hideous threat of a dictator, Lincoln notwithstanding.

 

The only people that give less of a shit about judicial precedent than the current scotus justices are the goons in the White House.  

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 5/9/2025 at 11:01 PM, TwiceHorn said:

The profession encompasses a shit ton of lawyers, and most of us don't feel we're in any sort of crisis not applicable to the population at large.

 

On 5/9/2025 at 11:59 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Can I go practice law, in that case? To be honest I am shocked by the sentence quoted above. Need I remind you that you are not the population at large?  Need I remind you that your learned profession has high barriers to entry, in part to ensure a high standards? And while you claim that law is no worse than  the population, the crisis is not at work  among CPAs or broadly among other licensed or chartered professionals.

If only lawyers had some special and specific ethical obligations or “Rules of Professional Conduct” that were unique to the practice of law that were specifically relevant to the statement above.  Such as:

 

Bozo or anyone else readily agrees with the "ethical crisis among the entire legal profession":

There is an insurance defense lawyer sitting in his office in Phoenix today preparing for a mediation regarding a tractor trailer collision. What is it that you think he/she needs to be doing today to address the ethical crisis you believe exists? 

Posted
2 hours ago, gernblansten said:

There is an insurance defense lawyer sitting in his office in Phoenix today preparing for a mediation regarding a tractor trailer collision. What is it that you think he/she needs to be doing today to address the ethical crisis you believe exists? 

He should stick to his knitting, why?

Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's really not yet blatant.  They're pussyfooting around it in court and seem actually to have backed down in AARP.

I'm not counting the ejaculations of clowns like Leavitt and Miller here.

It hasn't been blatant because up until now the supreme court had been pretty overtly batting for trump. Now that they are not asking "how high" when he tells them to jump, he is ignoring them. 

I do not share your faith in our legal system to address a wrong that it has been enabling for decades.

Edited by Captainant
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

He should stick to his knitting, why?

I mean, doesn't he have some obligation to root out corruption and incompetence in the profession and stay after the Bar to make sure the defendant is adequately sanctioned?

That's another practical problem with lawyer discipline.  One of the first levels of discipline is not the Bar, but the trial courts where misconduct occurs.  All too often, opposing counsel move for sanctions from the court not for a real professional ethics violation, but for an overblown allegation made to secure a tactical or strategic advantage.  Courts get sick of it and become even less inclined to sanction lawyers on their own, or on motion of an opponent.

I made the mistake of thinking your "crisis" allegation had more current applicability than your general gripe that lawyers don't police themselves adequately.  I thought it extended to some conception that if that were the case, the Sidney Powell s of  the world wouldn't exist.  And maybe the Uncle Ruckuses and Guido Alitos.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 5/9/2025 at 11:01 PM, TwiceHorn said:

The profession encompasses a shit ton of lawyers, and most of us don't feel we're in any sort of crisis not applicable to the population at large.

The DOJ is in a crisis, for sure.

I suppose the problem is that, closely related but actually external to the legal profession is politics.  Laws come mostly from legislatures these days.  The ultimate interpreters of those laws and the "common" ones that don't originate from legislative bodies, that is, SCOTUS and the courts of appeal to a lesser extent, are and always have been political creatures making basically political decisions that filter through varying degrees of legal analysis.  Because the politics are corrupt and craven, so too are their mostly political decisions.

Twice, man, that's the crisis.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2025 at 9:14 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Fun note, although the ruling that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional came from the Chief Justice of the United States, it was clearly not a ruling of the nine justices of the entire Supreme Court.  It seems it was roughly analogous to a Court of Appeals decision.  On this basis, much like Trumpco, some at the time and later justify his actions as not contrary to a final decision of SCOTUS.  And his action was later "justified" by Congress.

In the absolutest or strictest sense, Lincoln ignored the orders of the federal courts.

I challenge this. What court decision did Lincoln violate? I was under the impression that Chief Justice did have the opinion that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional, but never did so as a judge that was only his opinion.

As far as I am aware Lincoln only ever defended his actions to Congress, and never had the opportunity to defend himself in court. Nor were any court orders issued that the Lincoln administration violated.

But granted all of what happened in 1861 seems quiant compared to the routine executions, arrests, and seizure of property without trial regularly done by both the Confederacy and the Union armies during the war.

Edited by Valmy77
Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

It hasn't been blatant because up until now the supreme court had been pretty overtly batting for trump. Now that they are not asking "how high" when he tells them to jump, he is ignoring them. 

I do not share your faith in our legal system to address a wrong that it has been enabling for decades.

Which wrong is that?

Yes, they're hiding behind strained interpretations of Supreme Court emergency orders, but when pressed on whether those orders, or their own interpretation of foreign policy or national security powers gives them the ability to ignore court orders or outright defy them; they flinch.

Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Twice, man, that's the crisis.

Well, yeah, that's why I said it.

In response to the allegation that the legal profession, in particular, is in some sort of crisis, implicitly one that didn't exist at some other time.

fuck-these-too-cat-fuck-this-cat.gif

Posted

Twice, my man, the mental gymnastics you do to convince yourself that lawyering is some sort of noble profession have to be exhausting. Your constant droning makes me like lawyers less and that’s coming from a guy that’s the son, grandson and great grandson of attorneys, one of which was a federal judge.

Posted (edited)

right? twice picked the wrong decade to try to convince the american public the justice system, as currently implemented, is anything to be proud of and isn't being exceptionally manipulated by bad actors. admitting it's a dumpster fire in the middle of tire fire will go a long way to figuring out how to try to fix it. ignoring the obvious flaws and manipulations is what got us here

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean, doesn't he have some obligation to root out corruption and incompetence in the profession and stay after the Bar to make sure the defendant is adequately sanctioned?

The preamble to the rules of professional conduct speak to this as well. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, royiv said:

Twice, my man, the mental gymnastics you do to convince yourself that lawyering is some sort of noble profession have to be exhausting. Your constant droning makes me like lawyers less and that’s coming from a guy that’s the son, grandson and great grandson of attorneys, one of which was a federal judge.

Well, you know, it's actually Bozo that's trying to engraft some extra nobility onto lawyers by constantly citing the barriers to entry and the lofty goal of "upholding legal process."

On the other hand, I am explaining the nuts and bolts of lawyering.  And how the more dramatic some scenario appears to be, it might not actually be so dramatic.

I am not one that has a particularly rosy view of lawyers.  A lot of us are utter greedy shitheads.  Some are ethically compromised.

Our system works reasonably well in much of the workaday legal world, but has the problems noted continuously here and elsewhere. Many of those problems are foisted on the system by politicians and voters.  Some, notably the pay to play, is inherent.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, royiv said:

Twice, my man, the mental gymnastics you do to convince yourself that lawyering is some sort of noble profession have to be exhausting.

It IS a noble and essential profession. I think we all know that even if we don’t caveat our criticism with that admission. But because it is noble and essential the profession should treat itself with reverence and demand that its members adhere to the highest standards, especially at the highest levels. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

When white shoes law firms start kowtowing to the whims of a corrupt regime, the entire profession has lost the narrative. Sorry, but dems the breaks. Instead of being disgusted and calling for the profession to come together to reform, we have Twice telling us everything is really fine with the exception of a few bad actors here and there. Things are not fine, the system is broken and lawyers are jerking each other off telling us the dumpster fire is burning just as the system is designed to do. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It IS a noble and essential profession. I think we all know that even if we don’t caveat our criticism with that admission. But because it is noble and essential the profession should treat itself with reverence and demand that its members adhere to the highest standards, especially at the highest levels. 

Okay. So what does that insurance defense lawyer in Phoenix need to do today to demand every lawyer adhere to the highest standards, especially at the highest levels? Can you identify any specific lawyer who the Phoenix attorney needs to be reporting today?

Posted
22 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

right? twice picked the wrong decade to try to convince the american public the justice system, as currently implemented, is anything to be proud of and isn't being exceptionally manipulated by bad actors. admitting it's a dumpster fire in the middle of tire fire will go a long way to figuring out how to try to fix it. ignoring the obvious flaws and manipulations is what got us here

What are the obvious flaws that are being ignored? How are those obvious flaws fixed?

Posted
2 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Okay. So what does that insurance defense lawyer in Phoenix need to do today to demand every lawyer adhere to the highest standards, especially at the highest levels? Can you identify any specific lawyer who the Phoenix attorney needs to be reporting today?

If he’s doing insurance defense work, he should commit seppuku for the good of society.

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Okay. So what does that insurance defense lawyer in Phoenix need to do today to demand every lawyer adhere to the highest standards, especially at the highest levels? Can you identify any specific lawyer who the Phoenix attorney needs to be reporting today?

Are you an insurance defense lawyer in Phoenix?

Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Are you an insurance defense lawyer in Phoenix?

Makes sense to do that kind of work as close to hell as possible. You’re closer to the boss.

Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Are you an insurance defense lawyer in Phoenix?

No, but what difference would that make? It could be a probate attorney in Stoddard, Wisconsin. Or, a very virtuous personal injury attorney in Phoenix getting ready for a mediation in a tractor trailer collision. Banking compliance attorney in Lexington, Kentucky. The complaint appears to be there is an ethical crisis and lawyers aren't doing anything about it. Lawyers are required to report unethical behavior. So, the same question remains wherever you'd prefer the attorney to live and what type of work the attorney performs.

Posted
13 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Okay. So what does that insurance defense lawyer in Phoenix need to do today to demand every lawyer adhere to the highest standards, especially at the highest levels? Can you identify any specific lawyer who the Phoenix attorney needs to be reporting today?

Is he in the room with you now?

Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Is he in the room with you now?

My fault. Carry on repeating your vague complaints about an ethical crisis being ignored by the entire legal profession despite the high standards requiring action that you cannot identify. 

Posted
1 minute ago, gernblansten said:

The complaint appears to be there is an ethical crisis and lawyers aren't doing anything about it. Lawyers are required to report unethical behavior. So, the same question remains wherever you'd prefer the attorney to live and what type of work the attorney performs

Is this supposed to be argumentation, or are you actually asking me how self-governing professions with high individual autonomy can police themselves?

Posted

Side note - it's extra funny that twice the IP lawyer is taking this stand while the our entire IP law framework is being undermined and strangled by the trump admin. Gotta love that extra dose of irony

Posted
14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Is this supposed to be argumentation, or are you actually asking me how self-governing professions with high individual autonomy can police themselves?

1. Do you think the legal profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis?

2. If not, cool, I misunderstood your post, my bad, enjoy your day. If so, can you specifically identify the ethical crisis?

3. Please identify a specific unethical act of at least one or two attorneys that have contributed to the legal profession being in midst of an ethical crisis because they would need to be reported by others attorneys who are aware of the unethical behavior. 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

3. Please identify a specific unethical act of at least one or two attorneys that have contributed to the legal profession being in midst of an ethical crisis because they would need to be reported by others attorneys who are aware of the unethical behavior. 

My guy, were you asleep during the entire January 6 crisis? Sure a few token lawyers have been disbarred but NONE of them have faced more serious sanction for the lies before the court and weaponization (that ones for you, Johnny) of the legal system against their political enemies.

It's WILD hearing lawyers on surly repeat the trumpist line of "well it didn't work out, so no harm no foul" with regard to how badly the justice system was used and abused. Motherfuckers, the fact they even HAD an at-bat to try is the entire problem.

Miss me with the concern trolling over how the differentially applied rules that let the fascists do fascism are what separates us decent folks from the fascists.

Edited by Captainant
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

1. Do you think the legal profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis?

Yes- and at @TwiceHorn points out the crisis is general to the population. But lawyers have a special role in society, and then they fail, it puts the rule of law at risk, which puts society itself at risk. 

16 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

2. If not, cool, I misunderstood your post, my bad, enjoy your day. If so, can you specifically identify the ethical crisis?

Sigh. My point is that the legal profession does not effectively police itself, especially against bad actors who discredit the profession and weaken public faith in the legal system. Nothing more or less. 

16 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

3. Please identify a specific unethical act of at least one or two attorneys that have contributed to the legal profession being in midst of an ethical crisis because they would need to be reported by others attorneys who are aware of the unethical behavior. 

I’m not sure where you’re getting the condition in bold. I certainly didn’t point to a lack of reporting as a problem, although it may be, I have no idea. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Bozo is both not wrong.....and wildly wrong.  Lemme esplain...wait, there is too much...lemme sum up.

Yes, the legal profession is in an ethical crisis.  That is because the legal profession is a REFLECTION of society, not aside and apart from it.  Its crisis is society's crisis.  People ignore the one thing that every "slimy, unethical" lawyer has: a client.  Lawyers go as society goes, in large part.  That means I'm not holding lawyers up as anything particularly exalted.  They don't deserve it, they really aren't much better or worse than society as a whole.  SOCIETY is in an ethical crisis, because we've abandoned any notion of a common set of rules that should apply to all (in groups who the law protects, but does not bind, vs. out groups who the law binds, but does not protect).

ALSO, this matches up perfectly with the alarm bells Brisket has been ringing for a decade-plus: the Rule of Law is a tissue-paper-thin veneer.  It is only a set of gentlemen's agreements, that society across-the-board will agree to a set of objective standards.  Once a material segment of society opts out of those standards, and has the collective power to do so (and it's a shockingly small percentage.  Like, think 10%, so long as it's the right (white) 10%), then it's over.  I can go down to the courthouse and argue what the law IS, and be dead-right....and if either 1) a shameless political appointee says "sure, but see, the law doesn't apply to people named 'Trump,'" or hell, maybe I even get the judgment, but the other side simply ignores it and says "come and make us follow it," and that other side has armed troops/ICE/etc. at its disposal....it's over.  It doesn't matter how many suits I file, how many show-cause proceedings I initiate, etc....it's over.

Finally, even presuming that lawyers ARE truly essential, be really, really, really fucking careful of setting standards that amount to "action that undermines the Rule of Law" as being subject to sanction by ANY body that can be manipulated and controlled by political forces.  Because legal positions like "black people should be treated equally, per the 14the amendment," and "interracial marriage should be legal, per the Constitution" are positions that absolutely undermine and go against society, the long-standing social order, the long-understood interpretation of the Constitution, and the very fabric of our Republic (all arguments used against lawyers asserting those exact positions).  Building a system that makes it easy to sanction lawyers for "acting against the Rule of Law" is tailor-made for a system run by a despot who says "I AM THE RULE OF LAW, and therefore, any action against what I decree is an act against the Rule of Law" - I'm not making that up, this admin is literally saying that shit right now.

I take legal positions that are/would be opposed by Trumpists.  If you want to set up a system where I risk losing my license, being imprisoned, etc. for doing so, then the nebulous vision you propose would do just that.  This admin is not shy about going after attorneys for the "against the Rule of Law" action of taking a position contrary to the admin's preferences - they've already done it, repeatedly.  I cannot envision any further mechanisms for legal accountability that would not promptly be taken over and used by the admin to go after their legal enemies.  Be careful about the "accountability" you wish for.  In a world with no objective legal realities (the one we live in now), you've just handed the fascists all the tools they need to complete their coup de grace.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes

Sigh. My point is that the legal profession does not effectively police itself, especially against bad actors who discredit the profession and weaken public faith in the legal system. Nothing more or less. 

I’m not sure where you’re getting the condition in bold. I certainly didn’t point to a lack of reporting as a problem, although it may be, I have no idea. 

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond. I assumed the current complaint about not effectively policing itself against bad actors who discredit the profession was related to a recent specific event, like trump's el salvador gulag.   

As far as the condition in bold, you posted a couple rules of professional responsibility. Attorneys are required to report known ethics violations. If the profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis, the actions contributing to the crisis need to be reported. That's part of the policing. You point out that you have no idea of the lack of reporting is a problem. 

There are individual law firms dealing with the White House and individual attorneys and departments in the DOJ who should be in the midst of an "ethical crisis", but I haven't seen anything specific set out to indicate the entire legal profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis. Seems the base complaint by numerous posters (not necessarily you Bozo) boils down to: the majority of SCOTUS rules in a manner I greatly disagree with so the legal system is a complete failure. 

Anyway, I appreciate your posts and taking the time to respond to my inquiry.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

There's a pretty big ethics crisis ongoing on the Supreme Court. I'd say that indicts the entire profession. Can we do anything about it as individual attorneys? No, not really. I'd argue that's part of the crisis, though.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
26 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond. I assumed the current complaint about not effectively policing itself against bad actors who discredit the profession was related to a recent specific event, like trump's el salvador gulag.   

As far as the condition in bold, you posted a couple rules of professional responsibility. Attorneys are required to report known ethics violations. If the profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis, the actions contributing to the crisis need to be reported. That's part of the policing. You point out that you have no idea of the lack of reporting is a problem. 

There are individual law firms dealing with the White House and individual attorneys and departments in the DOJ who should be in the midst of an "ethical crisis", but I haven't seen anything specific set out to indicate the entire legal profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis. Seems the base complaint by numerous posters (not necessarily you Bozo) boils down to: the majority of SCOTUS rules in a manner I greatly disagree with so the legal system is a complete failure. 

Anyway, I appreciate your posts and taking the time to respond to my inquiry.

Well, the other major thing is the failure to hold Trump to account.in the criminal cases, save one, which is not yet final/subject to appeal.

Setting aside for the moment SCOTUS dilatory review and pretty fucked up immunity decision, the biggest problem with the criiminal cases was the delay, which was unfortunately entirely predictable even without Trump's notorious stalling tactics.  

And yes, you can actually set aside the immunity decision, because I think Smith secures convictions even despite it, had the delay not been such a factor, and of course the supervening fucking 2024 election.  Goddamn.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...