Most ridiculous legal argument of all time

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 13
  • Views: 203
  • Politics 
S

superrific

Legend of ZZL
Messages
6,973
Sorry, this deserves its own thread. So Trump targeted law firms with an executive order; then the law firms sued; and now the government made a motion to dismiss.

The argument was . . . brace yourself . . . that the law firms, by bringing the lawsuit, were "muzzling" Trump's First Amendment right to criticize them.

www.nytimes.com

Justice Dept. Criticizes Another Federal Judge for Blocking a Trump Executive Order

Attorney General Pam Bondi relied on an increasingly common assertion: that the judge was “unelected” and denying the will of voters who put the president in office.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

I know I commonly suggest discipline for lawyers, and not everyone agrees with me . . . but the lawyer who offered that Orwellian argument needs to be disbarred. Talk about casting aspersions about the profession.
 
superrific said:
Sorry, this deserves its own thread. So Trump targeted law firms with an executive order; then the law firms sued; and now the government made a motion to dismiss.

The argument was . . . brace yourself . . . that the law firms, by bringing the lawsuit, were "muzzling" Trump's First Amendment right to criticize them.

www.nytimes.com

Justice Dept. Criticizes Another Federal Judge for Blocking a Trump Executive Order

Attorney General Pam Bondi relied on an increasingly common assertion: that the judge was “unelected” and denying the will of voters who put the president in office.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

I know I commonly suggest discipline for lawyers, and not everyone agrees with me . . . but the lawyer who offered that Orwellian argument needs to be disbarred. Talk about casting aspersions about the profession.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with you on everything legal-related, but I'm 100% in favor of cracking down on bad faith lawyers. And I wouldn't be opposed to designating Heritage as a foreign agent.
 
Bar discipline may actually be one way to rein in Trump. If the lawyers are in any way involved in flouting or facilitating the violation of court orders, that is something the bar would have jurisdiction over.

It is one thing if Trump refuses to follow an order against advice of counsel. It is a whole other thing if lawyers are advising Trump how to refuse to comply with court orders. That gets you into John Eastman crime/fraud territory.

And it is also a weapon the legal system has against unchecked executive power.

That said, I am generally against bar discipline for bad legal arguments. That is where the court's sanction power can be used, which often has to be reported to the state bar if over a certain dollar amount.
 
superrific said:
Sorry, this deserves its own thread. So Trump targeted law firms with an executive order; then the law firms sued; and now the government made a motion to dismiss.

The argument was . . . brace yourself . . . that the law firms, by bringing the lawsuit, were "muzzling" Trump's First Amendment right to criticize them.

www.nytimes.com

Justice Dept. Criticizes Another Federal Judge for Blocking a Trump Executive Order

Attorney General Pam Bondi relied on an increasingly common assertion: that the judge was “unelected” and denying the will of voters who put the president in office.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

I know I commonly suggest discipline for lawyers, and not everyone agrees with me . . . but the lawyer who offered that Orwellian argument needs to be disbarred. Talk about casting aspersions about the profession.
Click to expand...
There's going to be a lot of competition for this distinction by the time the Trump admin is through.

And also, I would really appreciate it if one of these federal judge would make clear to the folks at the justice department that the government's lawyers are bound by ethical rules and rules of procedure (like rule 11) to the same extent as any other lawyer. "The President ordered me to do it" does not relieve a government lawyer of his or her ethical obligations.
 
Well, whatever the case about attorney discipline, this still has to rank as one of the worst legal arguments ever filed in federal court. I mean, I've seen some doozies, and I'm sure practicing attorney have seen a lot of them, but the idea that law firms were infringing on Trump's first amendment rights is beyond loco.
 
rodoheel said:
There's going to be a lot of competition for this distinction by the time the Trump admin is through.

And also, I would really appreciate it if one of these federal judge would make clear to the folks at the justice department that the government's lawyers are bound by ethical rules and rules of procedure (like rule 11) to the same extent as any other lawyer. "The President ordered me to do it" does not relieve a government lawyer of his or her ethical obligations.
Click to expand...
I think one of them did. And Boasberg made a point of publicly telling the DOJ attorney that "reputation is the most important thing you have in this business" or something to that effect.

But yes, the judges could be doing more. One does wonder if they have some sympathy for the DOJ line attorneys given bullshit cases, no time to prepare, and get trotted into court to defend the indefensible. It doesn't relieve them from their obligations, but it makes it a bit more understandable.
 
superrific said:
Sorry, this deserves its own thread. So Trump targeted law firms with an executive order; then the law firms sued; and now the government made a motion to dismiss.

The argument was . . . brace yourself . . . that the law firms, by bringing the lawsuit, were "muzzling" Trump's First Amendment right to criticize them.

www.nytimes.com

Justice Dept. Criticizes Another Federal Judge for Blocking a Trump Executive Order

Attorney General Pam Bondi relied on an increasingly common assertion: that the judge was “unelected” and denying the will of voters who put the president in office.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

I know I commonly suggest discipline for lawyers, and not everyone agrees with me . . . but the lawyer who offered that Orwellian argument needs to be disbarred. Talk about casting aspersions about the profession.
Click to expand...

I'll go a lot further and say a whole lot of lawyers need to be shown the jail cell for contempt. You can't put this administration in jail? Well, you can put the lawyers in.
 
I worry a lot of the worst offenders have political or other aspirations and would happily forfeit their law license to ingratiate themselves to Trump.
 
CeruleanBlueHeel said:
I'll go a lot further and say a whole lot of lawyers need to be shown the jail cell for contempt. You can't put this administration in jail? Well, you can put the lawyers in.
Click to expand...
How? The jails and the police are controlled by the executive. You want the justice department to arrest itself?
 
superrific said:
Actually, I do. In fact, it would be among the greatest things ever to happen.
Click to expand...
And I want a gazillion dollars to fall from the sky.

But dealing in the world of the realistic, I don't see Pam calling Kash to ask for the cuff treatment.
 
Calheel said:
And I want a gazillion dollars to fall from the sky.

But dealing in the world of the realistic, I don't see Pam calling Kash to ask for the cuff treatment.
Click to expand...
In her second job, I’m pretty sure Pam (Madame Bondi if you’re nasty) is the one who puts the cuffs on.
 
Calheel said:
And I want a gazillion dollars to fall from the sky.

But dealing in the world of the realistic, I don't see Pam calling Kash to ask for the cuff treatment.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that. But you asked if we wanted it to happen and I truthfully answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top