September 03, 2023
Thoughts From The Dersh
Oh wow! It posted!
Dershowitz, who is quite emphatically not a Trump supporter, points out the very troubling overreach of of the never Trump lawfare. In going after the lawyers, the Dems are crossing a Rubicon.
No one who crosses the Left will be able to get legal representation if this stands.
Contrary to many who assume these people are stupid and can't process the conditional hypothetical of the shoe being on the other foot, they are NOT stupid. The Left understands the concept of reciprocity perfectly well. They don't expect they will face reciprocity... because they don't plan to ever be out of power....They're going for the brass ring.
The implications of this are dark indeed.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
05:26 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Nah, they crossed that particular case of river earlier. Yale or Harvard pulled together a letter that they got signed by something 3/4 of law school heads, on January 12th 2021, epousing the novel legal theory that rather than representing their clients, lawyers had a professional responsibility to refuse to take certain cases and represent certain clients.
Note, the timing on this might have been tight for a genuine response to January 6th.
The ABA credentials all the law schools, and the law faculty have failed to understand the extent to which public buy in to the legal system relies on the legal system's ability to persuade that it resolves disputes fairly.
The letter was a clear signal both of will to power nonsense beliefs, and to GOPe faculty eagerness to sell out voters for the sake of getting Trump out of their business.
It discredited not only the idea of settling the current insanity by electoral process, but also by the legal process. The insane ones have calculated that they have cut off our every path to remedy, except the ones that they intend to trap us with. They miscalculate this badly, as they miscalculate almost all of their behavior forecasts.
The universities have now been a venue for killing at least two professional schools, medicine and law. There is little reason to hope that they will not soon kill any remaining value left in academic training. This frees our hand.
We need merely remain firm in reiterating the following argument: Faculty have purported themselves able to curate which arguments get brought before the courts. If this is true, the precedent going back decades may no longer be binding as having not been corruptly decided, and the courts cannot purport to be acting fairly as agents of the public. In such case, there is no reason to have schools of law. If there is any purpose in law, lawyers, and schools of law, then these faculty have made an untrue statement. Therefore, they must retract the statement, and resign.
It may persuade sufficient people to correct this injustice. If they close their ears, we still have a paper trail.
Note, the timing on this might have been tight for a genuine response to January 6th.
The ABA credentials all the law schools, and the law faculty have failed to understand the extent to which public buy in to the legal system relies on the legal system's ability to persuade that it resolves disputes fairly.
The letter was a clear signal both of will to power nonsense beliefs, and to GOPe faculty eagerness to sell out voters for the sake of getting Trump out of their business.
It discredited not only the idea of settling the current insanity by electoral process, but also by the legal process. The insane ones have calculated that they have cut off our every path to remedy, except the ones that they intend to trap us with. They miscalculate this badly, as they miscalculate almost all of their behavior forecasts.
The universities have now been a venue for killing at least two professional schools, medicine and law. There is little reason to hope that they will not soon kill any remaining value left in academic training. This frees our hand.
We need merely remain firm in reiterating the following argument: Faculty have purported themselves able to curate which arguments get brought before the courts. If this is true, the precedent going back decades may no longer be binding as having not been corruptly decided, and the courts cannot purport to be acting fairly as agents of the public. In such case, there is no reason to have schools of law. If there is any purpose in law, lawyers, and schools of law, then these faculty have made an untrue statement. Therefore, they must retract the statement, and resign.
It may persuade sufficient people to correct this injustice. If they close their ears, we still have a paper trail.
Posted by: PatBuckman at Thu Sep 7 22:48:09 2023 (r9O5h)
33kb generated in CPU 0.0777, elapsed 0.3187 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.3093 seconds, 358 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
71 queries taking 0.3093 seconds, 358 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
