4 ms·

The minimum to cause change is judges expending more effort on imprisoning law enforcement agents for perjury.

by wenwolf 2y ago

jmward01 2y ago
A weaponized justice department requires the judiciary to respond in kind.
- wenwolf 2y ago
  Personally, I've considered the problem to be a long term one and fixing it as a possible silver lining. I have to admit that I'm a bit of a pessimist about the integrity of the American people. I was wrong about what would happen with the first Black President, I was sure the racism was going to have a silver lining of cutting down the POTUS and not allowing a show like this. But the POTUS office is still the reason the US will kill itself at a minimum. (Nothing good can go unpunished?)
gamblor956 2y ago
The judge can request that the lawyers involved lose their admission to practice in federal court for serious ethical violations like the ones here. However, this very rarely happens except in the most egregious cases where the lawyer is usually also disbarred for their conduct (i.e., Guiliani) so it's not a meaningful disciplinary measure.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Is it just custom not to exercise it? Why do these judges allow people to show up to court and make exceptionally stupid arguments?
  - michaelt 2y ago
    As I understand it, in an "adversarial" legal system, each side is represented by a lawyer who is obliged to put forward the strongest argument they can; then the court decides between the arguments. And so even incredibly guilty people are entitled to have a lawyer on their side, lawyering as effectively as they can. So to them, there's no shame in representing an asshole and advancing a terrible argument, if that's what their client wants. What's more, generally you don't become a judge without being a lawyer for a few decades first. And they know what class solidarity is. Why would they be overly harsh with their colleagues and friends, if nothing explicitly demands they do so? Pretty much every legal case ends involves at least one side ending up unhappy. And pretty much every legal case involves at least one person who's happy to make legal threats. I'd wager many lawyers have someone threaten to get them disbarred a few times a year. It'd be difficult for the legal system to function if getting people disbarred was easy.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      I guess I should have been clear that when I said stupid arguments, I meant breaking the rules, not necessarily arguing from a position of weakness. I’m not asking why there are people representing shaky cases. Even bad people are entitled to a competent defense. I’m talking about why judges allow lawyers to get away with breaking courtroom procedure and rules. I don’t think there is as much class solidarity among lawyers. Most lawyers I know are happy to shit talk other lawyers, hell, many of them would jump at the chance to find an idiot in contempt. After a few decades of dealing with clowns and reaching a federal judgeship, you’d think they would take the opportunity to knock some heads.
- jonstewart 2y ago
  Funnily enough, a Trump crony is running to head the DC bar… https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-allies-bradley-bondi-control-dc-bar-association-rcna195253 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thaumasiotes 2y ago
> The minimum to cause change is judges expending more effort on imprisoning law enforcement agents for perjury. Is that a thing judges can do? They can imprison you for contempt of court; wouldn't perjury need a prosecutor?
roenxi 2y ago
On the scale of Wild Things happening in US politics, this one is pretty minor. Provoking that sort of constitutional crisis over it seems poorly advised - it'd be better if the judicial system sticks to their traditional role of telling people to do things differently when it has been established that the government is acting illegally. In my lifetime politicians have associated with flagrant lies that led to 100,000s of deaths and they aren't even expected to apologise. The Iraq war alone is a study - eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project.
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  Initiating criminal investigations into the administration's political opponents without evidence is NOT "pretty minor".
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Are you talking about when Obama admin did it, Biden admin did it or Trump admin did it? I mean, I agree but I have this sinking feeling that a lot of the people complaining aren't worried about the idea in principle and they just hate Trump. There is this weird thing where the big government people have suddenly had a revelation that the day-to-day operation of government is threatening. And I welcome that because it is true, I just don't know what they think has changed apart from that they lost an election.
    - apical_dendrite 2y ago
      Please provide citations for when the Obama or Biden administrations initiated criminal prosecutions of political opponents without evidence.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_inves... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago If we can pretend those are being done in good faith then we can pretend that the current Trump admin are being honest and reasonable too.
brookst 2y ago
It’s far more likely that we judges imprisoned for ruling the wrong way.
garyfirestorm 2y ago
And disbarring lawyers for malpractice - for knowingly bringing frivolous lawsuits

The minimum to cause change is judges expending more effort on imprisoning law enforcement agents for perjury.

jmward01 2y ago

A weaponized justice department requires the judiciary to respond in kind.

wenwolf 2y ago
Personally, I've considered the problem to be a long term one and fixing it as a possible silver lining. I have to admit that I'm a bit of a pessimist about the integrity of the American people. I was wrong about what would happen with the first Black President, I was sure the racism was going to have a silver lining of cutting down the POTUS and not allowing a show like this. But the POTUS office is still the reason the US will kill itself at a minimum. (Nothing good can go unpunished?)

gamblor956 2y ago

The judge can request that the lawyers involved lose their admission to practice in federal court for serious ethical violations like the ones here. However, this very rarely happens except in the most egregious cases where the lawyer is usually also disbarred for their conduct (i.e., Guiliani) so it's not a meaningful disciplinary measure.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
Is it just custom not to exercise it? Why do these judges allow people to show up to court and make exceptionally stupid arguments?
- michaelt 2y ago
  As I understand it, in an "adversarial" legal system, each side is represented by a lawyer who is obliged to put forward the strongest argument they can; then the court decides between the arguments. And so even incredibly guilty people are entitled to have a lawyer on their side, lawyering as effectively as they can. So to them, there's no shame in representing an asshole and advancing a terrible argument, if that's what their client wants. What's more, generally you don't become a judge without being a lawyer for a few decades first. And they know what class solidarity is. Why would they be overly harsh with their colleagues and friends, if nothing explicitly demands they do so? Pretty much every legal case ends involves at least one side ending up unhappy. And pretty much every legal case involves at least one person who's happy to make legal threats. I'd wager many lawyers have someone threaten to get them disbarred a few times a year. It'd be difficult for the legal system to function if getting people disbarred was easy.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    I guess I should have been clear that when I said stupid arguments, I meant breaking the rules, not necessarily arguing from a position of weakness. I’m not asking why there are people representing shaky cases. Even bad people are entitled to a competent defense. I’m talking about why judges allow lawyers to get away with breaking courtroom procedure and rules. I don’t think there is as much class solidarity among lawyers. Most lawyers I know are happy to shit talk other lawyers, hell, many of them would jump at the chance to find an idiot in contempt. After a few decades of dealing with clowns and reaching a federal judgeship, you’d think they would take the opportunity to knock some heads.
jonstewart 2y ago
Funnily enough, a Trump crony is running to head the DC bar… https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-allies-bradley-bondi-control-dc-bar-association-rcna195253 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> The minimum to cause change is judges expending more effort on imprisoning law enforcement agents for perjury. Is that a thing judges can do? They can imprison you for contempt of court; wouldn't perjury need a prosecutor?

roenxi 2y ago

On the scale of Wild Things happening in US politics, this one is pretty minor. Provoking that sort of constitutional crisis over it seems poorly advised - it'd be better if the judicial system sticks to their traditional role of telling people to do things differently when it has been established that the government is acting illegally. In my lifetime politicians have associated with flagrant lies that led to 100,000s of deaths and they aren't even expected to apologise. The Iraq war alone is a study - eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project.

apical_dendrite 2y ago
Initiating criminal investigations into the administration's political opponents without evidence is NOT "pretty minor".
- roenxi 2y ago
  Are you talking about when Obama admin did it, Biden admin did it or Trump admin did it? I mean, I agree but I have this sinking feeling that a lot of the people complaining aren't worried about the idea in principle and they just hate Trump. There is this weird thing where the big government people have suddenly had a revelation that the day-to-day operation of government is threatening. And I welcome that because it is true, I just don't know what they think has changed apart from that they lost an election.
  - apical_dendrite 2y ago
    Please provide citations for when the Obama or Biden administrations initiated criminal prosecutions of political opponents without evidence.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_inves... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago If we can pretend those are being done in good faith then we can pretend that the current Trump admin are being honest and reasonable too.

brookst 2y ago

It’s far more likely that we judges imprisoned for ruling the wrong way.

garyfirestorm 2y ago

And disbarring lawyers for malpractice - for knowingly bringing frivolous lawsuits