5 ms·

the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. The vulnerability comes from one

the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing). Even when he fails, the process becomes the punishment for the opposing side (journalists, political opponents...). When he wins, he wins.

eviks 1y ago
This continues to make little sense since you continue to ignore that a big % of your made up "real" part of the system also constitutes a part of the bad faith party! > It should also be based on good faith Setting the wishes aside, it isn't, the judges easily act in bad faith when it suits them, so this also doesn't explain much. Neither is it "designed" to take bad faith at face value, again, to be specific - just read the Supreme Court case about this law. The flood/design explain nothing: it would've been just as easy to block the implementation of what the court itself says is an unconstitutional law (see, no "good faith" basis required) and then don't even review it fully because the court has no time (see, the flood can flow in either direction)...
hiatus 1y ago
> The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals No, this is literally a "both sides" issue. Lawfare is not new. See the continuous legal battles over the second amendment in states like NY, NJ, and CA.
- dudefeliciano 1y ago
  i was not aware of Biden or Democrat presidents filing personal lawsuits against journalists and politcal opponents...
  - rayiner 1y ago
    Just last week a New York intermediate appellate court overturned the $500 million fraud judgment against Trump: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/new-york-civil-fraud-judgment-trump-ruling-00517727 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/new-york-civil-frau.... Yes, it wasn't brought by Biden--but it was brought by an elected Democrat Attorney General who campaigned on "going after Trump." Note that, out of the five judge panel, three would have overturned the underlying conviction, while two would have granted a new trial, and one would have thrown the case out entirely: > Two other judges, John Higgitt and Llinét Rosado, said James had the authority to bring the case but argued for giving Trump a new trial. And the fifth judge, Justice David Friedman, argued to throw out the case, saying James lacked the authority to bring it.
    - pstuart 1y ago
      The case was based on Trump's former attorney mentioning criminal acts his client had done -- it was an attempt to hold Trump accountable for those crimes. The reason a democrat would be involved in such prosecution is because every GOP member has effectively sworn fealty to Trump and they will fiercely protect him from any accountability. Biden was many things, but not corrupt in the sense that Trump is. Yes, his son did business trading on his relationship but that was legal (albeit distasteful). Most dem voters dislike corruption, even if it's one of their team; I don't see that on the other side of the aisle. Disclaimer: I am not a dem.
      - rayiner 1y ago
        The link above is about the New York civil case. If you're talking about the criminal case, it's even worse, as CNN's chief legal correspondent explained: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-... ("Most importantly, the DA's charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."). Or, as an MSNBC legal columnist explained: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-guilty-hush-money-trial-verdict-alvin-bragg-rcna153628 https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-guilty-hus... ("Most DAs wouldn’t have pursued this case against Trump. Alvin Bragg got lucky. Let’s be honest with each other. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump was convoluted."). You could write an entire Harvard law review issue about the novel legal issues raised by the Trump criminal case: Can a state crime be predicted on an uncharged federal campaign finance violation? can someone violate campaign finance law--which is focused on preventing candidates from misusing donated funds--by using their own money to pay off a porn star? Can you bootstrap a misdemeanor into a felony through a triple-bank-shot involving an uncharged secondary crime and a choice of three possible tertiary crimes? When you prosecute someone for a business records misdemeanor, but almost all the allegedly bad conduct relates to unspecified secondary and tertiary crimes, how do you instruct the jury? When you give the jury three different options of uncharged tertiary crimes to support the uncharged secondary crime, which in turn supports the charged primary crime, on what points must the jury reach a unanimous decision? Google's and Apple's "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich" was a more straightforward legal theory than the Trump criminal case.
rayiner 1y ago
> flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing). Trump is winning most of these fights in the appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Activist groups are flooding the system with a bunch of weak cases, getting weak, poorly reasoned district court rulings, then getting overturned on appeal.
- brendoelfrendo 1y ago
  I feel like you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court rulings, which are almost unilaterally terrible. The Court has made some very torturous interpretations of procedure and precedent to justify rubber-stamping operations that even the conservative justices will admit are unconstitutional, preferring to instead punt the issue and allow the harm to continue, completely circumventing the merits of the cases. Several of the recent shadow docket decisions regarding injunctions have brought up the equities of the suits in question, making the bizarre claim that enjoining the Executive Branch from doing whatever it wants pending a full trial harms it in greater proportion than the harms being actually inflicted on ordinary people. > Activist groups are flooding the system with a bunch of weak cases, getting weak, poorly reasoned district court rulings, then getting overturned on appeal. Trump's > 90% success rate at the Supreme Court should be read as an indictment of the Supreme Court, not of the lower courts.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > I feel like you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court rulings I feel like you are unfamiliar with who you are replying to. That doesn't make it any less amusing.
    - brendoelfrendo 1y ago
      I am unfamiliar with who I'm replying to, but I don't really care; are they some sort of legal expert? If so, I'd expect them to understand that recent decisions such as Trump v. Casa and McMahon v. New York are pretty flimsy.
      - 1y ago
lelanthran 1y ago
> the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. It isn't, and it isn't designed to be based on good faith or good faith actors.
- dudefeliciano 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law there are many many resources online you can find on the matter
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    That is specifically limited to contract law (a subset of civil law) which is quite distinct from criminal law. Contract law requires many things, including "a meeting of minds"; that does not imply that all civil lawsuits and criminal hearings require "a meeting of minds". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) There are many resources online you can find on the matter.
    - dudefeliciano 1y ago
      > That is specifically limited to contract law That is false, and the wiki paragraph does not say that https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 > quite distinct from criminal law. Trumps frivolous lawsuits have been civil matters, which is obviouos because private persons do not file criminal lawsuits, prosecutors do that.
      - lelanthran 1y ago
        > That is false, and the wiki paragraph does not say that Are you sure? This is the first sentence of my link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) > In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. This is the first sentence of your original link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law > In law, bona fides denotes the mental and moral states of honesty and conviction regarding either the truth or the falsity of a proposition, or of a body of opinion; There is nothing in there that supports the assertion: > It [the legal system] should also be based on good faith. Any legal system based on good faith will fall over in its very first year of operation. They are usually designed to be resilient to bad faith actors. The problem (which you seem to be alluding to) is that, by design, the system errs on the side of caution. In order to actually be punished for barratry, for example, there needs to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt as to the bad-faith intention and the system will not proceed with punitive measures. And that's just for barratry - the other sins that people perpetrate on the system have equally cautionary consequential actions taken.

eviks 1y ago

This continues to make little sense since you continue to ignore that a big % of your made up "real" part of the system also constitutes a part of the bad faith party! > It should also be based on good faith Setting the wishes aside, it isn't, the judges easily act in bad faith when it suits them, so this also doesn't explain much. Neither is it "designed" to take bad faith at face value, again, to be specific - just read the Supreme Court case about this law. The flood/design explain nothing: it would've been just as easy to block the implementation of what the court itself says is an unconstitutional law (see, no "good faith" basis required) and then don't even review it fully because the court has no time (see, the flood can flow in either direction)...

hiatus 1y ago

> The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals No, this is literally a "both sides" issue. Lawfare is not new. See the continuous legal battles over the second amendment in states like NY, NJ, and CA.

dudefeliciano 1y ago
i was not aware of Biden or Democrat presidents filing personal lawsuits against journalists and politcal opponents...
- rayiner 1y ago
  Just last week a New York intermediate appellate court overturned the $500 million fraud judgment against Trump: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/new-york-civil-fraud-judgment-trump-ruling-00517727 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/new-york-civil-frau.... Yes, it wasn't brought by Biden--but it was brought by an elected Democrat Attorney General who campaigned on "going after Trump." Note that, out of the five judge panel, three would have overturned the underlying conviction, while two would have granted a new trial, and one would have thrown the case out entirely: > Two other judges, John Higgitt and Llinét Rosado, said James had the authority to bring the case but argued for giving Trump a new trial. And the fifth judge, Justice David Friedman, argued to throw out the case, saying James lacked the authority to bring it.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    The case was based on Trump's former attorney mentioning criminal acts his client had done -- it was an attempt to hold Trump accountable for those crimes. The reason a democrat would be involved in such prosecution is because every GOP member has effectively sworn fealty to Trump and they will fiercely protect him from any accountability. Biden was many things, but not corrupt in the sense that Trump is. Yes, his son did business trading on his relationship but that was legal (albeit distasteful). Most dem voters dislike corruption, even if it's one of their team; I don't see that on the other side of the aisle. Disclaimer: I am not a dem.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      The link above is about the New York civil case. If you're talking about the criminal case, it's even worse, as CNN's chief legal correspondent explained: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-... ("Most importantly, the DA's charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."). Or, as an MSNBC legal columnist explained: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-guilty-hush-money-trial-verdict-alvin-bragg-rcna153628 https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-guilty-hus... ("Most DAs wouldn’t have pursued this case against Trump. Alvin Bragg got lucky. Let’s be honest with each other. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump was convoluted."). You could write an entire Harvard law review issue about the novel legal issues raised by the Trump criminal case: Can a state crime be predicted on an uncharged federal campaign finance violation? can someone violate campaign finance law--which is focused on preventing candidates from misusing donated funds--by using their own money to pay off a porn star? Can you bootstrap a misdemeanor into a felony through a triple-bank-shot involving an uncharged secondary crime and a choice of three possible tertiary crimes? When you prosecute someone for a business records misdemeanor, but almost all the allegedly bad conduct relates to unspecified secondary and tertiary crimes, how do you instruct the jury? When you give the jury three different options of uncharged tertiary crimes to support the uncharged secondary crime, which in turn supports the charged primary crime, on what points must the jury reach a unanimous decision? Google's and Apple's "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich" was a more straightforward legal theory than the Trump criminal case.

rayiner 1y ago

> flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing). Trump is winning most of these fights in the appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Activist groups are flooding the system with a bunch of weak cases, getting weak, poorly reasoned district court rulings, then getting overturned on appeal.

brendoelfrendo 1y ago
I feel like you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court rulings, which are almost unilaterally terrible. The Court has made some very torturous interpretations of procedure and precedent to justify rubber-stamping operations that even the conservative justices will admit are unconstitutional, preferring to instead punt the issue and allow the harm to continue, completely circumventing the merits of the cases. Several of the recent shadow docket decisions regarding injunctions have brought up the equities of the suits in question, making the bizarre claim that enjoining the Executive Branch from doing whatever it wants pending a full trial harms it in greater proportion than the harms being actually inflicted on ordinary people. > Activist groups are flooding the system with a bunch of weak cases, getting weak, poorly reasoned district court rulings, then getting overturned on appeal. Trump's > 90% success rate at the Supreme Court should be read as an indictment of the Supreme Court, not of the lower courts.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > I feel like you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court rulings I feel like you are unfamiliar with who you are replying to. That doesn't make it any less amusing.
  - brendoelfrendo 1y ago
    I am unfamiliar with who I'm replying to, but I don't really care; are they some sort of legal expert? If so, I'd expect them to understand that recent decisions such as Trump v. Casa and McMahon v. New York are pretty flimsy.
    - 1y ago

lelanthran 1y ago

> the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. It isn't, and it isn't designed to be based on good faith or good faith actors.

dudefeliciano 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law there are many many resources online you can find on the matter
- lelanthran 1y ago
  That is specifically limited to contract law (a subset of civil law) which is quite distinct from criminal law. Contract law requires many things, including "a meeting of minds"; that does not imply that all civil lawsuits and criminal hearings require "a meeting of minds". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) There are many resources online you can find on the matter.
  - dudefeliciano 1y ago
    > That is specifically limited to contract law That is false, and the wiki paragraph does not say that https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 > quite distinct from criminal law. Trumps frivolous lawsuits have been civil matters, which is obviouos because private persons do not file criminal lawsuits, prosecutors do that.
    - lelanthran 1y ago
      > That is false, and the wiki paragraph does not say that Are you sure? This is the first sentence of my link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) > In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. This is the first sentence of your original link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law > In law, bona fides denotes the mental and moral states of honesty and conviction regarding either the truth or the falsity of a proposition, or of a body of opinion; There is nothing in there that supports the assertion: > It [the legal system] should also be based on good faith. Any legal system based on good faith will fall over in its very first year of operation. They are usually designed to be resilient to bad faith actors. The problem (which you seem to be alluding to) is that, by design, the system errs on the side of caution. In order to actually be punished for barratry, for example, there needs to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt as to the bad-faith intention and the system will not proceed with punitive measures. And that's just for barratry - the other sins that people perpetrate on the system have equally cautionary consequential actions taken.