When did Corporate Law firms get so radically leftist? When I was in law school (I graduated in 1991) if you wanted to fight the "power" you joined the ACLU or Legal Aid. Giant Corporate firms like Paul Weiss supported pro bono causes of course but not radically leftist ones. Have our institutions been so overtaken by serious radicals that even Wall Street lawyers are radical leftists?
What exactly is the remedy then. You've played both sides of the coin and come to no conclusion. Facts matter in respect to the fact that the Trump administration is being attacked using lawfare. On the other side of the coin, the conservatives rarely get any support from the Gov in pursuit of their legal cases (you might make a case that the conservatives are using lawfare but it is never supported by the actual courts).
My question is does the current Gov continue to just take it and essentially protest in court (leading to weeks and months of delay) or the alternative is to ignore the courts leading to bad places in our entire Gov structure.
Why are small district courts (a district is a limited geographical area, how are they allowed to issue universal TRO's outside their district is beyond my understanding).
This must stop. The courts have certain powers as do the legislative and executive branches. The artical III portion of the constition seems to have gone from the least powerful branch of Gov to the goal tender of anything that the Gov wishes to do which is beyond bizaar.
I came to a firm conclusion and stated it in clear, unequivocal language. "It’s wrong for the government to use coercion to dictate the policies and practices of law firms, except to the extent that their practices are illegal."
What are the consequences of the government not using coercion to dictate the policies and practices of law firms? Freedom and limited government are two of them.
Another, of course, is that big firm lawyers will continue to represent liberal clients and interests in court. Courts will decide the vast majority of these cases the same way they would if the clients and interests had less fancy lawyers presenting the case.
In the outlier cases when the lawyering makes a difference, some will have better decisions (i.e., more in conformity with the law). Others will have worse ones.
The issue of "small courts" issuing universal TROs has nothing to do with big law firms representing liberal causes. Both sides of this issue will be briefed by excellent lawyers, including amici, but the Supreme Court will decide this issue based on the views of the Justices, not the nature and quality of the lawyers.
When did Corporate Law firms get so radically leftist? When I was in law school (I graduated in 1991) if you wanted to fight the "power" you joined the ACLU or Legal Aid. Giant Corporate firms like Paul Weiss supported pro bono causes of course but not radically leftist ones. Have our institutions been so overtaken by serious radicals that even Wall Street lawyers are radical leftists?
What exactly is the remedy then. You've played both sides of the coin and come to no conclusion. Facts matter in respect to the fact that the Trump administration is being attacked using lawfare. On the other side of the coin, the conservatives rarely get any support from the Gov in pursuit of their legal cases (you might make a case that the conservatives are using lawfare but it is never supported by the actual courts).
My question is does the current Gov continue to just take it and essentially protest in court (leading to weeks and months of delay) or the alternative is to ignore the courts leading to bad places in our entire Gov structure.
Why are small district courts (a district is a limited geographical area, how are they allowed to issue universal TRO's outside their district is beyond my understanding).
This must stop. The courts have certain powers as do the legislative and executive branches. The artical III portion of the constition seems to have gone from the least powerful branch of Gov to the goal tender of anything that the Gov wishes to do which is beyond bizaar.
I came to a firm conclusion and stated it in clear, unequivocal language. "It’s wrong for the government to use coercion to dictate the policies and practices of law firms, except to the extent that their practices are illegal."
What are the consequences of the government not using coercion to dictate the policies and practices of law firms? Freedom and limited government are two of them.
Another, of course, is that big firm lawyers will continue to represent liberal clients and interests in court. Courts will decide the vast majority of these cases the same way they would if the clients and interests had less fancy lawyers presenting the case.
In the outlier cases when the lawyering makes a difference, some will have better decisions (i.e., more in conformity with the law). Others will have worse ones.
The issue of "small courts" issuing universal TROs has nothing to do with big law firms representing liberal causes. Both sides of this issue will be briefed by excellent lawyers, including amici, but the Supreme Court will decide this issue based on the views of the Justices, not the nature and quality of the lawyers.
The USSC needs to rule definitively on this issue. I believe it will.
All good points.