The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
I promised myself I would no longer engage with you... but this is so fucking ignorant that I could not resist!
So, in your wisdom, a lawyer's character, integrity and credibility don't really matter in Court...
Bravo! You have earned a special award of proficiency in something Albert Einstein said: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
Now it is clear what S stands for!
Perry
Has S finally given up his claims or is he still arguing that he is right and we are all the sheeple?
You need a refresher from the Law Society. Seriously.
A lawyer must act with integrity or risk professional discipline (including disbarment), but the degree of their own personal credibility is not how the courts determine the merits of claims being advanced on behalf of their clients. If it were otherwise, there would be no need for trials. You could simply decide cases based on which party had hired the lawyer with the better reputation for integrity. Rule 2 is a way of weeding out those from legal practice who would would take advantage of clients or abuse the processes of the legal system in service of a client. However, it does not operate to punish clients who happen to hire such lawyers. A client's legal claim is not invalidated because they happened to hire a sleazy lawyer. Even if their counsel is disbarred in the middle of proceeding, the client is free to hire different counsel and continue their claim. Their claim is ultimately only measured by the standard of proof and interpretation of the law applied by the court.
You are peddling a fantasy about the practice of law where lawyers all belong to a club of shared values, shared perspective on legal principles, and shared reverence for the establishment.
The weird aspect of your perspective is that it would reduce the value of the work of lawyers to mere messenger boys, telling clients what the establishment thinks of their claims, and arriving at court to witness pre-ordained pronouncements from the bench. Surely you would want to think your life's work had more meaning than that!
Since you love quotes so much (a true hallmark of an authoritarian), how about " There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know. " (attributed to John Heywood, a restatement of Jer. 5:21).
Last edited:
Nice theory of law that appears rational to you, S.
Would work totally if judges didn't think some people are morons and idiots and some legal cases incredibly stupid.
Georgia's Supreme Court Rejected Trump's Suit Over the Weekend. His Proxy Appealed Another Case and Lost Immediately on Monday.
Not long after rejecting outgoing President Donald Trump's election gripes, the Supreme Court of Georgia received and shredded an appeal by the lame duck's proxy on Monday.
SNice theory of law that appears rational to you, S.
Would work totally if judges didn't think some people are morons and idiots and some legal cases incredibly stupid.
Georgia's Supreme Court Rejected Trump's Suit Over the Weekend. His Proxy Appealed Another Case and Lost Immediately on Monday.
Not long after rejecting outgoing President Donald Trump's election gripes, the Supreme Court of Georgia received and shredded an appeal by the lame duck's proxy on Monday.lawandcrime.com
I love the fact that you still think you're doing well here.
Amazing.
Keep at it, S.
Oh, here's one more argument you haven't tried:
Trump's pet nazi, Stephen Miller thinks the reason that they've lost all those cases is the media.
He blames judges for caving in to media pressure.
I might be wrong, but my assessment is that you are not part of Frank's multi-handle/hivemind.
You might not understand Frank as well as I do.
Everything you say is true and correct. However, it is also true and correct and if you are a lawyer and have ever practiced before the courts that the credibility of the case is often influenced by the credibility of the messenger. Lawyers who are regularly before judges over time develop reputations for credibility or lack thereof. Judges are human and it is unquestionably the case that a poor messenger often affects the outcome. That does not mean that the lawyers reputation and credibility is solely determinative of outcome but it does have an effect.
Now that might be the funniest thing you've posted here, S.
You understand me yet think that I have multiple handles?
Hilarious.
Moscow Mitch just congratulated Biden on the win.
Still think the courts will overturn it?
'Time for everybody to move on': Senate GOP accepts Biden's win
The Electoral College tally was finally enough for many Republicans to acknowledge reality.
www.politico.com
You are correct. The legal system certainly has its failings, as any system dependent on human judgment will have. However, it's one thing to say that the system doesn't always work as it should, and quite another to hold up a flaw as an essential element of the system.
SNow that might be the funniest thing you've posted here, S.
You understand me yet think that I have multiple handles?
Hilarious.
Moscow Mitch just congratulated Biden on the win.
Still think the courts will overturn it?
'Time for everybody to move on': Senate GOP accepts Biden's win
The Electoral College tally was finally enough for many Republicans to acknowledge reality.
Interesting choice of words, given Miller's critique that too many judges are concerned with how their decisions will be portrayed by the media to the public. You seem to be lending support to Miller's claim.
