"... to question the motives or ethics underlying these cases. They warn lawyers not to 'sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.' Yet, many believe that there is an alarming threat to our legal system and that distrust is warranted in light of prosecutions like the one [against Trump] in Manhattan. ... [C]ritics of political prosecutions under the Crown and during the Adams Administrations were often threatened with disbarment or other legal actions for questioning the integrity or motives of judges or prosecutors. It is not enough to say 'well that was then and this is now.' The point is that the bar association also has a duty to protect the core rights that define our legal system, particularly the right of free speech."
Writes Jonathan Turley, in "Think twice? Bar group tells members it’s OK to criticize, but don’t dare call Trump conviction 'partisan'/Connecticut Bar Association makes chilling claim that calling the case one of political prosecution has 'no place in the public discourse'" (Fox News).
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
To live freely in writing...
Support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Posts
Blog Archive
-
▼
2024
(2686)
- 11/24 (16)
- 11/17 (58)
- 11/10 (52)
- 11/03 (62)
- 10/27 (62)
- 10/20 (49)
- 10/13 (49)
- 10/06 (59)
- 09/29 (58)
- 09/22 (62)
- 09/15 (52)
- 09/08 (58)
- 09/01 (56)
- 08/25 (51)
- 08/18 (57)
- 08/11 (54)
- 08/04 (64)
- 07/28 (60)
- 07/21 (75)
- 07/14 (69)
- 07/07 (63)
- 06/30 (49)
- 06/23 (68)
- 06/16 (58)
- 06/09 (61)
- 06/02 (59)
- 05/26 (56)
- 05/19 (54)
- 05/12 (53)
- 05/05 (56)
- 04/28 (65)
- 04/21 (57)
- 04/14 (68)
- 04/07 (56)
- 03/31 (55)
- 03/24 (56)
- 03/17 (59)
- 03/10 (52)
- 03/03 (63)
- 02/25 (59)
- 02/18 (45)
- 02/11 (60)
- 02/04 (56)
- 01/28 (50)
- 01/21 (64)
- 01/14 (62)
- 01/07 (59)
-
►
2023
(3115)
- 12/31 (58)
- 12/24 (43)
- 12/17 (55)
- 12/10 (66)
- 12/03 (57)
- 11/26 (56)
- 11/19 (44)
- 11/12 (55)
- 11/05 (69)
- 10/29 (63)
- 10/22 (54)
- 10/15 (62)
- 10/08 (69)
- 10/01 (70)
- 09/24 (55)
- 09/17 (49)
- 09/10 (62)
- 09/03 (54)
- 08/27 (54)
- 08/20 (45)
- 08/13 (50)
- 08/06 (54)
- 07/30 (62)
- 07/23 (50)
- 07/16 (49)
- 07/09 (59)
- 07/02 (61)
- 06/25 (63)
- 06/18 (53)
- 06/11 (63)
- 06/04 (67)
- 05/28 (53)
- 05/21 (60)
- 05/14 (66)
- 05/07 (66)
- 04/30 (67)
- 04/23 (54)
- 04/16 (55)
- 04/09 (64)
- 04/02 (63)
- 03/26 (64)
- 03/19 (76)
- 03/12 (60)
- 03/05 (52)
- 02/26 (63)
- 02/19 (49)
- 02/12 (66)
- 02/05 (63)
- 01/29 (60)
- 01/22 (57)
- 01/15 (60)
- 01/08 (66)
- 01/01 (60)
-
►
2022
(3553)
- 12/25 (55)
- 12/18 (56)
- 12/11 (73)
- 12/04 (71)
- 11/27 (76)
- 11/20 (76)
- 11/13 (80)
- 11/06 (71)
- 10/30 (72)
- 10/23 (60)
- 10/16 (61)
- 10/09 (63)
- 10/02 (70)
- 09/25 (56)
- 09/18 (62)
- 09/11 (64)
- 09/04 (76)
- 08/28 (75)
- 08/21 (63)
- 08/14 (71)
- 08/07 (76)
- 07/31 (74)
- 07/24 (71)
- 07/17 (66)
- 07/10 (67)
- 07/03 (70)
- 06/26 (73)
- 06/19 (79)
- 06/12 (74)
- 06/05 (87)
- 05/29 (54)
- 05/22 (66)
- 05/15 (72)
- 05/08 (76)
- 05/01 (62)
- 04/24 (62)
- 04/17 (70)
- 04/10 (69)
- 04/03 (82)
- 03/27 (67)
- 03/20 (64)
- 03/13 (64)
- 03/06 (79)
- 02/27 (64)
- 02/20 (66)
- 02/13 (68)
- 02/06 (59)
- 01/30 (70)
- 01/23 (58)
- 01/16 (61)
- 01/09 (64)
- 01/02 (68)
-
►
2021
(3054)
- 12/26 (55)
- 12/19 (52)
- 12/12 (53)
- 12/05 (51)
- 11/28 (44)
- 11/21 (62)
- 11/14 (54)
- 11/07 (54)
- 10/31 (65)
- 10/24 (73)
- 10/17 (61)
- 10/10 (62)
- 10/03 (64)
- 09/26 (59)
- 09/19 (48)
- 09/12 (53)
- 09/05 (60)
- 08/29 (76)
- 08/22 (67)
- 08/15 (66)
- 08/08 (53)
- 08/01 (55)
- 07/25 (56)
- 07/18 (58)
- 07/11 (59)
- 07/04 (52)
- 06/27 (57)
- 06/20 (57)
- 06/13 (65)
- 06/06 (64)
- 05/30 (50)
- 05/23 (64)
- 05/16 (56)
- 05/09 (65)
- 05/02 (63)
- 04/25 (62)
- 04/18 (56)
- 04/11 (64)
- 04/04 (71)
- 03/28 (68)
- 03/21 (57)
- 03/14 (66)
- 03/07 (60)
- 02/28 (53)
- 02/21 (56)
- 02/14 (40)
- 02/07 (62)
- 01/31 (53)
- 01/24 (61)
- 01/17 (56)
- 01/10 (58)
- 01/03 (58)
-
►
2020
(3644)
- 12/27 (49)
- 12/20 (40)
- 12/13 (56)
- 12/06 (61)
- 11/29 (57)
- 11/22 (59)
- 11/15 (57)
- 11/08 (71)
- 11/01 (76)
- 10/25 (68)
- 10/18 (69)
- 10/11 (64)
- 10/04 (70)
- 09/27 (71)
- 09/20 (64)
- 09/13 (61)
- 09/06 (70)
- 08/30 (72)
- 08/23 (78)
- 08/16 (71)
- 08/09 (50)
- 08/02 (76)
- 07/26 (62)
- 07/19 (70)
- 07/12 (64)
- 07/05 (74)
- 06/28 (84)
- 06/21 (88)
- 06/14 (73)
- 06/07 (91)
- 05/31 (99)
- 05/24 (82)
- 05/17 (76)
- 05/10 (93)
- 05/03 (78)
- 04/26 (72)
- 04/19 (63)
- 04/12 (71)
- 04/05 (74)
- 03/29 (79)
- 03/22 (64)
- 03/15 (83)
- 03/08 (75)
- 03/01 (78)
- 02/23 (70)
- 02/16 (69)
- 02/09 (67)
- 02/02 (81)
- 01/26 (68)
- 01/19 (61)
- 01/12 (63)
- 01/05 (62)
-
►
2019
(3453)
- 12/29 (81)
- 12/22 (51)
- 12/15 (74)
- 12/08 (73)
- 12/01 (66)
- 11/24 (74)
- 11/17 (77)
- 11/10 (68)
- 11/03 (69)
- 10/27 (83)
- 10/20 (83)
- 10/13 (92)
- 10/06 (65)
- 09/29 (49)
- 09/22 (60)
- 09/15 (68)
- 09/08 (67)
- 09/01 (54)
- 08/25 (64)
- 08/18 (61)
- 08/11 (56)
- 08/04 (57)
- 07/28 (53)
- 07/21 (68)
- 07/14 (61)
- 07/07 (60)
- 06/30 (65)
- 06/23 (67)
- 06/16 (54)
- 06/09 (42)
- 06/02 (64)
- 05/26 (62)
- 05/19 (60)
- 05/12 (64)
- 05/05 (77)
- 04/28 (78)
- 04/21 (43)
- 04/14 (58)
- 04/07 (67)
- 03/31 (75)
- 03/24 (65)
- 03/17 (68)
- 03/10 (70)
- 03/03 (71)
- 02/24 (62)
- 02/17 (88)
- 02/10 (72)
- 02/03 (55)
- 01/27 (68)
- 01/20 (72)
- 01/13 (76)
- 01/06 (76)
-
►
2018
(3410)
- 12/30 (59)
- 12/23 (45)
- 12/16 (76)
- 12/09 (83)
- 12/02 (69)
- 11/25 (68)
- 11/18 (61)
- 11/11 (61)
- 11/04 (68)
- 10/28 (76)
- 10/21 (71)
- 10/14 (53)
- 10/07 (53)
- 09/30 (61)
- 09/23 (61)
- 09/16 (63)
- 09/09 (57)
- 09/02 (55)
- 08/26 (54)
- 08/19 (63)
- 08/12 (59)
- 08/05 (69)
- 07/29 (64)
- 07/22 (60)
- 07/15 (69)
- 07/08 (67)
- 07/01 (67)
- 06/24 (62)
- 06/17 (68)
- 06/10 (65)
- 06/03 (65)
- 05/27 (54)
- 05/20 (63)
- 05/13 (53)
- 05/06 (78)
- 04/29 (74)
- 04/22 (68)
- 04/15 (71)
- 04/08 (53)
- 04/01 (76)
- 03/25 (64)
- 03/18 (78)
- 03/11 (67)
- 03/04 (71)
- 02/25 (66)
- 02/18 (70)
- 02/11 (64)
- 02/04 (68)
- 01/28 (80)
- 01/21 (73)
- 01/14 (65)
- 01/07 (82)
-
►
2017
(3818)
- 12/31 (85)
- 12/24 (66)
- 12/17 (75)
- 12/10 (74)
- 12/03 (77)
- 11/26 (75)
- 11/19 (58)
- 11/12 (70)
- 11/05 (75)
- 10/29 (67)
- 10/22 (76)
- 10/15 (72)
- 10/08 (70)
- 10/01 (63)
- 09/24 (59)
- 09/17 (63)
- 09/10 (65)
- 09/03 (66)
- 08/27 (69)
- 08/20 (59)
- 08/13 (66)
- 08/06 (73)
- 07/30 (89)
- 07/23 (79)
- 07/16 (81)
- 07/09 (75)
- 07/02 (64)
- 06/25 (83)
- 06/18 (70)
- 06/11 (67)
- 06/04 (74)
- 05/28 (75)
- 05/21 (77)
- 05/14 (81)
- 05/07 (89)
- 04/30 (83)
- 04/23 (80)
- 04/16 (71)
- 04/09 (78)
- 04/02 (74)
- 03/26 (83)
- 03/19 (74)
- 03/12 (77)
- 03/05 (60)
- 02/26 (49)
- 02/19 (72)
- 02/12 (74)
- 02/05 (88)
- 01/29 (91)
- 01/22 (82)
- 01/15 (47)
- 01/08 (60)
- 01/01 (48)
-
►
2016
(3557)
- 12/25 (61)
- 12/18 (62)
- 12/11 (59)
- 12/04 (60)
- 11/27 (74)
- 11/20 (68)
- 11/13 (79)
- 11/06 (62)
- 10/30 (88)
- 10/23 (75)
- 10/16 (68)
- 10/09 (58)
- 10/02 (72)
- 09/25 (70)
- 09/18 (70)
- 09/11 (79)
- 09/04 (64)
- 08/28 (53)
- 08/21 (62)
- 08/14 (70)
- 08/07 (67)
- 07/31 (68)
- 07/24 (57)
- 07/17 (71)
- 07/10 (53)
- 07/03 (53)
- 06/26 (80)
- 06/19 (81)
- 06/12 (73)
- 06/05 (65)
- 05/29 (74)
- 05/22 (67)
- 05/15 (70)
- 05/08 (89)
- 05/01 (79)
- 04/24 (67)
- 04/17 (59)
- 04/10 (61)
- 04/03 (52)
- 03/27 (68)
- 03/20 (76)
- 03/13 (68)
- 03/06 (81)
- 02/28 (65)
- 02/21 (69)
- 02/14 (70)
- 02/07 (75)
- 01/31 (68)
- 01/24 (59)
- 01/17 (69)
- 01/10 (80)
- 01/03 (69)
-
►
2015
(3788)
- 12/27 (71)
- 12/20 (68)
- 12/13 (81)
- 12/06 (70)
- 11/29 (78)
- 11/22 (58)
- 11/15 (76)
- 11/08 (84)
- 11/01 (73)
- 10/25 (74)
- 10/18 (65)
- 10/11 (75)
- 10/04 (87)
- 09/27 (59)
- 09/20 (71)
- 09/13 (55)
- 09/06 (63)
- 08/30 (72)
- 08/23 (70)
- 08/16 (70)
- 08/09 (65)
- 08/02 (65)
- 07/26 (55)
- 07/19 (66)
- 07/12 (69)
- 07/05 (62)
- 06/28 (83)
- 06/21 (79)
- 06/14 (69)
- 06/07 (81)
- 05/31 (84)
- 05/24 (78)
- 05/17 (90)
- 05/10 (85)
- 05/03 (86)
- 04/26 (77)
- 04/19 (78)
- 04/12 (63)
- 04/05 (63)
- 03/29 (79)
- 03/22 (73)
- 03/15 (63)
- 03/08 (79)
- 03/01 (66)
- 02/22 (82)
- 02/15 (78)
- 02/08 (67)
- 02/01 (84)
- 01/25 (79)
- 01/18 (63)
- 01/11 (87)
- 01/04 (70)
-
►
2014
(3825)
- 12/28 (62)
- 12/21 (44)
- 12/14 (78)
- 12/07 (97)
- 11/30 (84)
- 11/23 (82)
- 11/16 (70)
- 11/09 (71)
- 11/02 (91)
- 10/26 (79)
- 10/19 (71)
- 10/12 (86)
- 10/05 (61)
- 09/28 (58)
- 09/21 (67)
- 09/14 (56)
- 09/07 (70)
- 08/31 (64)
- 08/24 (63)
- 08/17 (51)
- 08/10 (79)
- 08/03 (71)
- 07/27 (75)
- 07/20 (81)
- 07/13 (75)
- 07/06 (67)
- 06/29 (41)
- 06/22 (80)
- 06/15 (78)
- 06/08 (91)
- 06/01 (59)
- 05/25 (58)
- 05/18 (90)
- 05/11 (73)
- 05/04 (72)
- 04/27 (72)
- 04/20 (73)
- 04/13 (82)
- 04/06 (81)
- 03/30 (77)
- 03/23 (66)
- 03/16 (56)
- 03/09 (77)
- 03/02 (90)
- 02/23 (73)
- 02/16 (91)
- 02/09 (77)
- 02/02 (91)
- 01/26 (86)
- 01/19 (81)
- 01/12 (90)
- 01/05 (67)
-
►
2013
(5117)
- 12/29 (83)
- 12/22 (82)
- 12/15 (51)
- 12/08 (95)
- 12/01 (87)
- 11/24 (79)
- 11/17 (71)
- 11/10 (94)
- 11/03 (86)
- 10/27 (73)
- 10/20 (88)
- 10/13 (79)
- 10/06 (65)
- 09/29 (65)
- 09/22 (78)
- 09/15 (81)
- 09/08 (77)
- 09/01 (79)
- 08/25 (79)
- 08/18 (96)
- 08/11 (64)
- 08/04 (82)
- 07/28 (84)
- 07/21 (110)
- 07/14 (112)
- 07/07 (91)
- 06/30 (101)
- 06/23 (101)
- 06/16 (106)
- 06/09 (133)
- 06/02 (111)
- 05/26 (86)
- 05/19 (126)
- 05/12 (125)
- 05/05 (133)
- 04/28 (103)
- 04/21 (126)
- 04/14 (98)
- 04/07 (100)
- 03/31 (110)
- 03/24 (121)
- 03/17 (120)
- 03/10 (102)
- 03/03 (98)
- 02/24 (129)
- 02/17 (104)
- 02/10 (116)
- 02/03 (135)
- 01/27 (125)
- 01/20 (125)
- 01/13 (123)
- 01/06 (129)
-
►
2012
(4971)
- 12/30 (88)
- 12/23 (103)
- 12/16 (129)
- 12/09 (120)
- 12/02 (126)
- 11/25 (98)
- 11/18 (62)
- 11/11 (87)
- 11/04 (111)
- 10/28 (98)
- 10/21 (105)
- 10/14 (101)
- 10/07 (94)
- 09/30 (90)
- 09/23 (83)
- 09/16 (93)
- 09/09 (114)
- 09/02 (93)
- 08/26 (91)
- 08/19 (103)
- 08/12 (68)
- 08/05 (74)
- 07/29 (108)
- 07/22 (117)
- 07/15 (93)
- 07/08 (88)
- 07/01 (85)
- 06/24 (76)
- 06/17 (92)
- 06/10 (126)
- 06/03 (96)
- 05/27 (100)
- 05/20 (124)
- 05/13 (99)
- 05/06 (110)
- 04/29 (87)
- 04/22 (98)
- 04/15 (82)
- 04/08 (87)
- 04/01 (90)
- 03/25 (85)
- 03/18 (98)
- 03/11 (94)
- 03/04 (96)
- 02/26 (91)
- 02/19 (88)
- 02/12 (74)
- 02/05 (78)
- 01/29 (74)
- 01/22 (80)
- 01/15 (77)
- 01/08 (71)
- 01/01 (76)
-
►
2011
(4463)
- 12/25 (93)
- 12/18 (87)
- 12/11 (88)
- 12/04 (73)
- 11/27 (84)
- 11/20 (71)
- 11/13 (77)
- 11/06 (78)
- 10/30 (70)
- 10/23 (79)
- 10/16 (95)
- 10/09 (77)
- 10/02 (99)
- 09/25 (82)
- 09/18 (91)
- 09/11 (79)
- 09/04 (83)
- 08/28 (82)
- 08/21 (91)
- 08/14 (80)
- 08/07 (89)
- 07/31 (69)
- 07/24 (102)
- 07/17 (66)
- 07/10 (90)
- 07/03 (89)
- 06/26 (69)
- 06/19 (80)
- 06/12 (93)
- 06/05 (110)
- 05/29 (90)
- 05/22 (88)
- 05/15 (92)
- 05/08 (83)
- 05/01 (95)
- 04/24 (84)
- 04/17 (77)
- 04/10 (90)
- 04/03 (96)
- 03/27 (83)
- 03/20 (96)
- 03/13 (97)
- 03/06 (105)
- 02/27 (91)
- 02/20 (83)
- 02/13 (79)
- 02/06 (75)
- 01/30 (78)
- 01/23 (78)
- 01/16 (104)
- 01/09 (80)
- 01/02 (103)
-
►
2010
(3835)
- 12/26 (73)
- 12/19 (72)
- 12/12 (96)
- 12/05 (76)
- 11/28 (77)
- 11/21 (75)
- 11/14 (92)
- 11/07 (82)
- 10/31 (84)
- 10/24 (64)
- 10/17 (79)
- 10/10 (84)
- 10/03 (88)
- 09/26 (77)
- 09/19 (69)
- 09/12 (73)
- 09/05 (62)
- 08/29 (67)
- 08/22 (65)
- 08/15 (82)
- 08/08 (67)
- 08/01 (83)
- 07/25 (67)
- 07/18 (76)
- 07/11 (73)
- 07/04 (60)
- 06/27 (86)
- 06/20 (66)
- 06/13 (57)
- 06/06 (53)
- 05/30 (79)
- 05/23 (88)
- 05/16 (85)
- 05/09 (81)
- 05/02 (81)
- 04/25 (71)
- 04/18 (61)
- 04/11 (80)
- 04/04 (62)
- 03/28 (64)
- 03/21 (66)
- 03/14 (49)
- 03/07 (71)
- 02/28 (76)
- 02/21 (66)
- 02/14 (82)
- 02/07 (61)
- 01/31 (79)
- 01/24 (87)
- 01/17 (80)
- 01/10 (72)
- 01/03 (69)
-
►
2009
(3716)
- 12/27 (58)
- 12/20 (53)
- 12/13 (84)
- 12/06 (77)
- 11/29 (78)
- 11/22 (50)
- 11/15 (83)
- 11/08 (78)
- 11/01 (74)
- 10/25 (85)
- 10/18 (69)
- 10/11 (63)
- 10/04 (91)
- 09/27 (86)
- 09/20 (82)
- 09/13 (60)
- 09/06 (64)
- 08/30 (81)
- 08/23 (82)
- 08/16 (72)
- 08/09 (70)
- 08/02 (45)
- 07/26 (76)
- 07/19 (71)
- 07/12 (42)
- 07/05 (57)
- 06/28 (105)
- 06/21 (86)
- 06/14 (71)
- 06/07 (83)
- 05/31 (83)
- 05/24 (57)
- 05/17 (74)
- 05/10 (83)
- 05/03 (57)
- 04/26 (70)
- 04/19 (67)
- 04/12 (82)
- 04/05 (63)
- 03/29 (62)
- 03/22 (67)
- 03/15 (68)
- 03/08 (50)
- 03/01 (60)
- 02/22 (53)
- 02/15 (55)
- 02/08 (68)
- 02/01 (89)
- 01/25 (81)
- 01/18 (83)
- 01/11 (91)
- 01/04 (77)
-
►
2008
(3407)
- 12/28 (75)
- 12/21 (44)
- 12/14 (63)
- 12/07 (78)
- 11/30 (87)
- 11/23 (68)
- 11/16 (75)
- 11/09 (85)
- 11/02 (81)
- 10/26 (79)
- 10/19 (86)
- 10/12 (70)
- 10/05 (66)
- 09/28 (76)
- 09/21 (84)
- 09/14 (75)
- 09/07 (73)
- 08/31 (81)
- 08/24 (75)
- 08/17 (73)
- 08/10 (73)
- 08/03 (56)
- 07/27 (57)
- 07/20 (55)
- 07/13 (42)
- 07/06 (47)
- 06/29 (58)
- 06/22 (62)
- 06/15 (53)
- 06/08 (65)
- 06/01 (53)
- 05/25 (45)
- 05/18 (62)
- 05/11 (73)
- 05/04 (69)
- 04/27 (69)
- 04/20 (68)
- 04/13 (64)
- 04/06 (63)
- 03/30 (49)
- 03/23 (54)
- 03/16 (56)
- 03/09 (72)
- 03/02 (70)
- 02/24 (61)
- 02/17 (62)
- 02/10 (68)
- 02/03 (60)
- 01/27 (58)
- 01/20 (51)
- 01/13 (49)
- 01/06 (69)
-
►
2007
(2915)
- 12/30 (67)
- 12/23 (50)
- 12/16 (51)
- 12/09 (51)
- 12/02 (50)
- 11/25 (51)
- 11/18 (57)
- 11/11 (64)
- 11/04 (68)
- 10/28 (57)
- 10/21 (55)
- 10/14 (57)
- 10/07 (52)
- 09/30 (60)
- 09/23 (66)
- 09/16 (39)
- 09/09 (61)
- 09/02 (65)
- 08/26 (54)
- 08/19 (55)
- 08/12 (58)
- 08/05 (59)
- 07/29 (53)
- 07/22 (58)
- 07/15 (51)
- 07/08 (63)
- 07/01 (66)
- 06/24 (54)
- 06/17 (45)
- 06/10 (55)
- 06/03 (69)
- 05/27 (60)
- 05/20 (68)
- 05/13 (72)
- 05/06 (56)
- 04/29 (49)
- 04/22 (52)
- 04/15 (52)
- 04/08 (50)
- 04/01 (41)
- 03/25 (50)
- 03/18 (50)
- 03/11 (62)
- 03/04 (54)
- 02/25 (47)
- 02/18 (53)
- 02/11 (50)
- 02/04 (61)
- 01/28 (65)
- 01/21 (50)
- 01/14 (51)
- 01/07 (61)
-
►
2006
(2745)
- 12/31 (53)
- 12/24 (55)
- 12/17 (54)
- 12/10 (65)
- 12/03 (82)
- 11/26 (50)
- 11/19 (54)
- 11/12 (58)
- 11/05 (65)
- 10/29 (56)
- 10/22 (64)
- 10/15 (63)
- 10/08 (55)
- 10/01 (60)
- 09/24 (59)
- 09/17 (43)
- 09/10 (36)
- 09/03 (56)
- 08/27 (54)
- 08/20 (47)
- 08/13 (54)
- 08/06 (51)
- 07/30 (47)
- 07/23 (45)
- 07/16 (42)
- 07/09 (60)
- 07/02 (46)
- 06/25 (52)
- 06/18 (50)
- 06/11 (55)
- 06/04 (54)
- 05/28 (41)
- 05/21 (54)
- 05/14 (47)
- 05/07 (63)
- 04/30 (52)
- 04/23 (40)
- 04/16 (38)
- 04/09 (54)
- 04/02 (48)
- 03/26 (52)
- 03/19 (45)
- 03/12 (47)
- 03/05 (49)
- 02/26 (46)
- 02/19 (50)
- 02/12 (43)
- 02/05 (47)
- 01/29 (56)
- 01/22 (45)
- 01/15 (44)
- 01/08 (44)
- 01/01 (55)
-
►
2005
(2920)
- 12/25 (56)
- 12/18 (49)
- 12/11 (67)
- 12/04 (73)
- 11/27 (62)
- 11/20 (65)
- 11/13 (67)
- 11/06 (68)
- 10/30 (64)
- 10/23 (64)
- 10/16 (68)
- 10/09 (61)
- 10/02 (75)
- 09/25 (59)
- 09/18 (58)
- 09/11 (54)
- 09/04 (57)
- 08/28 (82)
- 08/21 (58)
- 08/14 (67)
- 08/07 (61)
- 07/31 (54)
- 07/24 (62)
- 07/17 (70)
- 07/10 (59)
- 07/03 (65)
- 06/26 (78)
- 06/19 (53)
- 06/12 (54)
- 06/05 (44)
- 05/29 (51)
- 05/22 (53)
- 05/15 (34)
- 05/08 (38)
- 05/01 (61)
- 04/24 (55)
- 04/17 (55)
- 04/10 (63)
- 04/03 (61)
- 03/27 (51)
- 03/20 (42)
- 03/13 (57)
- 03/06 (45)
- 02/27 (48)
- 02/20 (44)
- 02/13 (36)
- 02/06 (50)
- 01/30 (50)
- 01/23 (37)
- 01/16 (29)
- 01/09 (41)
- 01/02 (45)
-
►
2004
(2035)
- 12/26 (48)
- 12/19 (41)
- 12/12 (46)
- 12/05 (47)
- 11/28 (53)
- 11/21 (45)
- 11/14 (46)
- 11/07 (60)
- 10/31 (48)
- 10/24 (45)
- 10/17 (60)
- 10/10 (37)
- 10/03 (42)
- 09/26 (37)
- 09/19 (46)
- 09/12 (30)
- 09/05 (40)
- 08/29 (43)
- 08/22 (39)
- 08/15 (27)
- 08/08 (36)
- 08/01 (32)
- 07/25 (43)
- 07/18 (28)
- 07/11 (35)
- 07/04 (34)
- 06/27 (31)
- 06/20 (35)
- 06/13 (35)
- 06/06 (21)
- 05/30 (32)
- 05/23 (40)
- 05/16 (35)
- 05/09 (46)
- 05/02 (52)
- 04/25 (52)
- 04/18 (45)
- 04/11 (36)
- 04/04 (37)
- 03/28 (31)
- 03/21 (40)
- 03/14 (33)
- 03/07 (36)
- 02/29 (41)
- 02/22 (31)
- 02/15 (33)
- 02/08 (43)
- 02/01 (33)
- 01/25 (43)
- 01/18 (56)
- 01/11 (30)
122 comments:
Criticism of the corruption of our justice system should be dominating public discourse at the moment. Why every lawyer isn’t signing declarations to the effect shows how corrupt and politicized the system has become. Cowards…
Kudos to Ann and the other barristers here…
No seatbelt to click here, either.
There was an article in a recent The Nebraska Lawyer magazine that suggested that lawyers had an ethical duty to use the preferred pronouns for LGBTQIA25+ people. Speech code.
Thats ridiculous and unscientific
In fact, it would be an act of insurrection to make such a radical claim and without evidence.
ANTIFA met the true fascists but they were on the inside.
Attention Citizens ! A Reminder that you must not sow mistrust in the public for the Courts where it does not belong!"
A call to action, then, for where it does belong.
The case in my own practice that left me most disgusted with the law was a simple contract dispute. Changing circumstances left my client desiring to get out of a contract. The other side missed a deadline triggering a cancellation clause that my client exercised. They sued for breach. It was a frivolous case that should have been dismissed (the right to cancel was clear and explicit), but they had this convoluted explanation that the judge agreed to hear. This simple nothing case dragged on for years, taking up much time and money. My client eventually won, but ended up giving me most of the money he avoided giving them.
The real issue was, the other lawyers were at fault for the missed deadline and were trying to use my client's wallet to buy their way out of a malpractice suit. But it was "unethical" say that. I had to pretend the case was actually about what the complaint claimed it was about.
If the Bar, and I realize Turley mentions Connecticut and not New York, refuses to sanction Merchan, then the corruption is thoroughly embedded and their rulings can no longer be trusted elsewhere. The fact that nobody can name the second misdemeanor crime that Trump intended to commit is just one of about a dozen problems with the handling of this trial.
These were the same sort who were all aboug the ken starr 'witchhunt' who memorized scalias dissent in morrison v olson
The legal profession is another institution that has been corrupted by progressivism wielded on behalf of scofflaw Democrats who corrupt everything.
Why there isn’t unanimous outcry from lawyers everywhere is one more indicator of how corrupt and political the justice system has become…
One of the more interesting and despicable things going on is the smearing of Turley and Dershowitz. Because they decry the corruption of the legal system by the likes of Bragg and James and their pet judges they have become pariahs to leftworld.
"We choose [our] truth over facts." Joe Biden, Iowa State Fair, August 8, 2019
Odd as I've known plenty of defense lawyers. They go on and on about politically motivated prosecutions, judges with conflicts of interests, and turning minor violations into felonies. I suspect 3/4 of Connecticut's Bar are thinking F You
I love when they tell you what to think and say.
But we're the Bar Association.
Why does "The Bar association" have any power at all? We need to do something about the legal profession - they have too much power and they cant be trusted to regulate themselves. This goes way back to Bork, when the ABA refused to give Bork a good rating because "they" didnt like his politics. At which point, the Republicans stopped using the ABA ratings
Of course, expecting conservatives to understand this is like expecting a pig to calculus. They simply 'react' and get 'outraged'. They dont plan ahead and they aint "system thinkers".
Aggie said...
"'Attention Citizens ! A Reminder that you must not sow mistrust in the public for the Courts where it does not belong!'
A call to action, then, for where it does belong?"
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is a court room!
- Jonathan 'Merkin Muffley' Turley
If the Bar, and I realize Turley mentions Connecticut and not New York, refuses to sanction Merchan, then the corruption is thoroughly embedded and their rulings can no longer be trusted elsewhere
Bar is corrupt- New York, California, others, the weasels there wearing the skin of the once legitimate organization and demanding respect…
I theorize the weasel words that free lawyers from providing criticism is that the appeals process corrects corrupt court decisions (after the election). Not that they dare call the corrupt courts corrupt….
People's evidence, exhibit #10,543,332, of how narrative control becomes the primary goal of all organizations that have been co-opted by leftist apparatchiks. Narrative control is their #1 job, along with shutting down bad-think within their organization.
"These officials declare that it is now unprofessional or reckless for lawyers to draw historical comparisons to show trials or..."
Definitely a poor comparison. Not even close.
"... to question the motives or ethics underlying these cases."
Naive to not question.
Judges and lawyers have abused their positions for centuries.
The court system is incredibly valuable to society and has eliminated the need for small scale tribal violence.
But this value is magnetic to a certain type of parasite that attaches themself to an institution and drains it.
A bar association attacking free speech is just a natural progression. Just corrupt people seeking power and unearned status.
Democracy -> bureaucracy -> aristocracy -> 51% to 10% -> guillotines.
"They warn lawyers not to 'sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong'"
But in Trump's cases distrust is very much warranted. So what's an "honest lawyer" (come on, there are few here and there!) to do?
I had drinks last week with a retired Connecticut Superior Court Judge. A dyed in the wool Democrat. He believes that Merchan should be sanctioned for not recusing himself given the hard evidence of his political leanings, and the activities of his daughter. This friend indicated the view was widespread among his peers.
CAS can fuck right off.
That Bar Association needs to be mocked into next week. Ridicule, embarrass, LOL, shame are all warranted.
Huh?
"the bar association also has a duty to protect the core rights"
Well, that's very nice, but under prog rule, it has a duty to promote prog power.
No wonder the 1788 guys demanded the Bill of Rights as a condition to ratify the new government. They totall
Connecticut Bar Association makes chilling claim that calling the case one of political prosecution has "no place in the public discourse"
I've always thought there was a lot of mischief and oppression inside that "no place" euphemism.
Do not rely upon bar associations to protect your constitutional rights. They are filled with narrow minded fools who long to use their power in any way that furthers their social or economic interests. Law Day speeches are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Democrats - you have a choice to make.
Are you OK with the radical Authoritarian Soviet-like turn the democrat party has made?
Critical History Theory (CHaT)
narciso: "Thats ridiculous and unscientific"
Yes it is...but it is perfectly Soviet
Breezy said...
"That Bar Association needs to be mocked into next week. Ridicule, embarrass, LOL, shame are all warranted."
Yeah. It's not like Connecticut is a real state. It's like a minor league state. Are there even any cities there? Any cell phone service?
When I first became a lawyer (before fire and the wheel), I was given a free one year membership to the ABA. Didn’t need it to practice, of course, because I had the state bar license, but it was free so I said yes.
A year later when I refused to “extend” my membership (for which I would now be charged), they called asking why I quit. Normally I wouldn’t take the time to respond, but I felt motivated and told them:
You’re an association of lawyers, I thought you were supposed to work for the betterment of the Bar and the System. But instead you take positions on controversial issues (like abortion) that have nothing to do with the practice of law and immediately alienate a large portion (maybe as much as 1/2) of your membership. Why would you do that?
Because it’s political and usurped by leftists of course. So I told them they’d never get a dime of my money. And they haven’t all these years later.
From the Wisconsin Bar site:
The State Bar of Wisconsin is a mandatory professional association, created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, for all attorneys who hold a Wisconsin law license. With more than 25,000 members, the State Bar aids the courts in improving the administration of justice, provides continuing legal education and other services for its members, supports the education of law students, and educates the public about the legal system . . .
It's about $500 per year extracted for this mandatory professional association. We know the leanings of the leaders and organization, and many WI lawyers are lefties, but I doubt the Wisconsin bar association would ever publicly say/do what the Connecticut bar did wrt acceptable opinions about any particular prosecution.
It's almost like people are being warned not to think too much about what they see happening. But that can't be right, can it?
Money Manger said...
" I had drinks last week with a retired Connecticut Superior Court Judge. A dyed in the wool Democrat. He believes that Merchan should be sanctioned for not recusing himself given the hard evidence of his political leanings, and the activities of his daughter. This friend indicated the view was widespread among his peers."
And not one of them will say one word about it. Therein lies the problem. Silence is acceptance.
Rusty:
Yeah. It's not like Connecticut is a real state. It's like a minor league state. Are there even any cities there? Any cell phone service?
LOL
What about calling SCOTUS "Extreme" or "illegitimate" like Biden is doing? He even did that on Saturday at his fundraiser before he seized up. Despite a 9-0 ruling in his favor on the abortion pill.
I view this action as laying the groundwork for election-denialism if Trump wins.
So sayeth Hedley LaMarr.
That is the kind of bullshit that leads people to start to seriously consider the thought that 1000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean is, indeed, a good start.
Breezy said...
That Bar Association needs to be mocked into next week. Ridicule, embarrass, LOL, shame are all warranted.
The Corrupt power seekers are never stopped by ridicule and shame. It has never worked in history.
There is only one thing that works. Force. They are prototypical psychopaths. If you show that you are unwilling to defend yourself they justify their mendacity with your weakness.
A lawyer can justify anything. They memorize stuff for one test and they learn how to justify.
They are explicitly redirected away from societal ethics. Whenever they attempt that they justify things like Roe v. Wade. The 9th and 10th amendments could not be any more clear but they still found a way to justify what they wanted.
John Roberts justified Obamacare and found support for it in our constitution.
Let that sink in.
They warn lawyers not to 'sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.'
Well, since it does belong on every single "Trump trial", that's not a problem here
When I was admitted to the bar in 1983, I joined the ABA, the NJSBA and my county bar association. After about two years of the political BS in the monthly journals of the ABA and NJSBA, I canceled my memberships in both. My county bar was actually helpful to practicing lawyers.
The rot has been there for a long time.
I think I could defend every word of that CBA letter. But I would do it in a detailed, line-by-line comparison with what Turley is whining about. It probably wouldn't make for good comment-page material.
I give Turley props for posting the entire CBA letter. And of course Althouse linked to the Turley/Fox page, so it is there for the reading. It isn't a teerribly harsh criticism under those circumstances, but a better blog post might have posted the entire CBA letter.
Re Chuck the liar.
You can't defend anything you spew here.
Now run along. Your psychosis is calling you.
Chuck said...
I think I could defend every word of that CBA letter
I think I can dunk a basketball
Like Chuck, I'm not actually going to try to do so, because that would expose me as delusional.
But I'm going to "think" it
Are we allowed to criticize Fani (pronounced "Fanny" and best used in the English sense) Willis RICO trial in Atlanta?
Not the one currently in abeyance with our president emeritus et al.
The other one, currently in day 93 of litigation. This is the one we were discussing a coupld weeks ago where the judge had to yell at Fanny's prosecutor to BE SEATED!!! repeatedly.
What a snake's honeymoon this is turning out to be. It makes the Trump trial seem like a model of judicial probity.
Week before last the judge arrested the lead defense attorney for questioning a meeting in chambers where prosecution and witness were present but not defense. Apparently, they threatened the star prosecution witness with a year or two of jail for contempt if he took the 5th.
Calmer heads prevailed as the deputy was leading the attorney out of the courtroom sans tie, watch, wallet, belt and suit coat. The judge decided to sentence him to 20 days to be served on weekends. But did agree to let him share a cell with his client who is not allowed bond.
The witness, on his first day, claimed to be so high that he had no idea if he was being truthful. On subsequent days he is playing Frankie Fiveangels "I just made up all that stuff I told the detectives trying to stay out of jail"
Phil Hollowell, an Atlanta lawyer is running commentary on X as well as a Youtube Inside the Law program that he has.
John Henry
Then defend it, Chuck- put it into words right here.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
What about calling SCOTUS "Extreme" or "illegitimate" like Biden is doing? He even did that on Saturday at his fundraiser before he seized up. Despite a 9-0 ruling in his favor on the abortion pill.
Given the level of vitriol between us in recent days, I have an interesting reaction for you. I sort of agree with you!
But of course, this is the thing with me and my political "colleagues." That group would be the conservative Republican FedSoc lawyers who supported all of the pre-Trump GOP presidential nominees, as well as their federal judicial nominees. Guys like me are comfortable with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade; not becuase we favor abortion restrictions but because we disagreed with the legal methodology of Roe v. Wade. I think that legislation, not court decisions, should make sensible reproductive healthcare policy decisions. I think that GOP legislators who enact draconian abortion restrictions should be voted out in their next election. Not overruled by courts basing their opinions on Constitutional ephemera.
I have a long history of being inflamed by the former Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden and his Democratic colleagues on that Committee. Telling my 1988 self that someday I'd be supporting Joe Biden for President would have been incomprehennsible. But so too would have been a GOP nominee like Trump (felon/insurrectionist/sex assaulter/fraud and defamation defendant/insane sociopath/ignorant illiterate mobster). And now, that choice is really easy.
Interesting last word for you; my fellow traveler George T. Conway III predicts that Trump is going to lose bigly on the his SCOTUS immunity claim. I think George would agree with me on the substance of this comment, and I hope he's right about the Trump case. George and I are fine with conservative federal judges. We are disgusted by TrumpWing judges.
One of the interesting things I learned is that the Atlanta/Georgia courts are so fouled up that the Georgia Defense Attorney's Association (Name?) has a SWAT team of lawyers to go around when things like the contempt happen.
Ashleigh Merchant (Lead in the Trump RICO hearings on Willis) and 2-3 other attorneys went to the Georgia courts the same afternoon and got the contempt sentence stayed pending a hearing by the supreme court and showed up the next morning to give the RICO judge a bit of what-for.
Is that normal in other jurisdictions?
Highly entertaining. Unless you are Young Thug or the other defendants who are stilling in the clink month after month watching legal bills roll on.
Not a defense of Young Thug or his criminal gang if the allegations are true. If so they should be locked up for a long time. But is the case legit or is it another abuse like the Trump case?
John Henry
They might be guilty and fani is terribly unethical have i mentioned the edwin wilson case prosecuted by barletta judged by stanley sporkin where exculpatory evidence he had been ordered by the company to work with kaddafi
Who are these "Trump-wing" judges, Chuck?
Phil Holloway is his name, I think…
Y'all asked for it.
"Words matter. Reckless words attacking the integrity of our judicial system matter even more."
Nothing wrong with any of that. Hardly controversial.
"In the wake of the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a 'sham,' a 'hoax,' and 'rigged'; our justice system is 'corrupt and rigged'; the judge was 'corrupt' and 'highly unethical'; and, that the jury was 'partisan' and 'precooked.' Others claimed the trial was 'America’s first communist show trial'—a reference to historic purges of high-ranking communist officials that were used to eliminate political threats.
A true assertion by CBA, and admirably presice. They are talking about a few peculiar sorts of attacks on the Trump case. In the full context of this letter, it is clear that the CBA would have no problem with lawyers who were critical of the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division's decisions reviewing the Merchan recusal issue saying that, and why they were critical. The CBA is simply opposed to the stupid and grossly inaccurate TrumpWing-styled attacks.
"These claims are unsubstantiated and reckless. Such statements can provoke acts of violence against those serving the public as employees of the judicial branch. Indeed, such statements have resulted in threats to those fulfilling their civic obligations by sitting on the jury, as evidenced by social media postings seeking to identify the names and addresses of the anonymous jurors and worse, in several cases urging that the jurors be shot or hanged. As importantly, such statements strike at the very integrity of the third branch of government and sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong."
Again, not general or legally specific criticism, which is understood as valid and allowed. Specific kinds of criticism are disfavored.
"To be clear, free speech includes criticism. There is and should be no prohibition on commenting on the decision to bring the prosecution, the prosecution’s legal theory, the judge’s rulings, or the verdict itself. But headlines’ grabbing, baseless allegations made by public officials cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric. They have no place in the public discourse."
Right. Like I said; the CBA isn't simply being specific about particular sorts of attacks as being inappropriate for members. The CBA is also being specific about particularly sorts of criticism as being well within professional bounds.
"It is up to us, as lawyers, to defend the courts and our judges. As individuals, and as an Association, we cannot let the charged political climate in which we live dismantle the third branch of government. To remain silent renders us complicit in that effort.
True; and especially true for lawyers who are part of law school faculties.
"Respect for the judicial system is essential to our democracy. The CBA condemns unsupported attacks on the integrity of that system."
Does Turley not believe in this?
Ahhh. So good to be back in the warm bubbling spa of normality after that chaotic Trump term. It's like being back in the womb. An womb created from reimagined prostate tissue, but still.
Chuck, that wasn't a defense at all- it was simply you agreeing that criticism of the Trump trial in New York and elsewhere is wrong.
Let me go at this another way- would you defend the Connecticut Bar Association cancelling the memberships of the lawyers in Connecticut who disagree with the leaderships assertions in that letter and do so openly? Yea or nay?
Would you support the CBA actively trying to get such a lawyer disbarred?
"Respect for the judicial system is essential to our democracy."
If you can keep it.
It was never guaranteed, nor even natural.
The American experiment requires a tenacity that is rarer today.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Would you support the CBA actively trying to get such a lawyer disbarred?
Almost certainly not.
Disbarment usually follows from something like a felony conviction, or grave personal/mental health incompetency, or major irreparable harm to clients or the public.
Short of disbarment are plenty of options. Suspension, reprimand, restitution, etc.
So if Donald Trump had been a Connecticut lawyer, he’d be looking at immediate suspension and possible disbarment. Just thought I’d throw that in to the conversation.
On a simple level, why even pretend that the first felony conviction of a former President related to some campaign fraud that supposedly prevented the election of somebody, we don’t know who because Hillary won that state, is anything other than a political prosecution. The DA that brought the case ran as the candidate that would get a Trump conviction. What are the counter indications that this is not a political case? Declaration is not enough. Provide evidence such as the name of a felony crime that has nothing to do with politics or the name of a prosecuting official that isn’t a politician that campaigned or funded a campaign opposing Trump.
Dave Begley said...
There was an article in a recent The Nebraska Lawyer magazine that suggested that lawyers had an ethical duty to use the preferred pronouns for LGBTQIA25+ people
That is, of course, completely bass ackwards. Lawyers are officers of the court. They have an ethical duty to see that truth is presented before the court. And the pronouns for people refer to male and female. Calling one the other is a lie. And in a court, that's perjury. There is the rare intersexed person who, to be totally honest, is rare enough to be ignored, and usually presents physically as one or the other.
Another day with the "Chuck-banned commenter " blog.
"Short of disbarment are plenty of options. Suspension, reprimand, restitution, etc."
Well, then, defend, really defend, a suspension, reprimand, or restitution for a Connecticut lawyer who calls the New York Trump trial a sham political prosecution. Do you think a lawyer who did that should be suspended, reprimanded, or forced to give restitution for criticizing these Trump trials?
I am just trying to nail down whether or not you think such lawyers should be punished for speaking out on this trial in the way they have- so far you haven't taken a stand on that. Say it openly- do you think a lawyer like Turley or any other should be penalized short of disbarment for criticizing those trials, judges, prosecutors, and juries? Yea or nay.
We no longer operate under a judicial system. We now operate under a political system masquerading as a judicial system.
Which has always been the goal of the New Soviet Democraticals.
All the sophistry and Orwellian double speak we see vomited up by the lawfare crew and their minions, will never alter the truth of that...which is why the New Soviet Democraticals will have to continue to increase the corruption and force to shut down any and all opposing viewpoints as more and more people notice what is occurring.
I suppose that some Bar Associations have become "Homeowner Associations" in word and deed.
Its connecticut where looney lamont is jn charge but still if smells like pakistan or russia
Dodd the previous senator now resides in ireland his malfeasance on behalf of countrywide forgiven
Imán,
Right you are, Phil hollaway. Not hollowell
@philhollowayesq on X
John Henry
Lots of Bar associations are having these kinds of issues. It wasn't too long ago where the ABA and I think several state bar associations were pushing the idea that it would be unethical to belong to any organization which preached "hate speech" against the LGBT people.
The intent was to force attorneys to choose between being a lawyer or being a Christian--i.e. get rid of all the Catholics, Baptists, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc. Here in Utah, the commentary on that proposed amendment was legendary.
Our Supreme Court dropped that proposal quickly.
I note that Chuck here is defending an attempt to force out anyone who disagrees with the left from being a lawyer. Because we all know that no leftist is ever in danger of these speech codes.
Vance: "I note that Chuck here is defending an attempt to force out anyone who disagrees with the left from being a lawyer."
This is precisely the goal of all leftists, like Chuck.
All the masks are fully off now.
What’s the ‘thin blue line’ but for lawyers called?
I can defend the Bar Assoc letter, too:
"Because Trump, you racists!"
What do I win?
"I note that Chuck here is defending an attempt to force out anyone who disagrees with the left from being a lawyer."
As I noted, this is what I am trying to get Chuck to admit to but, so far, he has weaseled around doing so in this thread. Note his "defense" of the CBA letter and then his replies to my queries for clarification- he wrote flat out that he didn't favor disbarment, but then equivocated by mentioning other, lesser penalties that might be applied.
Yes, I believe Chuck wants these critics of the court cases penalized, but I want to see him admit it or weasel some more where it is obvious whether he admits it or not.
From Chuck's comments (and other leftists) it is clear that there is very little difference between the Soviets and the Nazis.
It has always been the goal of the Soviets to create a false differentiation with the Nazis.
They are one and the same.
"What’s the ‘thin blue line’ but for lawyers called?"
The skid mark.
Who is supposed to be the fuse, the safety belt to prevent malicious prosecution when you can simply shop for both a judge and the jury, and the government at all levels is dedicated to convicting you - not the crime, but you in particular?
I cite morrison dissent, because scalia noticed the peculiarity of the single focus of special counsel, which is considered commendable when a republican tries see ken starr, well that was the crime, clown nose off, clown nose on,
"The court system is incredibly valuable to society and has eliminated the need for small scale tribal violence."
However briefly.
"Respect for the judicial system is essential to our democracy."
That's a problem, isn't it? But I say the undermining of that respect is coming from the other side of the aisle. These clowns in New York and Georgia have decided that they can spit on any respect for the judicial system if it comes from the thumping majority of Americans who are not far-left radicals.
As evidence I cite the fact that Trump's polling numbers have risen rather than fallen since his conviction. The American people don't know the intricate details of the law, but they sure do know unfairly partisan selective prosecutions, kangaroo courts, and show trials when they see them, and they find Trump's hush-money show trial and conviction contemptible from top to bottom.
They also can see no reason that Trump should be prosecuted for having classified documents for which he held plenary powers of declassification, while Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are allowed to skate for holding similar documents that they had no right to possess or power to declassify-- amidst a lot of harrumphing from Garland and Comey about prosecutorial discretion that makes the double standard even more glaring.
It strikes me, in the CBA letter, that the contention that some lawyers who are public figures are asserting without evidence that the NY Trump trial was politically motivated, etc., is:
1. its own groundless assertion - there's no evidence in the letter that these assertions were made without evidence
and, more importantly,
2. a convenient truncation of what many public figures, Turley included, actually said during and after the trial.
Turley was laying out the judicial and prosecutorial errors and bias, as he saw them, daily, with examples. Derschowitz was reporting with horror on what he witnessed from his seat in the courtroom, and relating it to his years of experience in litigation. Our host here was bringing to light the many ways in which this case was utterly unlike any other records case, and asking, "Why?"
But the CBA letter reduces all that discussion, all those observations and examples and discontinuities concerning one case in one specific courtroom in front of one very specific (acting) judge, to very short, inflammatory cut-quotes presented as if they were nothing but baseless generalized statements:
public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a 'sham,' a 'hoax,' and 'rigged'; our justice system is 'corrupt and rigged'; the judge was 'corrupt' and 'highly unethical'; and, that the jury was 'partisan' and 'precooked.'
And it tries, via tone, to seem Above the Fray.
But the tone fails to obscure the sense of threat.
Chuck, you often call Trump a "mobster." Is the use of mob intimidation tactics by his self-declared enemies (they don't even call themselves "opponents" any more - have you noticed?) just a case of "If Satan should ever replace God he would find it necessary to assume the attributes of Divinity"? (That's a pretty obscure Heinlein quote. Mutaman, gad, Howard, if you're in the house, I am not comparing Trump to God. I'm making a joke.)
Let's pick at the specifics of this dog's breakfast message from the Bar Association.
They warn lawyers not to 'sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.'
1. IMO lawyers like Dersh and Turley are recognizing the preexisting "distrust for the courts" and have made excellent statements about why that is exactly where the distrust "belongs."
2. Their warning would have been more on the mark if they had warned Judge Merchan not to act in such a partisan manner, going out of his way to make a donation to the man running against the Defendant in his courtroom, and then refusing to follow the black letter NY law that proscribes that behavior and says it is grounds for recusal. Merchan and Bragg did more to "sow distrust in the public" by their actions that any TV lawyer has done by writing about these travesties. While we are at it, why did Merchan draw three Trump cases if the court is chosen by lottery? That would imply untrustworthy behavior too.
3. Fani Willis more than once accused the defendants (including the black lawyer working for Trump's 2020 campaign) of filing motions because "they are racists" and prejudiced against a "strong black woman." She did this politicking in a largely black church and was reprimanded by the judge in that case. One could burn several paragraphs making the case that many of her actions, again actions not mere words, have graphically demonstrated for the public precisely why there is distrust in the system, and it is clear she lied about much of it.
The CBA is wrong to chill the speech of people observing bad behavior instead of standing up like grown men and criticizing the actors earning the courts their current reputation.
we can also address jack smith's history of malfeasance re mcdonnell and other cases, his conduct in the florida case, misrepresenting exculpatory evidence with the cover sheets, the orders for the raid in itself, that judge cannon has slowly unraveled,
getting back to the accounting trial, pomerantz, the former vance deputy, was not allowed to be interrogated even though he wrote a whole book about the strategy,
Jamie at 2:43;
I am not at all certain that the CBA would regard Turkey’s commentary as violative of their view on the professional propriety of such comments. I think Turley is an ass, and wrong on lots of public affairs analysis. But Turley’s comments are soft compared to many Congressional Republicans, radio hosts, and others in the TrumpWing media (whose comments are literally in line with what the CBA letter describes) are saying.
If Turley wants his past remarks to be taken as offending the CBA, so be it.
As a general rule, Soviet thugs that conduct political show trials usually don't like to have people call those show trials "show trials".
But Turley’s comments are soft compared to many Congressional Republicans, radio hosts, and others in the TrumpWing media (whose comments are literally in line with what the CBA letter describes) are saying.
So is your point that the CBA is only policing decorousness of speech? That if those Congressional Republicans, radio hosts, and others who were and are making the same observations as Turley, Derschowitz, and Althouse would just make those observations in different language, the CBA would find them - let's say "acceptable"?
Because what I see is a bar association policing content of which they disapprove, without, themselves, presenting a case for why they think that content isn't true besides "We are the Law and the Law is not mocked."
Leland said...
If the Bar, and I realize Turley mentions Connecticut and not New York, refuses to sanction Merchan, then the corruption is thoroughly embedded and their rulings can no longer be trusted elsewhere. The fact that nobody can name the second misdemeanor crime that Trump intended to commit is just one of about a dozen problems with the handling of this trial.
Sport, you might want to leave this particular debate to the lawyers.
“The Bar” doesn’t “sanction” New York judges. That responsibility rests with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
I think Judge Merchan is more likely to get an award, than any discipline after 2024.
https://cjc.ny.gov/
Chuck’s argument on the CBA is as wordy and unclear as Merchan’s jury instructions, but at least chuck wrote them down.
Yet again, Chuck proves himself a totalitarian lick spittle. Why does anyone engage with him?
"I think Judge Merchan is more likely to get an award, than any discipline after 2024."
You're right this time.
"Respect for the judicial system is essential to our democracy. The CBA condemns unsupported attacks on the integrity of that system." The problem here is that the commentary around the Trump trials is not "unsupported" and the CBA knows this. But for political reasons they don't want admit it. Which is interesting since dollars to donuts the individuals responsible for this letter were all in on the BLM institutional racism criticism of our legal system, which is actually unsupported and actually does reduce respect for the legal system.
Chuck said...
"Y'all asked for it."
No. Nobody "asked for it", y'all.
You don't contribute anything. You're a mental case and a creep. Stop stalking Althouse.
See, Chuck weaseled more.
One last time and I will let your silence speak for you, Chuck- do you or do you not want to see lawyers criticizing these Trump trials punished for doing so? Yea or nay?
LLR-democratical And Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck: "I think Judge Merchan is more likely to get an award, than any discipline after 2024."
LOL
No doubt...similar to all the Pulitzer prizes awarded to the tired legacy media personalities for their multiyear lie-filled fact-free "reporting" on the Russia Russia Russia hoax...and all the other hoaxes.
You know who else received awards? Walter Duranty for his Stalinist-suck-uppery and the Soviet "Judges" that sent millions to the gulag.
Lefties always reward their biggest sycophants and those willing to lie for the regime on a daily basis without shame.
Rusty,
I did ask Chuck to defend the CBA letter- he didn't- all he did was agree with it, which isn't an actual defense. An actual defense would explained how it was professionally improper for a lawyer to criticize the Merchan court and the case itself- or any court case for that matter. What the letter advocates is basically this- "Shut Up about the Trump trials if you got nothing nice to say about them." That was what Turley was attacking in his essay, and Turley was right to do so- there isn't an honest defense of the CBA letter that isn't just supporting the suppression of lawyers' rights to free speech.
Chuck simultaneously belabors the point that the state ethics commission would be who "sanctions" a judge in a post about the CBA wanting to punish lawyers for their speech. You go, "Sport." Such persnickety makes for fine lawyering; or maybe not.
How many cases have you argued outside of JP or small claims courts, Sport? I ask because the question begging and non sequiturs you've engaged in in your comments today really don't seem like good lawyering. To wit, it is likely the case that the questionable (to be generous) prosecutions of Trump, the verdicts in both NY cases, and the attempt by the CBA to censor some of their members have done far mor damage to the judicial system than any criticism leveled by the critics.
But hey, sport, I just work in a warehouse. So I'm not too into credentials. But even I find the premise that you're likely to have superior or more correct insight to these issues than Jonathan Turley a bit shaky. You certainly haven't offered a systematic refutation of any, much less all of his points.
Your arguments are every bit as emotionally driven as your never Trumpism.
Yancey Ward said...
See, Chuck weaseled more.
One last time and I will let your silence speak for you, Chuck- do you or do you not want to see lawyers criticizing these Trump trials punished for doing so? Yea or nay?
Mere criticism? No.
False and defamatory statements? Made with recklessness or actual malice or for demonstrably political purposes where public trust and faith in the judicial system is harmed? Yeah, I think I’d like to see that. Only after a solid investigation, case by case; where the result might be a public letter of reprimand in which all of the facts are laid out in painful detail for the respondent.
And there you have it- Chuck wants to punish lawyers like Turley in this instance. Do I have that right, Chuck?
I will point out that there is nothing preventing Judge Merchan or Alvin Bragg from filing a defamation lawsuit against their "critics"- nothing at all. That i the proper forum to address these defamers Chuck is so worried about.
"The problem here is that the commentary around the Trump trials is not "unsupported" and the CBA knows this. But for political reasons they don't want admit it."
It's a lot like the responses one gets whenever the integrity of the 2020 vote is questioned- "But there's no evidence of widespread fraud!", when nobody is claiming the fraud is widespread. Or just listen to the responses of administration officials when they're questioned by Congress- they routinely ignore what they were asked and instead, answer the question they would have preferred to have been asked. Or they just ramble on, in an attempt to run out the clock on questioning.
It doesn't take being a lying sack of shit to be a politician or a bureaucrat, but it sure doesn't seem to hurt.
If lawyers may not criticize the operation of the courts, then who may? Lawyers see the courts in operation thus they have an excellent vantage point, an expertise since it is their field.
And if lawyers may not criticize the operation of the courts, may citizens do so? Isn't that the gist of the right to speak, to publish, and petition for redress of grievances? Or is one branch of government to be above reproach?
Mason G said...
"The problem here is that the commentary around the Trump trials is not "unsupported" and the CBA knows this. But for political reasons they don't want admit it."
It's a lot like the responses one gets whenever the integrity of the 2020 vote is questioned- "But there's no evidence of widespread fraud!", when nobody is claiming the fraud is widespread…
Whoa! Let’s stop right there.
Are you suggesting that “the integrity of the 2020 election is … question[able],” however you concede that there wasn’t any widespread fraud?
First, let’s be clear that MAGA leader Donald Trump claims not just that there was some indicia of fraud in 2020; Trump has a whole litany of insanely extreme claims about 2020. That he won, and won by a “landslide.” That “there were more votes than voters” in Detroit. That he actually won Pennsylvania; and Arizona; that the count in Georgia was wrong, by tens of thousands of votes. And on and on.
The Dinesh d’Souza movie, “2000 Mules,” which claimed massive vote fraud in the form of vote harvesting and fake/corrupted absentee votes in many states, has now been so thoroughly debunked that it has been withdrawn from showing by its distributor, which has apologized for its false content.
When we Trump-haters talk about the 2020 election, we say things like, “there was no significant fraud,” because we are careful, thoughtful users of the language. Not bullshitting sales artists and hucksters like Trump. We feel the need to be accurate. Trump is only aiming for feelings, and a mood. Trump knows he’s way past fact-checking. He doesn’t care. He’s completely conscience-less about claiming fraud on a colossal scale. An entire election that was “rigged.” Like his carefully-conducted, procedurally-pristeen criminal trial that was conducted by Judge Merchan as Trump’s high-priced, high-powered criminal defense attorneys represented him.
This why people like Chuck should never hold public office. They can't be trusted at all to respect people's freedom of speech. They pick a truth and refuse to accept other peoples' right to not believe it.
It's a free country; you can accept Professor Turley's legal opinions if you like.
As for Turley's personal opinions on who should actually be our president, there's this (sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on the first Trump impeachment):
I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.7 That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.
Okay; so Turley didn't want Trump to be impeached. Didn't want Trump to be convicted. But also didn't want Trum to be President.
I might have been wrong, about calling Turley an ass.
Chuck said...
Mason G said...
"The problem here is that the commentary around the Trump trials is not "unsupported" and the CBA knows this. But for political reasons they don't want admit it."
It's a lot like the responses one gets whenever the integrity of the 2020 vote is questioned- "But there's no evidence of widespread fraud!", when nobody is claiming the fraud is widespread…
Whoa! Let’s stop right there.
Are you suggesting that “the integrity of the 2020 election is … question[able],” however you concede that there wasn’t any widespread fraud?
The Fulton Co Democrat "vote counters" kicking out the press and poll watchers because "they were done counting for the night", and then immediately resuming "vote counting" once they were all gone wasn't "questionable".
It was outright fraud.
And it stole teh State of GA.
And teh Democrat refused to call out that outright fraud, because there was a lot of Democrat vote fraud going on, so admitting it anywhere would have had bad consequences for them.
Any other questions, Chuckie?
Mere criticism? No.
False and defamatory statements? Made with recklessness or actual malice or for demonstrably political purposes where public trust and faith in the judicial system is harmed?
So the standard is that the CBA perceives a statement to be false and defamatory, reckless, malicious (toward whom?), or demonstrably political(!). And investigates its own belief, and (surprise!) determines that it was correct: the statement was false, defamatory (that is, unfairly defamatory), reckless, malicious, or political. Then it can sanction the speaker?
The problem, of course, is that unlike an ethics violation in which there would be at least a nod to a uniform standard, can even you, Chuck, envision a world in which a "demonstrably political" standard would be applied uniformly? In which a "defamatory" statement made about one of its stars or heroes might be justified?
But then you move on to the 2020 election, in which it is inarguable at this point that changes to procedures were made, especially in swing states, and sometimes on the fly including during vote counting, that (surprise!) all benefited Biden. In which it is inarguable at this point that that "shadowy cabal" that openly celebrated its success in keeping Trump from a second term after the election BAMN worked in ways:
* reckless (because they destroyed the desperate faith of half the country that our electoral system, while it doesn't always yield our desired result, is at least a fair playing field, to forward their short-term goal of defeating Trump),
* malicious (clearly - but not just toward Trump; toward half the country),
* AND demonstrably political (again, clearly - especially since they had four years of data on how Trump actually did govern, including during an international emergency that your side firmly believes - even now - justified gross infringements of civil liberties, which he worked to minimize while your side continued to push for, but still took every opportunity to describe him as "fascist")
...to "fortify" the election. So of course your side uses the phrase "there was no significant fraud," because you are careful with your words. And those words are nicely weaselly, when compared with what actually happened.
Why is Stalker Chuck, the stolen election denier, still here?
As always Chuck is really just saying that the First Amendment doesn't actually mean anything.
That is what all of these fascists are really saying.
People like Chuck do not belong in a free country. They are fascists and if you are going to have a free country they will always be enemies.
Allowing people like Chuck to undermine freedom in your society from within is only tolerable as long as they are suppressed to the point they have no power to make their fascist dreams happen.
As it is there are just too many people in this country that think like Chuck to have a free high trust society.
Marcus Bressler said...
Why is Stalker Chuck, the stolen election denier, still here?
Because every time he posts he shows the entire world what a terrible person it takes to support Joe Biden.
Every post he makes gets one more person off the fence voting for Trump.
He makes Regime Supporters look pathetic and dishonest and his constant bad faith is repulsive.
We need him to remind everyone just how terrible these people are.
I think I missed a step somewhere in the story of this blog - I have no problem with Chuck. I think some others (including a couple on my side) are a lot harder to take.
In fact, Chuck seems like a pretty good exemplar of the reason I'm on the side I'm on - probably considered a conservative (I think I'm a classical liberal with conservative tendencies). I used to be much more concerned with decorum, as Chuck seems to be on this point, at least. But the other side keeps getting loonier and loonier, all the while demanding, a la Iowahawk that we respect their authoritah because they just care so much and no one who feels so deeply could possibly do things that have bad results.
Chuck doesn't seems to be the silly caring type, but he does defend that side, often on the basis of "maintaining norms" that are far, far from what they used to be. So I'm happy to argue my position, which is that you can't change what a norm is and just keep the same name and pretend it's the same thing, with him.
Chuck said…
“I might have been wrong, about calling Turley an ass.”
You were wrong. But you do realize that you are an ass don’t you? You would be wrong not to call yourself an ass. You should change your moniker to “Ass Chuck” to make it easier for us to monitor your disordered behavior here.
"When we Trump-haters talk about the 2020 election, we say things like, “there was no significant fraud,” because we are careful, thoughtful users of the language."
Trump is one person and even if you know for an irrefutable fact what he believes (doubtful, at best), plenty of other people who believe there was no significant fraud also believe there was enough targeted fraud to affect the outcome of the election. The fact that Democrats have fought tooth and nail every effort to audit votes (in specific, targeted locations, BTW) leads to the conclusion that Democrats are not nearly as sure of the purity of the election results as they like to claim.
This has been pointed out so many times that anyone who avoids recognizing that fact (by careful, thoughtful use of the language, perhaps) is either a liar or an idiot. Which are you?
Chuck said...
"Words matter. Reckless words attacking the integrity of our judicial system matter even more."
Nothing wrong with any of that. Hardly controversial.
It's entirely controversial, assuming without proving that the people they're attacking are using "Reckless words", when they're actually using carefully chosen words discussing the utter corruption of the judicial system by Democrats.
"In the wake of the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a 'sham,' a 'hoax,' and 'rigged'; our justice system is 'corrupt and rigged'; the judge was 'corrupt' and 'highly unethical'; and, that the jury was 'partisan' and 'precooked.' Others claimed the trial was 'America’s first communist show trial'—a reference to historic purges of high-ranking communist officials that were used to eliminate political threats.
A true assertion by CBA, and admirably presice.
So what?
All of the quoted statements are factually true.
The CBA is simply opposed to the stupid and grossly inaccurate TrumpWing-styled attacks.
These attacks are neither stupid nor even a little bit inaccurate.
Claiming they are, without providing any proof for the claim, is not "defending the press release". It's just doubling down on lying.
"These claims are unsubstantiated and reckless.
Wrong.
1: Marchan's daughter was making $$$ on the outcome of the trial. Only a corrupt political hack would oversee the trial in that situation
2: New York just tossed the Weinstein conviction because the judge let the prosecutors have testimony by women about actions that weren't being charged in the trial.
So, what does judge Marchan do? He allows the prosecutors to have Stormy testify about actions that weren't charged at the trial.
Only a corrupt hack would allow that
Such statements can provoke acts of violence against those serving the public as employees of the judicial branch. Indeed, such statements have resulted in threats to those fulfilling their civic obligations by sitting on the jury, as evidenced by social media postings seeking to identify the names and addresses of the anonymous jurors and worse, in several cases urging that the jurors be shot or hanged. As importantly, such statements strike at the very integrity of the third branch of government and sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong."
Again, not general or legally specific criticism, which is understood as valid and allowed. Specific kinds of criticism are disfavored.
Blah, blah, blah, bullshit, blah.
Yes, "Specific kinds of criticism are disfavored", which is to say any attacks on the Left.
We note here the dishonest jump from "attacks on the judge are bad, man" to "and then there were people saying mean things on social media about jurors."
WTF? "Being upset at the corrupt hack of a judge" != "let's go after the jury"
Chuck said...
"To be clear, free speech includes criticism. There is and should be no prohibition on commenting on the decision to bring the prosecution, the prosecution’s legal theory, the judge’s rulings, or the verdict itself. But headlines’ grabbing, baseless allegations made by public officials cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric. They have no place in the public discourse."
Right. Like I said; the CBA isn't simply being specific about particular sorts of attacks as being inappropriate for members. The CBA is also being specific about particularly sorts of criticism as being well within professional bounds.
So, exactly WHICH accusations are "baseless"?
They don't specify, and neither do you.
Because you all know you're lying.
"It is up to us, as lawyers, to defend the courts and our judges.
Not when they corruptly abuse their power. Then it's put to you, as lawyers, to call out the corruption of the legal system.
As individuals, and as an Association, we cannot let the charged political climate in which we live dismantle the third branch of government. To remain silent renders us complicit in that effort.
True; and especially true for lawyers who are part of law school faculties.
Yes, remaining silent about the Dems corrupting the legal system with their lawfare does make you complicit in the evil of trying to turn American into a fascistic banana republic
"Respect for the judicial system is essential to our democracy. The CBA condemns unsupported attacks on the integrity of that system."
Does Turley not believe in this?
The statement has no connection to the current situation, where we are making well supported attacks on the lock of integrity displayed by judge Marchan and his defenders
You "dunked" on a three foot high hoop, and the ball bounced back and smacked you in the face
Michael K.,
It's a large ban the size of a small ban.
Post a Comment