The issue you raised about the role of lawyers in our system of government is even more profound, fundamental and important than many lawyers or clients realize (or care to acknowledge).
Every lawyer is an actual officer of every court to which the lawyer is admitted to practice. That status (as a court officer) was addressed directly in our Constitution. The Founders (in Article VI of our Constitution) required that "all executive and judicial Officers" (and all legislators) "both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Congress was more specific in a federal statute (5 U.S.C. 3331) regarding attorneys (and judges) employed by the federal government. Every such attorney or judge must "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, including by "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Article VI also establishes that every public servant in every branch of every government (and every attorney while practicing before any court) must conform their own conduct to "the supreme Law of the Land," which comprises our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties." The Supremacy Clause bars all lawyers and judges from following any unconstitutional order from any putative superior officer or client.
All of the lawyers participating in this behavior need to have BAR complaints filed against them with the prime witnesses being the DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents being the ones filing the complaints for acting unlawfully and egregious ethics violations. Judges also need to be the tip of the spear to have their law licenses revoked. That's how you fight back.
That's a fairly fair point, but it's not entirely fair to put the entire burden of sorting out what to do on any one commentator. The primary reason that the First Amendment secures "the freedom of speech" and "press" is that public discussion is how Americans are meant to identify and analyze problems and solutions regarding American self-government. Writing about the rule of law and the relevance of lawyers contributes to the discussion. Others can contribute in other ways, e.g., by identify controlling law and facts that are material under such law.
That word "irrelevant" is just too kind, and too passive.
It's OK to just state that others are developing ideas for how to stop them. It's not OK to suggest that they will get their comeuppance and thus we can now shelve the topic.
And that is why it is important that we support the law firms that are fighting the abuses of this administration. Donate to Democracy Forward. Donate to Democracy Docket. Donate to Earthjustice. Become a subscriber to The Contrarian and support Norm Eisen's lawsuits.
I'm sure that commentators here can suggest other law firms fighting for the public.
Corp lawyers like these sold out long ago. All of their knowledge and expertise has been put to use protecting corporate polluters and swindlers. Their time and energy has been spent lobbying to rewrite and twist the rule of law into a code that protects the powerful and disregards the people they harm. They have just dispensed with any pretense.
Lurie's closing paragraph is positively chilling and obvious to anyone paying any attention - why would these firms participate in rendering themselves, ultimately, to obsolescence? To cash in now? Same goes for members of the Republican party - to ultimately become members of the Duma, a meaningless appendage on the Russian state? Trump is increasingly presenting as a full blown despot - and if you think I'm being hyperbolic, check back in 6 months time. In stories like this I'm always reminded of German industrialists who went along with the Nazi's early on only to find themselves, years later, quibbling over rates paid for concentration camp labor.
Terrific job of clearly laying out the facts in this case, and the outcome that will result. Money and Power are everything in this country. We may as well stop pretending otherwise.
The issue you raised about the role of lawyers in our system of government is even more profound, fundamental and important than many lawyers or clients realize (or care to acknowledge).
Every lawyer is an actual officer of every court to which the lawyer is admitted to practice. That status (as a court officer) was addressed directly in our Constitution. The Founders (in Article VI of our Constitution) required that "all executive and judicial Officers" (and all legislators) "both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Congress was more specific in a federal statute (5 U.S.C. 3331) regarding attorneys (and judges) employed by the federal government. Every such attorney or judge must "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, including by "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Article VI also establishes that every public servant in every branch of every government (and every attorney while practicing before any court) must conform their own conduct to "the supreme Law of the Land," which comprises our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties." The Supremacy Clause bars all lawyers and judges from following any unconstitutional order from any putative superior officer or client.
All of the lawyers participating in this behavior need to have BAR complaints filed against them with the prime witnesses being the DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents being the ones filing the complaints for acting unlawfully and egregious ethics violations. Judges also need to be the tip of the spear to have their law licenses revoked. That's how you fight back.
Yes, the firm should be more than irrelevant. That's a very weak ending to a thorough expose.
That's a fairly fair point, but it's not entirely fair to put the entire burden of sorting out what to do on any one commentator. The primary reason that the First Amendment secures "the freedom of speech" and "press" is that public discussion is how Americans are meant to identify and analyze problems and solutions regarding American self-government. Writing about the rule of law and the relevance of lawyers contributes to the discussion. Others can contribute in other ways, e.g., by identify controlling law and facts that are material under such law.
That word "irrelevant" is just too kind, and too passive.
It's OK to just state that others are developing ideas for how to stop them. It's not OK to suggest that they will get their comeuppance and thus we can now shelve the topic.
And that is why it is important that we support the law firms that are fighting the abuses of this administration. Donate to Democracy Forward. Donate to Democracy Docket. Donate to Earthjustice. Become a subscriber to The Contrarian and support Norm Eisen's lawsuits.
I'm sure that commentators here can suggest other law firms fighting for the public.
Corp lawyers like these sold out long ago. All of their knowledge and expertise has been put to use protecting corporate polluters and swindlers. Their time and energy has been spent lobbying to rewrite and twist the rule of law into a code that protects the powerful and disregards the people they harm. They have just dispensed with any pretense.
Lurie's closing paragraph is positively chilling and obvious to anyone paying any attention - why would these firms participate in rendering themselves, ultimately, to obsolescence? To cash in now? Same goes for members of the Republican party - to ultimately become members of the Duma, a meaningless appendage on the Russian state? Trump is increasingly presenting as a full blown despot - and if you think I'm being hyperbolic, check back in 6 months time. In stories like this I'm always reminded of German industrialists who went along with the Nazi's early on only to find themselves, years later, quibbling over rates paid for concentration camp labor.
Well, of course! Power mad billionaires to be defended by billionaire law firm. We care about an America that can afford our fees.
This is the “everyone deserves a defense” argument turned on its head. Yes, but it doesn’t mean you or your firm have to provide it.
😳
Terrific job of clearly laying out the facts in this case, and the outcome that will result. Money and Power are everything in this country. We may as well stop pretending otherwise.