Aggressive Defense Of The Rule Of Law
Trump and his henchmen have declared war on the rule of law. Defending it will require aggressive responses. It’s time for heavy use of Rule 11
Here are the relevant provisions of Rule 11:
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) Sanctions.
snip
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation. …
Every pleading from the government should be closely examined. If there are reasonable grounds, the affected parties should immediately demand preservation of records proving compliance with Rule 11(b).
Example: Illinois Sanctuary City laws
DoJ sued Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago over our sanctuary city laws and the policies adopted pursuant to them. (Full disclosure: I am a Chicagoan.) The suit claims that the laws were intended to and do interfere with the ability of the feds to enforce immigration laws. There is a lot of bluster about this, but there isn’t a single specific example of active interference with the feds. There are no specific allegations of damage done by enactment or compliance with the laws and policies.
The complaint lays out the provisions of Chicago’s policy in ¶¶ 41-50. Then:
51. Upon information and belief, Chicago law enforcement officials have been chilled by these prohibitions.
52. Upon information and belief, Chicago law enforcement officials are also confused by the restrictions on them and thus do not provide even the permissible cooperation out of fear of punishment.
The defendants should demand preservation of all records showing that the lawyers who filed this suit had cause to believe that there is evidentiary support for these allegations, or that it is likely that discovery would uncover evidentiary support.
But, even if there is such chilling or confusion, it doesn’t prove the case alleged by the feds. For example, it is likely the case that the feds can seek clarification of the rules from the superior officers of the duty people. There is no allegation that any actual federal agent has been unable to obtain any result permitted by the law. That information is obviously available to the government’s lawyers if it existed.
It appears that Chicago has a powerful defense against these claims under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Here’s a report from the Congressional Research Service. It says that there are six district court opinions all holding in Chicago’s favor. I haven’t checked to see if there is later precedent (but this indicates there isn’t any ). If that’s right, then a demand should be made for preservation of records regarding how and why this suit was filed. Was there an improper purpose, like a political purpose?
The demand should include any and all records at the Department of Justice in D.C., as well as documents in the possession or under the control of the US Attorney who filed the suit and all of the lawyers who signed the complaint. The demand should also cover all documents justifying a claim that anti-commandeering case law should be ignored or overturned, and documents related to that determination.
This demand will set up a possible counterclaim for abuse of process as well as sanctions under Rule 11.
Example: Birthright Citizenship cases
Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is at stake in several pending cases. Judge Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of the EO in a 31 page opinion. Here’s footnote 8:
In fact, the defendants’ discussion of Texas in their papers verges on misleading. The language upon which they most heavily rely appears in a footnote quoted in their opposition memorandum and referenced during the motion hearing. Contrary to the defendants’ characterization, that footnote is not a “holding,” and it does not “foreclose[]” the State plaintiffs’ standing in this case. Id. Rather, it acknowledges that “States sometimes have standing to sue . . . an executive agency or officer,” and though it warns that “standing can become more attenuated” when based on “indirect effects” of federal action, it stops short of saying such effects could never satisfy Article III. Id. This case, in any event, concerns direct effects. Cites omitted.
That doesn’t verge on misleading, it’s misleading, and required the parties and the Courts to expend time and energy unraveling it.
The Judge also calls out the government’s argument that birthright citizenship requires “mutual consent between person and polity”. The child, of course, can’t consent so that falls to the parents. The government says that if the parents are here illegally, the polity, the US, did not consent to citizenship.
Judge Sorokin rejects that argument, saying[ that birthright citizenship is granted to the child. The parents are not involved. Second, all of the parents of enslaved people were here under duress, not by consent. Therefore the argument means the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to children of slaves. The Court says this argument “verges on frivolous.” I’d say it crosses the frivolous line into stupid.
Both the state and private plaintiffs should move for sanctions under Rule 11. On its own, the Court should require all the lawyers who signed the pleading to attend three hours of ethics training and certify their attendance within 60 days.
One more example.
Out-of-state lawyers are usually required to apply for and receive permission to appear pro hac vice. Most right-wing litigation groups, like Americans Defending Freedom, use out-of-state lawyers. If sanctions are appropriate under Rule 11, there is nothing to prevent the court from imposing as a sanction termination of pro hac admission. Admission pro hac in future cases will set up the possibility of moving to deny or revoke admission on the grounds that the lawyer has been revoked in one court. That will certainly deter garbage filings.
Conclusion
I know courts are reluctant to award sanctions. But this administration is abusing the courts, just as Trump has done all his life. If courts refuse to protect themselves, and refuse to fully protect the people damaged by illegal actions, their already trashed reputation will sink into negative territory.
I also know that lawyers don’t like to ask for sanctions. It’s an unwritten rule tied to notions of collegiality. I know it’s particularly difficult with government lawyers, because of the risk they’ll appear in another case where your clients might be hurt.
But. Adhering to unwritten rules has led to this: Trump walks free, free to abuse the courts, free to wreak vengeance, free to wreck what it took centuries to build. Fixing this is more important than fake gentility.
“Fixing this is more important than fake gentility”. This! Thank you Ed.
There’s a difference between smart, aggressive, within the law moves and incoherent yelling.
There’s a difference between holding to a boundary – consistently, every time – and irrational behavior.
Being called names because you are calmly and legally acting a way somebody doesn’t like is yucky but not an indication that *you* are a non-collegial jerk.
So what are people afraid of?
I suspect the massive amounts of energy it takes to calmly, consistently, and yes sometimes aggressively defend a boundary (even one that seems intellectually obvious, like “no I won’t break the law”) in the face of emotional blackmail, social norms pressure, and, at this point, credible physical threats. Or maybe jumping to the “how do we go on offense?” mindset because *just* defending the boundary is too much of a mind F (how is not breaking the law a crazy boundary? why is this being normalized??).
I’d like to pretend that if I were a lawyer I’d be following Ed’s plan all day every day. As it is, I can’t judge – I know the energy load, even in the absence of credible physical threats.
At this point we need the aggressive defense plus counseling on handling DARVO for the entire freaking country. IANAL, so maybe my next move is funding counseling for lawyers who sincerely want to make those aggressive defense moves but need support to keep it up, and to clearly articulate what’s going on. Oh wait – maybe that support should go to journalists.
Self care, support, pick a positive action, rinse & repeat!
Your point about the energy it takes to do this is a good insight. We don’t want the attention of the lead lawyers on a case diverted from defending or pushing the case itself.
I think every state AG should appoint a young lawyer with fire in the belly to do this, someone not otherwise connected with the case. The senior lawyer on the case can make sure the younger person doesn’t overstep. Private groups can do something similar.
“He who saves his country violates no laws.”
Thus Truthethed the Trump last night.
You tell me.
Marcy thinks MILLER wrote that post. [See the comments she’s responding to]:
https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3libhls7hrs2x
February 16, 2025
Evidently, the supposed TRUMP comment was posted to Xitter [not Truth Social], so that raised the question of who wrote it, in the first place.
Whoever wrote it, he seems to be quoting
not just Napolean, but also Anders BREIVIK.
https://bsky.app/profile/profgabriele.com/post/3lib3jxcbis2v
Historian Seth Cotlar did a little digging:
https://bsky.app/profile/sethcotlar.bsky.social/post/3lib5ldetk22v
February 15, 2025 at 9:08 PM
Anna Bower has screenshots from “Napolean fanboy” MU$K:
https://bsky.app/profile/annabower.bsky.social/post/3lib23aon4s2p
February 15, 2025 at 8:06 PM
Media Matters’ Angelo Carusone
https://bsky.app/profile/goangelo.bsky.social/post/3lib3l2zkhk2q
February 15, 2025 at 8:32 PM
I’ll stop with the off topic now…sorry, Ed.
What I was seeing was that it’s from Rod Steiger’s movie, “Napoleon”.
Which would make sense – movies and TV are what TFG likes to watch, and he can’t tell fiction from reality.
I do not think this discussion is off topic. Trump, in his diminished and increasingly offstage state, supplies little in the manner of actual governance these days. But whether he’s ventriloquizing Miller or not, he still issues the rallying cries.
That’s what this alt-right version of imperial overreach was intended as–the Big Concept for MAGA folks to blare at all the libs being owned by Musk’s nihilistic actions. Simple enough for Trump to remember (probably), and in-your-face enough for the masses to embrace.
If you have a minute, can you edit to correct typos? e.g. pro has vice, Exanpoe:
[FYI – These two typos have been corrected. Please refresh your page. / ~Rayne]
Thank you, Ed. When the ABA president issued his clarion statement (was it just last week?) calling for lawyers to rally around the law and their ethical standards, few outside the profession likely understood the significance of his speaking out. As with US senators, “unwritten rules” of collegiality can become straitjackets for lawyers, especially when the time comes to put law and ethics first.
And lawyers become judges, where those rules DO get written in regard to ethics (except for SCOTUS, of course). But old habits die hard, as perhaps they should. It has become a truism in the wake of the 2024 election to say that “The courts failed us,” because Trump finagled the ultimate Get Out of Jail Free card from his handpicked SCOTUS court.
It would be truer to say that they failed us when it became possible for a foreign dipshit to buy himself an election, and thus a federal government to use as a plaything/piggybank. “The courts” include everyone who contributes to the justice system, however, and that includes us. Not a lawyer? Call your representative who (likely) is.
Ed,
Great topic. IANAL. Your quote: “I know courts are reluctant to award sanctions. But this administration is abusing the courts, just as Trump has done all his life. If courts refuse to protect themselves, and refuse to fully protect the people damaged by illegal actions, their already trashed reputation will sink into negative territory.”
Trump has personally brought over 4k lawsuits in his life prior to this election. Metro Bus Billboards where i live advertise for lawyers say “1B$ for clients”. The question is quantity or quality. Trumps, answer has always been about quantity. DOJ represents the office of executive but Trump has appointed sycophant’s to DOJ leadership that will only follow his instructions, not the law as you clearly documented above. All of Trump ‘s “quantity” legal history is beyond the scope of the court. But just like star fish in the sand, you pick one up, walk to the water and throw that one lucky starfish as far as you can. It only takes one lawyer or one judge to raise rule 11 against DOJ’s 2025 onslaught into the rule of law for the tide to change. Peace, We are in this together.
Echinoderms can lose limbs and regenerate. Invictus Games like Rule 11 must be that strong.
Referrals to the Bar pretty much go nowhere without a court imprimitur. At least in CA, if you’re current on your dues then it’s free reign until courts start referrals. Then the Bar gets interested.
Referrals won’t happen without the parties asking for them. In the case of birthright citizenship the US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) precedent is controlling and remember that was the same time where SCOTUS did Lochner and Plessy v. Ferguson. Those Justices weren’t liberal tree-hugging DFHs.
There ought to be a Rule 11 violation if Convict-1 continues to enforce his EO.
At what point does the Federal Programs Branch become saturated with cases? Has to be already with 75+ cases. You have a lot of other Civil division DOJ staff you can throw at it, but their expertise in these cases starts to slip. Likewise most AUSA are going to take a while to get up to speed as well.
And attorneys in the civil division are getting same threatening emails from “HR”. They also read the papers on the DAG.
This is a good question. As phred points out below, there is a real possibility of a whole lot of contract law suits brought on by the illegal funding cuts.Tht’s going to seriously increase the burden on the DoJ to defend. I hope those suits are filedin state courts,because that wil substantially increase the burdenson DoJ..
Sorry to be OT but have you seen IL Gov. Pritzker’s troll about renaming Lake Michigan to Lake Illinois? So good!
While we are in a giddy whirl of re-naming, let’s re-name Trump Tower. How about The Edifice Complex? (Hat tip to Deyan Sudjic.)
As to Sect. 11, I seem to recall a lawyer on Twitter, during the first Trump administration, proposing exactly that, and laying out how it could be applied. Alas, I forget which of the many cases she was commenting on.
yes forgot TURD TOWER in neon lights as an award from prit$ker award paid off comittee!*!*!
dwntwn nascar fan wil lick it a lot…blrrggggl!
It has already been renamed The Letitia Ann James New York State Office Building, aka “Tish Tower”. Ok, not really but we at Rise and Resist NY have rendered it that way and held a Trump Going out of Business Sale there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhf9uRiaWGI
[Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please use the SAME USERNAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “antarctic southpaw”; it has been edited this one time to match your existing username.
Please also confirm by reply to this comment that you wish to change your email from the previous “address in format “initiallastname @ businessname . com”; both username and email address mismatches triggered auto-moderation. Please make a note of this and check your browser’s cache and autofill. /~Rayne]
Sorry to say, because you always delight, but that troll is not clever by half or funny, Matt.
What was approaching sharp and funny was talk of annexing green bay, but you’d have to have cte to find it truly sharp rather than derivative and underperforming, like chi’s bloated sports money game.
TBH, happy to have Pritzker helming our state executive chair and calmly and soundly partnering with populace, business, legit law, social service orgs, humanitarian groups, Dick and Tammy, citizens and the functional state apparatus(no fking thx Republicons!).
What is actually funny is that Pritzker is just Blago in a fat suit with a ethics armor core upgrade cuz he was born into the money rather than married. Shady upstanding scion. Knows he is not an entertainer, just aiming to be a respectable hard worker who tries to get it right and knows we need him on top game. Ate too much free govt cheez obv tho lol!
What else would be funny as funny money? Renaming all the stuff bearing Pritzker name and changing it to more accurate “Govt Contract Scoring 2Rich Folx” pavillion, predatory profession med school, building award for not poor ppl, etc.
JB is a capitalist plutocrat bum. Its good to see him sweat from his class brethren(billionaire$) and their amped up version of schemes that made his fam$. He deserves a golden swirly after he assist$ democracy limping to the next ultramarathon check point$.
What is not funny is all you folks who have to suffer under state shit leaders who make my turd shine, like OH, TN, AR and florid Ron DeMax Santorum DeSantis. Peace to PA plz!
Sorry but come on feel the illinoise!
I was commenting on Pritzker’s troll of Trump, not on him or his policies which I know next to nothing about.
Annex Green Bay? Did Pritzker have that in his “announcement”? Doesn’t he know that the NFL has said there will never be a professional football team in Chicago?
oh yeah, hip folks and sharp Drexciya fans refer or know its the Michigocean!
Double clever college buddy introduced me to that name & my wife. Debt of love and gratitude to him.
and thanks Ed, as always an easy to read post on complex thorny topics and their interplay and effect upon our lives.
Sanctioning illegal and corrupt behavior is always collegial, especially within the absurdly privileged ranks of the legal and federal systems.
David Coale wrote in Salon Saturday that judges buried under multiple court orders challenging a flood of legally dubious executive actions could take a tactic usually reserved for extreme time wasters.
Judges, Coale argues, can cut through the time-wasting by ruling the filer is a “vexatious litigant” — and dismissing their claims out of hand.
The same could be done to the president’s administration, Coale claimed.
https://www.salon.com/2025/02/15/is-it-time-for-americas-to-go-on-strike/
I’m surprised they didn’t do that to Donnie years ago. more than 3K suits would seem to prove that he really is.
Now I want a “vexatious litigant” T shirt
Great post, Ed, thanks!
Another vexing legal question from this non-lawyer’s point of view is this… Aren’t there any contractual requirements for disbursed federal funds? If a person is hired to work on a grant, isn’t the government obligated to pay according to the terms of the grant? It seems to me that contract law should be relevant here, but I don’t hear any discussion of this.
Maybe I just don’t understand how these things actually work vs. how I think they work – it would not be the first time as Mary, bmaz, et al. used to point out to me back in the Bush era ; )
Yes, there are innumerable contracts, but they have to be enforced. If the justice system is owned by Trump, how will such contracts be enforced? By suit, but Trump is the master of delay and appeal. Our government will be long dead before all that can happen.
You use state courts. Trump can’t interfere and state courts can enforce their judgments b themselves.
It feels like a calculated risk – only a small % of people will have the bandwidth, knowledge, cash, and/or courage to sue. Worth the risk if expecting majority to not get a lawsuit together. I could have sued a prior employer twice – I learned years later – but young, limited resources, and limited experience meant I didn’t look into it or even realize it was a tenable option in the moment. So, could be projecting but that’s my take: hoping for majority reaction “what can I do? The $ isn’t arriving. Guess I’ll move on”. For minority reaction: stall, lie, etc etc.
oops I typed “minority”. A disallowed keyword! Apologies. s/
I join the commenters above with thanks for your great post, Ed.
However, I’m at a loss with the question what options are left when the current administration just implements its illegal actions. My example: Ellen Weintraub.
I feel sorry that I can’t maintain my previous comment on her handling with the one-liner she got from Trump about her removal from the FEC (https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/02/10/rule-of-law-dont-obey-in-advance-but-also-dont-give-up-in-advance/#comment-1086932). I haven’t read anything since then, so I checked with the FEC websites: her position is now “vacant.”
She had no reason to got to court because Trump’s letter couldn’t be legally effective because it didn’t follow the procedure required. Yet she has been removed from the official website on Feb. 7, 2025.
Archiv.org’s Wayback Machine shows 3 captures of the respective FEC site for Feb. 7: the one from 09:01:22 still listing Weintraub as chair, the one from 16:36:28 not.
This is upsetting. It initially looked like an effective clap back. Will have to look for info on outcome.
Even this example doesn’t get into how very young people without security clearances and without info on how they are paid (by Musk??) can effectively demand anything. Is it all about control of IT?
Ed, as a former Chicagoan and longtime observer of their police department, I think the DOJ is probably on safe ground claiming that ” Chicago law enforcement officials have been chilled by these prohibitions” and that “Chicago law enforcement officials are also confused by the restrictions on them and thus do not provide even the permissible cooperation out of fear of punishment.”
It is *very* easy to imagine MAGA officers — of which there are no doubt an abundance on the Chicago PD — chafing at JDP in Springfield as well as Those People at City Hall, who would be willing to say just about anything Pam Bondi et al. want to hear.
Yes, there may not have been a single specific example in the lawsuit about this, but I’m sure the DOJ will say that this was done so as to avoid placing any of these fine upstanding and woke-oppressed police officers in danger of retaliation.
See “McDonald, Laquan, the murder of” by CPD officer Jason Van Dyke. Making a false claim to Bondi’s DOJ would simply be the latest product of the culture of authoritarianism and racism in the Chicago PD.
History says you have a point about Chicago cops. But that still doesn’t solve the feds’ problem: they have to show that somehow they’ve been interfered with, that is, that something permitted by the sanctuary law didn’t happen, or that something didn’t happen that state people are required to do by some fed rule not subject to the anti-commandeering doctrine. Or, I suppose they could get the courts to say that all sanctuary city laws and policies thereunder are unconstitutional on their face, and that the anti-commandeering doctrine has an exception for immigration law.
If so, we have nothing. But at least we did what we could, and maybe the demand for preservation would do some minor good.
Born in Chicago, raised there and (early on) North Carolina. Probably not as close an observer as either of you, but as a political animal from the word Go, I always found Chicago’s vexatious machine fascinating.
While many CPD beat cops take the “beat” part way too literally, especially when Black or hispanic folks are concerned, it has mostly seemed to me that while rot pervades the entire system, it has fed on corruption and authoritarian domination at the top–the leadership (ahem) and unions. And of course certain mayors, whose reigns of terror I believe Trump is partly modeling his own on.
Contemporary mayors, including and maybe especially those who campaign on promises to reform policing, find themselves constrained by other power brokers. As now, to quote Amiri Baraka. And the police remain free to do what they (or their true masters, whether ICE or the unions) will.
Kris Kobach was sanctioned by US District judge Julie Robinson for his misrepresentations to the court in a 2018 voter suppression case in Kansas. The ACLU attorney opposing then-KS Secretary of State Kobach was Dale Ho. Notably at the conclusion of that case, Kobach was ordered by judge Robinson to take *remedial ethics classes*. (There may have also been a monetary sanction.) Dale Ho is now himself a SDNY District judge, appointed by Biden in 2021—& he’s in charge of the Eric Adams case. The DOJ attorneys who were strong armed by Emil Bove to file for dismissal of the charges against Adams will be appearing before the guy who once successfully requested precisely the sanction Ed mentioned.
With the Adams mess, I keep reading about the forms of leverage that the federal government has over New York City (and, it would seem, other cities) — grants, etc. Like a powerful and controlling parent. Is that an unavoidable state of affairs? Has everyone grown too dependent on (and desirous of) federal largesse and it’s time to ease off?
Of course, that last sentence sounds like I’m someone who’d be in favor of cutting Social Security and so on, which is definitely not the case. It’s obviuosly a complicated relationship; which direction we should move in to have the right balance?
Who’s “too dependent” on “federal largesse”? Red states which receive more tax dollars than blue states which give more tax dollars? Why punish the blue state which has given the lion’s share of tax dollars?
Unless punishment and cruelty is the point.
As for cutting Social Security: that’s an entirely different bucket, it is NOT discretionary spending and should NEVER enter discussions of “federal largesse” by which I assume you mean discretionary spending. Each individual who paid into Social Security should reasonably expect a disbursement at retirement or other qualifying event regardless of the state in which they live or the occupant(s) in the executive branch.
Good points and corrections, thank you; I ignored the distinction between mandatory and discretionary spending. Obviously Social Security falls into the former category. But the latter, I believe, is to a large extent at the annual whim of Congress. Much goes to states and municipalities – grants for policing, traffic, roads, community care facilities, medical research, special education, adult education, financial aid, highway construction, safety improvement projects, etc. Some state and local government operations truly rely on these federal appropriations. When your rich Uncle who has been keeping you afloat suddenly threatens to turn off the tap, that not only hurts the individual downstream recipients, but also brings tremendous pressure on the intermediate elected officials and can put them in some tough spots. Can that be eased, or is it now baked in hard?
Hopefully, a clearer explication of my point. Still, I’d never make it in any kind of political world, so maybe just some rambling.
That the courtier press lets the GOP get away with calling Social Security and Medicare ‘entitlements’ is probably the main reason both are at risk for elimination. I just got my SSA annual revew and it’s pretty clear I’m owed something after paying in all of these years. Even ‘Saint Ronnie’ understood this.
As for SSA running out of money, it isn’t (see Krugman and many other actual economists on the subject) and the easiest fix is to eliminate the cap on income level where contributions are made. Warren Buffett understands this, noting that his secretary paid more in federal taxes (income and payroll) that he did percentage-wise. It’s also why the GOP never mentions reduction of payroll taxes. Al Franken busted Limbaugh for that claim as well, 25+ years ago.
Bloopie2, your analogy, having a rich uncle cut you off, is wrong-headed and worse. Your analogous rich uncle got all of his money from you. Our government is cutting everyone off at the knees with malice aforethought, not with any planning for or discussion about “how this stuff gets done or paid for.” National parks, FEMA, NIH, VA, USAID, everyone, and it sounds like the Pentagon, too. Actually, we all know their answer: privatization. The goal is the destruction of our government.
I don’t think it changes your conclusion, but Uncle Sam does not get any of his money from us. The Fed creates all dollars, and—when they lend—banks create deposits that look and feel just like dollars but aren’t quite the same.
In other words…
All your dollar are belong to US
Imagine the value of a single dollar created by the Fed without us. Worthless. Seriously?!
The whole point is to break the rule of law.
Focus on impeachment #2
ACQUITTED by the Senate
Feb 13, 2021 _________57-43
* inciting an insurrection
[Welcome to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. “Fran” is your second attempted username triggering auto-moderation. Because both your first and second usernames are too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
Fake gentility?
Oh hell… that should have been retired at least 10 years ago…
I personally have considered the GOP a criminal organization and an existential threat to the country, and by extension the entire planet, for at least a decade, if not longer.
The current iteration – Trumpism! – is just the inevitable evolution of a progression that’s been going on for a long, long time on that side of the aisle.
When Ford pardoned Nixon (yes, I’m still on about that) the GOP showed us who they were. The nation had been horrified by the thuggish and criminal behavior of the executive branch in general and the president in particular. This is when civility should have died, but it lived on.
Witness the Carter administration doing nothing to hold Reagan and his henchmen liable for their meddling in the Iranian hostage crisis – the October surprise. Casper Weinberger pardoned. The Supreme Court installing W. You know the rest. They deserved no quarter, and none should have been offered. Even more so now.
I have long had a suspicion that Trump is playing lawyer (a.k.a., “We’re just following the client’s orders!”), with all the lame mistakes people like Bove are making, but it’s way too systematic for that to be the case.
Do they really think they can tap dance their way through “holdings” in “footnotes” hoping no one catches their sloppy work, in the vain hope SCOTUS will ultimately give them yet another hail Mary pass? Which, I guess is not really all that vain of an effort?
If a filing is out of bounds on technical grounds, is that enough to stop their “fake it till they make it” legal defense they are deploying to get it before the Supremes?
Can you please fix the link in the text of the article to the 31 page opinion by Judge Sorokin? The current link is broken.
I believe that a good link to the opinion would be https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.279895/gov.uscourts.mad.279895.144.0_1.pdf