Below is my column on Fox.com on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declaring the Supreme Court “illegitimate.” It is a statement that has dangerously moved beyond the mere hyperbolic as Democrats push to pack or even eliminate the Court.
Here is the column:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais took 36 pages to explain why Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is about combating intentional racial discrimination, not allowing racial gerrymandering. However, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrapped it up in one word: “illegitimate.”
Jeffries was not speaking of the case, but the Court. The man who would become the next Speaker of the House if Democrats retake power in November has joined other radicals in denying the legitimacy of the nation’s highest court.
Just for the record, the Supreme Court did not strike down Section 2, but said that neither the law nor the Constitution allows legislators to manipulate district lines to guarantee that candidates of a particular race will be elected. It was written not to give any race an advantage, but to prevent a state from creating a disadvantage to voters based on their race. The Act prevents any State from intentionally drawing districts “to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”
This is a matter upon which people of good faith can disagree. Many of the justices have been long opposed to racial criteria in areas ranging from college admissions to voting districts. Chief Justice John Roberts stated it bluntly in 2006 that “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” Like others, Roberts abhors racial discrimination but declared in another case that “way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
You will find no such distinctions in much of the press where experts declared the death of equal voting laws in America. UCLA Law Professor Richard Hasen dispenses with any nuance and simply ran a Slate column titled “The Slaying of the Voting Rights Act by the Coward Alito.”
For years, liberal law professors have been trashing conservative justices, including Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who called them “partisan hacks.”
However, the name-calling has mutated into a movement to scrap the Court or the Constitution, or both. Chemerinsky wrote a book recently titled “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) joined Jeffries in calling for changing the Supreme Court after the decision: “we’re going to have to try to transform the way the Supreme Court has been gerrymandered itself and stacked and packed with MAGA appointees.”
There was, of course, no such movement during the decades with a liberal majority that set aside an array of long-standing cases. It was only when a stable conservative majority emerged that law professors declared the Court illegitimate or dangerous, with many calling for packing the Court with an instant liberal majority once Democrats retake power.
I discuss some of these voices as the “new Jacobins” in my book Rage and the Republic, figures echoing the radical concepts or means used in France before what became known as “The Terror.”
Law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale have called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” Last December, they published a column titled “It’s Time to Accept that the US Supreme Court is Illegitimate and Must be Replaced.”
They insist that citizens must be rid of this meddlesome court: “remaking institutions like the US supreme court so that Americans don’t have to suffer future decades of oligarchy-facilitating rule that makes a parody of the democracy they were promised.”
Many Democrats realize that the public is rather attached to both the Constitution and its core institutions. That is why various Democratic politicians and pundits have been pledging to pack the Court once they are back in power. Some have suggested that, if they are going to change the political system and retain power, they will have to do it with the help of a compliant Court.
Democratic strategist James Carville stated matter-of-factly, “They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.” He added recently, “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”
To do that, you must first delegitimate the Court. You must attack both the individual justices and the institution itself. You need true rage to get a people to tear apart the core institution of a Republic on its 250th anniversary.
Now you have the next possible Speaker of the United States declaring the Supreme Court illegitimate because he disagrees with its interpretation of the law.
What these figures do not mention is that the majority of opinions by the Supreme Court are unanimous or nearly unanimous. A comparably few cases break along strict ideological 6-3 lines. Indeed, just last week, it was President Donald Trump who was denouncing the conservative justices as disloyal and weak for, again, ruling against his Administration.
It is not the voting record nor the underlying interpretations that are motivating this campaign of delegitimation. It is power. Former Attorney General Eric Holder explained it most clearly recently in pushing the packing plan after the Democrats retake power: “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power, if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
WWII
“The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, it was used to detain and deport German, Japanese, Italian immigrants during World War Eleven.”
– Ilhan Omar, Mogadishu, Somalia, Africa
_______________________________________________
No American would ever misspeak like this; it is sacrilege.
These illegal aliens, past and present, cannot, will not, and have no intention to assimilate.
They are here to steal a country and to obtain the infinite “free stuff” and “free status” from the American taxpayers’ wallets.
You can take the African out of Africa, but you can’t take the Africa out of the African.
Clever slogan, but such a broad brush denunciation is intemperate. Clarence Thomas thanks you.
intemperate? Such a rare word. Haven’t seen it used since…….earlier today by another poster.
The Immortal Words and Sworn Oath of the American Founders
I’m an American. My ancestors first arrived here in 1607. I want my country invaded, conquered, and taken over by people who are not Americans, people who were denied admission to obtain citizenship, and various and sundry other foreigners and illegal aliens, past and present. I want foreigners and illegal aliens to vote in my country. I want to give all my money and private property to parasitic foreign invaders as “free stuff,” “free status,” welfare, affirmative action, and governmental taxpayer charity. I want to give my country away. Those are my deepest longings and greatest desires as an unhyphenated and patriotic, actual American.
@anon 3:35 you missed a couple of concepts. Some of my ancestors were here as far back as 1100 BCE. Should my children pay reparations today? Perhaps it is only just that we should repeat the redistribution of land, property, assets, and life to those who’ve been living in urban areas under “socialistic” benefits of state without contribution of products or goods – or who bear the gift of “sanctuary” from them and their children’s labor, savings, and lives “empowered” but actually enslaved by those who order promise to grant them state wealth and prosperity by taking from others (us and our children)?
Speaking of “illegitimate,” the primary goal and desire of all normal abductees is to, quite simply, go home.
The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they had the capacity and acumen sufficient for the task.
Whatever happened to old hawkeeng, infinite quantities of “free stuff” and “free status” from the wallets of American taxpayers?
I take great comfort in knowing what happened to the first bunch of Jacobins.
Jeffries as Henry II? (not eleven)
OT
May Day IS Communist Day!
Those who celebrate or even mention without qualification “May Day” are anti-freedom, anti-American communists.
May Day—May 1st—The Day of “LABOR”—The Proletariat—The “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” IS the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx.
Communism is the Direct and Mortal Enemy of Freedom, the Constitution, and America.
So Hakeem Jeffries disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling. Who hasn’t disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling? Everyone at some point has disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling. He would have a point with his criticism if one side were able to agree with everything from the Supreme Court and the other side could only disagree. But his remedy is to pack the Supreme Court to ensure that he and his side will always agree with their rulings and his opposition will always disagree, and so his ideal Supreme Court would in fact become illegitimate.
This article is not about Jeffries disagrement with the Supreme court.
It is about the house minority leader stating that the pinnacle of the judicial branch is illegitimate.
It is still constitutionally protected free speech – but it is dangerous speech.
There is a difference between – “the supreme court is wrong” and “the supreme court is illegitimate”
You are confused about that.
John,
I waiting for when the dems start saying. Protest the Supreme court at work and home. It;s not the first time.
John Say: Yours is an excellent response.
Wrong. It was his disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling that prompted him to call the Court illegitimate. In his official statement he specifically referred to the Louisiana v. Callais decision and his disagreement with it. He says his solution is to support ‘reform’ of the Supreme Court if and when the Democrats regain both houses of Congress and the White House, and by ‘reform’ they have been clear it means packing the Court with four new liberal justices.
Pardon my interjection.
I understood ‘John to be Saying’ that it’s one thing to strongly disagree with a decision of a Constitutionally-created and invested, authorized (and thus legitimate) decision-renderer; –it’s yet another-and distinct thing- to declare that the decision-renderer is “illegitimate.” (illegal, not authorized to render a binding opinion/decision) (Hakeem’s words, “Today’s decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority”).
That’s all that John said, no more. no less. And I agree with him. I previously mentioned this “loose” language being frequently employed by these politicians. I don’t care if Jeffries opines that the justices are idiots, or even mistaken (as if his jurisprudential acuity was their equal). But he chose to say that they were “illegitimate,” -connoting and implying a wholly different thing. How is this understood amongst our English-interpreting foreign allies and enemies?
*^ me.
“It is still constitutionally protected free speech”
It is protected by the First Amendment to preclude any kind of criminal prosecution for it. It is NOT protected against impeachment for violating the oath of office that he took before taking his seat in the House. Unless you contend that his statement is somehow consistent with “support(ing) and defend(ing) the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” That Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and designates its authority. I don;t know how there could be a clearer violation of that oath than by declaring a body that is established and authorized by that Constitution to be “illegitimate”. I certainly think that there is more than enough in his statement to justify impeachments hearings to answer that question.
I Don Wannutono: I wish I had scrolled down and read ^ your comment above before I posted mine. Veddy Soddy.
But, not only do I obviously agree, but your comment this morning, reminding us all of the Oath taken by Jeffries, was well-intended and absorbed/appreciated accordingly.
You can’t impeach a member of Congress under the Constitution.
You could be less smart-alecky and simply say that congressional members are “expelled.” You knew what he meant. The end result is the same.
“You can’t impeach a member of Congress under the Constitution.”
I stand corrected. Thank you.
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two
thirds, expel a Member.”
Now, would you care to address the actual point I made about Jeffries’ statement violating his oath, and the proper remedy for that violation?
It’s clear that Jeffries has gone off the deep end in his quest for Power.. his speeches are more & more Over-the-Top Hate speeches and he cannot stop using the Race Card… what’s with that?! It’s 2026. not 1956… what’s with him, Jeffries, not seeing that he, Jeffries, wouldm’t even Be where he is in Congress, etc., if things about Race for minorities were as bad as he says! Indeed, it’s quite the opposite! Jeffries has shown now he is a DANGEROUS commodity.
I think that packing the court is a great idea!! So great, in fact, that we should not wait! The President should forthwith nominate maybe 200 new Supreme Courtt Justices rights now, and ram the thru confirmation before November!
“Contempt of Court: Hakeem Jeffries Denounces the Supreme Court as ‘Illegitimate'”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Looks like Hawkeeng A. Loogie is “illegitimate.”
_____________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 (four iterations or maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
You left out Congressional Acts that expanded who could qualify/apply for US Citizenship:
1866 emancipated black citizens
1870 immigrants from Africa
1924 Native Americans
1942 Chinese immigrants
1965 ended sending nation quotas, opened up the entire globe
Obviously, we’re not going back to white supremacy written into law. That said, we could adopt a meritocratic system of legal immigration like Australia & Canada. Isn’t merit and contribution more important to you than race?
I mean, for a commenter on a conservative site, you sound like an ancient relic.
So the Founders’ intent was a communist, third world, —-hole country. Got it.
Really: this is starting to get spooky. They aren’t even trying to hide their totalitarianism anymore, and they are very willfully inciting rage in their followers (and make no mistake: they are *followers*). We are not nearly out of the woods, and each new dem candidate that pops up is more unhinged than the last. They are about to elect an *actual Nazi* in Portland. This is sheer madness.
They’ve got their fingers on all that gold at the federal level and are being eaten up by greed. The gold is taxes of course. Their heads are self placed crowns of power and the power to abuse as rulers. They shall fail. Quite a monster…
An actual Nazi in Maine too. As Hitler once said, Good Communists make Good Nazis. The Democrats are Communists, and Communists use the same methods as Nazis.
Oops. Maine, not Portland. West Coast on the brain. 😂
The sad fact is that the Democrat leadership no longer believe in the system or Constitutional government of limited powers and checks and balances. They want a rubber stamp Supreme Court, a Senate where temporary majorities rule without restrictions, and a Congress where the mob in the street gets its way. That is exactly what the Founders sought to prevent. They were just as concerned about an all-powerful legislature as they were King.
“[Racial separation] [is necessary], and [though difficult] must be effected by colonization… The enterprise is a difficult one, but ‘where there is a will there is a way’; and what colonization needs most is a hearty will… Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time [not against] our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857
[You have] [Lincoln derangement] [syndrome]. [Get over it] [the Civil War was] [more than 150 years] [ago] [and the world has moved on] [You should move on too] [and join the rest of us in the 21st] [century].
-Someone smarter than you, May 1, 2026
The Bible is 3,400 years old. Should Americans “get over it” too, oh, Anti-American Grand Mufti? And, while we’re at it, should we also give the country back to the “Native Americans” who are actually Asiatic nomads?
So then you also haven’t gotten over the Norman conquest of Britain in 1066? That was less than 3,400 years ago. Basically you’re saying that if anything happened in the last 3,400 years that they dislike, they should never get over it, they should never move on? Beause . . . some of the books in the Old Testament are 3,400 years old?
Care to explain what varieyt of “logic” you’re using here?
No. I’m saying that you cannot cite a legal basis in the Constitution for the denial of secession or deny that states expressed their right to secede in their documents to ratify the Constitution. I’m saying that your Civil War and every subsequent act of Lincoln and his communist successors were and remain unconstitutional and must be nullified, abrogated, and rescinded and that the Naturalization Acts of the Founders must be retroactively enforced with extreme prejudice because it’s the law.
And I’m saying that men should act like angels and never commit a crime or any other sin again. Does me saying that serve any useful purpose when it’s clearly impossible?
That’s the level you’re at. You’re not living in the real world, talking about what can actulally be done. You’re living in your own fantasy world where you keep complaining about things that, even assuming for the sake of argument that you’re right, can never be fixed. You’re wasting your time, you’re wasting your life. You’re wasting everyone else’s time. THAT’S what I’m saying.
Roe v. Wade was corrected retroactively by 50 years.
American governance must be corrected retroactively by 150 years.
In the grand scheme of things, 150 years is nothing; certainly not prohibitive.
As Lincoln said, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way [to compassionately repatriate long-suffering abductees].
Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were corrected; Lincoln must be also.
It’s never too late.
I’d relish seeing you pitch your racial separation theory in front of Byron Donaldson, Clarence Thomas, and Steve Harvey. It would be hilarious to watch as you shrivel up in embarrassment.
Could you think more granularly about race?
…or maybe about merit instead?
Packing the court is clearly a horrendously bad idea. I wish there were more prominent voices pushing back. This nation seems to be sleep walking towards that abyss.
I do have questions regarding the number of justices. Are there any legal (not political) barriers to packing the courts – that is can the courts themselves be in position to resist? And if in 2028, in AG Holder’s words, the Democrats score a trifecta and use it to add 4 more justices of the intellectual caliber and temperament of Justice Jackson, is there a method for a later Congress to reduce the number of justices say by seniority?
What will probably happen is that the next time Reps get a trifecta they will then increase the number and in a couple of decades we will really be the Banana Republic Supreme Court with 72 members.
Vinrod, if the Dems get their way they will pass legislation (which their packed court will uphold) that will ensure the Reps never ever again win an election, so they won’t need to worry about the Reps packing it back.
Arnold Nordsieck, Agree! BUT.. THE PROBLEM IS EDUCATION! most people listen to or read regular ole MSM news and when I bring up any of this stuff to them, like Prof. Turley topics that we are aware of here, they look at me cluelessly…. the problem is finding a way to educate More People! Suggestions?
No, there are no legal barriers to packing the courts. Congress decides how big the court should be, and can change it at any time.
But no, once a justice has been appointed they serve “during good behavior”, so if they don’t misbehave Congress can’t get rid of them. If it wants to reduce the court’s size it must do so by attrition. It can say we’re reducing the court from nine to seven, so the next two justices to leave the court won’t be replaced.
“President Donald Trump’s children are negotiating a luxury hotel with Syrian billionaires who are simultaneously lobbying the president to lift economic sanctions on their country.”
Nothing to see here, move along.
You must’ve been really steamed about Hunter Biden getting millions for do-nothing jobs at energy companies looking for favors from his father, right? I mean you complained about that incessantly right? Oh, sorry, you didn’t, because Biden has a D after his name. Go ahead, deny it, but your conscience knows the truth.
Wrong I did complain about it. It was wrong, he should have been prosecuted.
Hey, shut the crap up.
Hunter Biden only made something approaching $20 million while his dad was President. A Piker.
Trumps kids are making billions of dollars. Biden was a hack, trumps kids are children of a stable genius. Get over it.
Correct.
Hunter Biden made millions selling VP Bidens services – i.e. the influence of the US government.
The Trumps are making money trading value for value – no involvement of the US government.
If you have evidence that there are a quid pro quo with any Trump family deal – present it.
BTW those deals will continue long after 2028.
Hunter Biden promised the power of the US government – and he delivered.
There was no exchange of value for value EXCEPT that involving the value of US government influence.
And that has something to do with SCOTUS how?
Change topics much?
That Roberts quote “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” is genius, communicated in about as simple a way as could be.
That Democrats immediately, and purposefully, misinterpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is just typical of the desperation that dominates them now.
If Dimestore Obama Jeffries dials it down even just a little bit, the AOC nutjobs will primary him.
And, like all Democrat politicians, all they care about is money and power.
Democrats are the biggest “threat to democracy” we face now, and the impotent little Gollum Carville illustrated that best with his silly rant.
The quality of the Democratic leadership in Congress is historically awful. They are the St Louis Browns of legislators. (You need to be old to understand this comparison )
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” and “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”
– Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer threatening physical violence against named Supreme Court Justices if they did not rule on cases the way he wanted them to
The Left ruins everything it touches. Liberalism is a mental disorder. The Left consists of mentally-deranged monsters.
These Democrats hate the Supreme Court because it is the main barrier standing between them and totalitarianism.
And being a hate filled bigot who not cares one lick about anyone else is somehow better?
That makes no sense, suggesting that the hate-filled bigots (i.e., the Left) is “somehow better” than the Left? Logic much?
It appears you are joining a select group of scroll byers on this site. If you presented information that was reasonable and understandable, no matter what side you might evade that distinction. Name calling is not a way to engage in intelligent conversations.
Ad hominem with completely unwarranted motivations ascribed, and thus dismissed with prejudice.
Points, anon
It appears that Hakeem Jeffries wishes to add new meanings, interpretations to, and understandings of our Constitution, SCOTUS, etc.
We should be thankful that he is not on the “Ways and Means” Committee…..–before that title and purpose takes on new, expanded interpretation/meaning as well….(smile)
Alito’s opinion gives new meanings to his “practical originalism.” Apparently, this really means, when the conservative outcome requires abandoning originalism, doing so is practical.”
For example: Carpenter v United States (2018): Alito dissented from the ruling that required a warrant for cell-site location information. He argued against re-interpreting the Fourth Amendment to accommodate the “rapidly changing circumstances” of modern digital technology, believing the majority was overstepping by expanding privacy rights beyond traditional interpretations.
Square that with this case.
square it with what case?
Square Jackson saying the state has no right to ban gender mutilation of children and then saying the state has the right to ban mental health professionals discussing de-transitioning?
So child mutilation can be protected from the evil state and discussing the idea of not being gay or trans can’t be allowed?
PS. The mutilation is permanent while the discussions are just that, discussions.
“Carpenter v United States (2018): Alito dissented from the ruling that required a warrant for cell-site location information. ”
I happen to somewhat disagree with Alito on how the 4th should apply to some modern communications innovations. However, there are arguments that have some validity on both sides of this issue. Alito’s position, iirc, is based on the fact that the user has voluntarily consigned location information to the provider, and that, once that happens, the provider, by virtue of the standard agreement with its users, is at liberty to share that with the government without causing the government to violate the user’s 4th A rights. To me, that all hinges on the term “voluntary” in this context. I question how making a service that has become a prerequisite to normal daily life contingent on an onerous and deliberately obtusely worded agreement can be said to be truly voluntary. But I am also not certain whether or not it is SCOTUS’ proper role to read nuances dealing with that kind of situation onto the Bill of Rights. Perhaps the issue should be dealt with by Congress at a different level. Until either SCOTUS or Congress resolves this dilemma, all of us who are privacy conscious should be keenly aware of our mobile devices, powering them up and down, and possibly keeping a Faraday bag handy and using it when required. Good security is not easy no matter how SCOTUS may rule on some issues.
I think you missed the point of the post above. Alito is inconsistent with how he factors changing times into his analysis. If you categorically remove modernity from your interpretation in Case X but fundamentally rely upon it to ignore precedent and history in Case Y, you have no process at all.
I didn’t miss it. I think that the difference could legitimately hinge on some details of the case and/or how it impacts the particular Amendment. But then I got passionate about some of the tech details because I used make my living doing InfoSec, so I understand how I may have misled you regarding my point. Sorry.
I agree wann. The problem is in having congress amend, alter, attempt anything at all. They aren’t playing with a full deck.
Seeing Professor Turley’s remarks about American law professors reminded me that much of the French Revolution and its horrors was caused by lawyers.
Shakespeare was right about lawyers.
As a retired lawyer I am forced to remind lawyer haters that people like Harmeet Dillon who are fighting for our rights are also lawyers.
She’s the best.
Hulbobby,
You could also have said this country was founded by many lawyers.
The obvious point is that some lawyers are almost uniquely equipped to benefit or destroy society.
The lawyers teaching in law schools mentioned by Turley seem to have joined the forces of dissolution and destruction and we ignore that at our peril.
Everyone is being formed into something all the time. So the issue is not whether lawyers are uniquely equipped. They are. The real question is what they are being equipped for in the first place.
The framers were not unicorns dropped into a passive crowd. They were chosen out of colonists who had already practiced self rule in town meetings and local assemblies. They were well equipped, but also well formed in a tradition that tied law to restraint, natural rights, and limits on power.
Today we are great at training operators and weak at forming citizens. We can turn out lawyers who know how to work the system, but not why the system exists or what should hold them back. That is how you end up with well equipped, poorly formed leaders who are still electable. The voters have not been formed to tell the difference.
That is the upstream problem. The framers could be chosen by a people already used to self government. We cannot keep skipping that step. The ceiling of our government is still set by the floor of our citizens’ capacity for self government.
Olly, If I remember correctly de Tocqueville remarked that it was not unusual to meet an American living in a rude log cabin who carried a worn copy of the Constitution in his pocket. Today it is not unusual to meet high school graduates who don’t know what Washington, DC is. I have met several. Our system of public education is a failure, and, you are right: the failures extend to legal education. I had lunch with two lawyers who thought their state didn’t have common law…it was a common law state.
PRIVATIZATION
Public school is not mandated; it is unconstitutional and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause—”nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Private educators must enjoy their “liberty” to operate free enterprise schools, and they must enjoy the equal protection of free enterprise schools and free education markets in the complete absence of governmental participation or interference.
I think that the public’s perception of lawyers likely is colored by the situation where a trial lawyer can be required to passionately espouse a point of view that substantially differs from his own standards and beliefs. To me that is uncomfortably close to being a professional hypocrite. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any way to avoid those conflicts; that is the way our legal system evolved.
As a retired lawyer, I see what you say but respectfully disagree. You say: “[A] trial lawyer can be required to passionately espouse a point of view that substantially differs from his own standards and beliefs.” With respect, no trial lawyer is ever “required” to do that. It is not only a free country it is a free profession where any lawyer can decline to represent any client and if he sees that an argument can be made which violates his standards and beliefs but could help his client he is free to withdraw from the representation. True, in some instances that withdrawal is required to be approved by the court, but I have never heard of a case where that withdrawal request has been denied. I am sure many lawyers actually do make such arguments contrary to their own standards and beliefs, and I respect them for it, but that is voluntary and not “required”.
” that is voluntary and not “required”
Stipulated, but to me that is a bit of a nitpick. Can you claim that a lawyer espousing an idea with which he personally differs in court is unusual? If not, would you agree with the premise that a lawyer who does that deserves to be despised for it? Granting your valid point, I still don’t see very much wiggle room there.
If law school deans and law school professors believe that the U.S. Constitution is obsolete and “a threat to the United States”, why have they not written and published a better replacement one? I suspect they haven’t, because they can’t.
Vincent,
I think it is their version would be a manifesto of a totalitarian state based off the words they are speaking now.
Because it’s not their job. We can always amend the constitution. We have not done that in a long time.
It’s also not their job to teach against the Constitution, the foundational law that exists in America. That’s like medical schools teaching that healing is bad and should be banned, or veterinary schools teaching that pet ownership should be banned.