pull down to refresh

Legal Nonsense to Justify Non-Judicial Killingsmises.org/power-market/legal-nonsense-justify-non-judicial-killings
257 sats \ 6 comments \ @Undisciplined 26 Nov 2025 Politics_And_Law

By Jacob G. Hornberger

Reasoning often starts with a conclusion and then finds arguments to justify it.
write
preview
related posts
90 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 26 Nov 2025
The second type of lawyer would instead come up with whatever legal reasoning was necessary to please the client, stretching case law and legal analysis in such as way as to justify what the client wanted to do. This type of lawyer had no integrity. His task, as he saw it, was to provide legal cover for his client in case things went the wrong way.

I have seen plenty of this.

reply
36 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Nov 2025

Stereotypes would suggest that's the more common type.

I'm actually pretty curious about how attorneys should balance this. The idea that everyone deserves the strongest possible defense (which I mostly agree with) suggests that being the second type of attorney doesn't require a lack of integrity.

reply
69 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 26 Nov 2025

That's right. The real slimebags, though, will convince a client of a ridiculous legal theory just to earn a fee.

reply
36 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Nov 2025

I can see that

reply
69 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 26 Nov 2025

Presumably our adversarial legal, political, and economic systems are designed to function well even when people are acting like total dickheads. I think there's some truth to it, actually

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 26 Nov 2025

Honestly what a joke of a White House, if this is the best defense they could come up with

reply