Legal Nonsense to Justify Non-Judicial Killings \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

Legal Nonsense to Justify Non-Judicial Killings mises.org/power-market/legal-nonsense-justify-non-judicial-killings

257 sats \ 6 comments \ @Undisciplined 26 Nov Politics_And_Law

By Jacob G. Hornberger

Reasoning often starts with a conclusion and then finds arguments to justify it.

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.

36 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Nov

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.

69 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 26 Nov

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

36 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Nov

I can see that

69 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 26 Nov

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

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 26 Nov

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