It's a horrible comment on the US as a whole that not only does the coyote watch the hen house, but he gets to approve other hen house guards. The BAR association should be investigated for their USAID connection and maybe suffer some consequence.
Yes, it is a ridiculous situation and one that is not sustainable, especially when activist judges are essentially trying to prevent an elected executive branch from doing what it was elected to do. Really if bar associations were not themselves corrupt most of those involved in lawfare would be disbarred. There has been massive prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.
I don't know how a society overcomes across-the-board institutional rot, public and private. How do you root out corruption when that's all that remains?
This piece was sent to me by a friend for my review. I'm a die-hard conservative (I voted for Trump three times) and am also a former practitioner before the Supreme Court. My assessment is that this piece is BS.
The ABA is certainly tilted left. In fact, to counter their leftward tilt is the main reason the Federalist Society came into existence.
That said, this piece is mistaken or misleading on a number of points.
It's true that the ABA promulgates model rules for ethics, just as they promulgate model rules for the Uniform Commercial Code and other areas of law. Modification or adoption of those rules is at the discretion of state bar associations, which the ABA does not have any control over.
But those model rules of ethics are not controversial and the ABA has no role in enforcing them. Enforcement is left to committees of lawyers established by the State bar associations of each state. Like the rules themselves, the enforcement is generally non-controversial and apolitical.
The lifetime tenure of federal judges is established by the Constitution.
I'm not so sure the legal profession "has long been associated with a lack of ethics." People often confuse the zealous advocacy that is provided and indeed compelled by an adversarial judicial system with a lack of ethics.
Stated another way, lawyers sometimes represent defendants that are guilty. That doesn't mean they have a lack of ethics.
I'm not aware of the ABA or any individual judges receiving USAID funding, and the writer offers no evidence of that contention.
As for the allegation that there are historical ties between federal judges ruling on USAID funding and the USAID itself, I would have to look at the facts of each allegation, very few of which facts are offered in this piece. Given the lack of credibility I see in this writer, I'm not inclined to take the time to do so.
To be clear, I really detest the leftward tilt of the ABA (much like the leftward tilt of the AMA) and I quit the organization years before I retired. But this piece is B*******
It’s a somewhat confused position to say that the ABA is leftwing, that you detest its leftism….and that it’s bullshit for me to call it out. I defer entirely to your expertise in terms of who enforces what, but not on the ethical nature of your profession as a whole. Frankly, that you are surprised I should question the ethics of lawyers is rather amusing, and if you think this comes solely from me rather than a widespread cynicism in culture (thanks to the behaviour of many lawyers) you are sadly mistaken.
As for there being no evidence that judges have received payment, I include their immediate family members in this, as I believe is made clear in the piece. Again, if you think it’s ethical for a judge to rule on a case that affects payments to an organisation that pays his wife or someone in his immediate family, you have a different (and more lawyerly) understanding of ethics than me.
This kind of reply, a sort of knee jerk defence of institutions that are behaving corruptly because you think institutions should be respected, is the kind of Mike Pence conservatism that is utterly useless in the face of vast leftist fraud and abuse. Thankfully more muscular populism is taking your place.
First, this isn't about me. Your personal attacks are inappropriate. My Comment is not "knee-jerk" as you characterize it, but instead points out specific flaws in your reasoning and omissions in your knowledge.
Second, I appreciate your apparent acknowledgement that your know nothing about the lawyers' rules of ethics. You don't know who promulgates them, you don't know what they contain, and you don't know who enforces them, or how.
Given that, you should probably delete that portion of your piece.
As for you contention that judges ruling on USAID funding have received payments from USAID, you've apparently now admitted that your contention is false. Your fallback is now that such payments have been taken not by the judges but by their family members.
But once again, you've offered no evidence. Your accusation is a serious one. If it's false, it raises serious issues about defamation.
I share your position that USAID needs a huge cleanup, and appears to be a corrupt organization. But in your attack on lawyers and particular judges, and your misplaced reliance on the rules of ethics that you know nothing about, you're in way over your head, my friend.
I won't continue this discussion further. It's not worth my time. Bye.
Great reply (maximum sarcasm alert). For the benefit of others this is what this gentleman has just done.
Post a series of strawman points and assumptions mainly aimed at saying ‘you know nothing’ without offering any real evidence of that. My polite acknowledgement that I am not a lawyer is taken, absurdly, as an admission that everything in my argument is wrong.
All of the very obvious indicators of conflict of interest I put forward are of course ignored, or dismissed as not true-again, without supplying any proofs to the contrary. The links I mention are in the public domain. Apparently we must assume that all of them are entirely innocent.
Add a dash of patronising condescension, and that’s all that is there. Apart from a sly and cowardly implication of a threat (issues about defamation).
Finally, end it with a statement that you won’t look at any reply. The ‘drive by shooting’ version of debate.
I don’t know what mutual friend I share with this guy, but this guy is an arsehole.
I wonder if you classify judges in a totally different legal category from US AGs? It is widely known that Letitia James' publicly admitted goal in seeking to become New York's AG was "to get Trump". A number of her legal confrères are known to have shared her goals. According to Texas AG, Ken Paxton, in his state AGs were hand in glove with certain judges to manipulate the law to obtain a desired political goal, allegedly mainly funded by Soros. Awareness of such corruption leads to the public's loss of trust in the entire justice system. Do you not agree there should be a very robust method to uproot this corruption? What should it be?
It's a horrible comment on the US as a whole that not only does the coyote watch the hen house, but he gets to approve other hen house guards. The BAR association should be investigated for their USAID connection and maybe suffer some consequence.
Yes, it is a ridiculous situation and one that is not sustainable, especially when activist judges are essentially trying to prevent an elected executive branch from doing what it was elected to do. Really if bar associations were not themselves corrupt most of those involved in lawfare would be disbarred. There has been massive prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.
Self policing never works.
I don't know how a society overcomes across-the-board institutional rot, public and private. How do you root out corruption when that's all that remains?
It’s extremely difficult. The incredible thing about Trump and Musk is that they are trying. The attempt hasn’t even been made before.
Agreed!
Yes I think you are correct.
The problem will “professional” bodies, is one assumes they have integrity, an old fashioned concept.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
👍Love the headline-it has been CAPEed w/o shame or remorse.😇
It's mind boggling.
They disbarred Rudy Giuliani ...
Oh the contradictions. “American” BAR Association.
https://educate-yourself.org/cn/attorneysarenotlawyers13mar05.shtml
This piece was sent to me by a friend for my review. I'm a die-hard conservative (I voted for Trump three times) and am also a former practitioner before the Supreme Court. My assessment is that this piece is BS.
The ABA is certainly tilted left. In fact, to counter their leftward tilt is the main reason the Federalist Society came into existence.
That said, this piece is mistaken or misleading on a number of points.
It's true that the ABA promulgates model rules for ethics, just as they promulgate model rules for the Uniform Commercial Code and other areas of law. Modification or adoption of those rules is at the discretion of state bar associations, which the ABA does not have any control over.
But those model rules of ethics are not controversial and the ABA has no role in enforcing them. Enforcement is left to committees of lawyers established by the State bar associations of each state. Like the rules themselves, the enforcement is generally non-controversial and apolitical.
The lifetime tenure of federal judges is established by the Constitution.
I'm not so sure the legal profession "has long been associated with a lack of ethics." People often confuse the zealous advocacy that is provided and indeed compelled by an adversarial judicial system with a lack of ethics.
Stated another way, lawyers sometimes represent defendants that are guilty. That doesn't mean they have a lack of ethics.
I'm not aware of the ABA or any individual judges receiving USAID funding, and the writer offers no evidence of that contention.
As for the allegation that there are historical ties between federal judges ruling on USAID funding and the USAID itself, I would have to look at the facts of each allegation, very few of which facts are offered in this piece. Given the lack of credibility I see in this writer, I'm not inclined to take the time to do so.
To be clear, I really detest the leftward tilt of the ABA (much like the leftward tilt of the AMA) and I quit the organization years before I retired. But this piece is B*******
It’s a somewhat confused position to say that the ABA is leftwing, that you detest its leftism….and that it’s bullshit for me to call it out. I defer entirely to your expertise in terms of who enforces what, but not on the ethical nature of your profession as a whole. Frankly, that you are surprised I should question the ethics of lawyers is rather amusing, and if you think this comes solely from me rather than a widespread cynicism in culture (thanks to the behaviour of many lawyers) you are sadly mistaken.
As for there being no evidence that judges have received payment, I include their immediate family members in this, as I believe is made clear in the piece. Again, if you think it’s ethical for a judge to rule on a case that affects payments to an organisation that pays his wife or someone in his immediate family, you have a different (and more lawyerly) understanding of ethics than me.
This kind of reply, a sort of knee jerk defence of institutions that are behaving corruptly because you think institutions should be respected, is the kind of Mike Pence conservatism that is utterly useless in the face of vast leftist fraud and abuse. Thankfully more muscular populism is taking your place.
First, this isn't about me. Your personal attacks are inappropriate. My Comment is not "knee-jerk" as you characterize it, but instead points out specific flaws in your reasoning and omissions in your knowledge.
Second, I appreciate your apparent acknowledgement that your know nothing about the lawyers' rules of ethics. You don't know who promulgates them, you don't know what they contain, and you don't know who enforces them, or how.
Given that, you should probably delete that portion of your piece.
As for you contention that judges ruling on USAID funding have received payments from USAID, you've apparently now admitted that your contention is false. Your fallback is now that such payments have been taken not by the judges but by their family members.
But once again, you've offered no evidence. Your accusation is a serious one. If it's false, it raises serious issues about defamation.
I share your position that USAID needs a huge cleanup, and appears to be a corrupt organization. But in your attack on lawyers and particular judges, and your misplaced reliance on the rules of ethics that you know nothing about, you're in way over your head, my friend.
I won't continue this discussion further. It's not worth my time. Bye.
Great reply (maximum sarcasm alert). For the benefit of others this is what this gentleman has just done.
Post a series of strawman points and assumptions mainly aimed at saying ‘you know nothing’ without offering any real evidence of that. My polite acknowledgement that I am not a lawyer is taken, absurdly, as an admission that everything in my argument is wrong.
All of the very obvious indicators of conflict of interest I put forward are of course ignored, or dismissed as not true-again, without supplying any proofs to the contrary. The links I mention are in the public domain. Apparently we must assume that all of them are entirely innocent.
Add a dash of patronising condescension, and that’s all that is there. Apart from a sly and cowardly implication of a threat (issues about defamation).
Finally, end it with a statement that you won’t look at any reply. The ‘drive by shooting’ version of debate.
I don’t know what mutual friend I share with this guy, but this guy is an arsehole.
no point fighting what you cant win?
Mr Beaton,
I wonder if you classify judges in a totally different legal category from US AGs? It is widely known that Letitia James' publicly admitted goal in seeking to become New York's AG was "to get Trump". A number of her legal confrères are known to have shared her goals. According to Texas AG, Ken Paxton, in his state AGs were hand in glove with certain judges to manipulate the law to obtain a desired political goal, allegedly mainly funded by Soros. Awareness of such corruption leads to the public's loss of trust in the entire justice system. Do you not agree there should be a very robust method to uproot this corruption? What should it be?
Lamposts, public hanging. Righteous citizens…