Donald Trump‘s inner circle doesn’t expect the Supreme Court to go along with his extreme arguments about executive power in the immunity case before the justices. But what the high court does now is almost beside the point: Trump already won.
Three people with direct knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone that many of the former president’s lawyers and political advisers have already accepted that the justices will likely rule against him, and reject his claims to expansive presidential immunity in perpetuity. Bringing the case before the court — after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., shut down their arguments on executive power — was a delaying tactic designed to push Trump’s criminal election subversion trial past Election Day this fall. The strategy paid off so much more than MAGAworld anticipated.
“We already pulled off the heist,” says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn’t matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now.
We know why we’re hated; it’s why those of us who strive to exemplify professionalism, ethics, and civility are so angry and depressed. It’s why I’ve been having a career crisis because I always wanted to go into law, but only to do good, and now it feels like there is so little legitimacy to the judicial branch.
Fuck the people who abuse the rule of law until there is none, fuck Trump and his cronies, and fuck SCOTUS for fucking us. Now excuse me, I have to go cry in a corner.
You can always bail. I did. That JD is wildly useful in other industries. Over a third of the people I’m still in contact with from my graduating class aren’t actively practicing anymore.
And that’s the end game for the shit bags that abuse the system. They don’t want a legitimate judicial system. It’s now about how can they gain the most money and power.
Lawyers need a Hippocratic Oath to do no harm (and hold errant lawyers accountable for malpractice) before the public will trust a lawyer.
We (lawyers) are actually already ethically obligated to serve up bad lawyers for discipline. It’s Rule 8.3, colloquially known as the duty to rat out your colleagues.
How would that even work? Do murderers not get an attorney any longer? Who’s harm should we consider? I have to represent my clients’ interests, period.
The issue with the law is the delay. If I take a civil case to trial it has usually taken 3-5 years. And five years isn’t nearly the longest case I’ve had. Spend more money, have more judges, fewer delays, but that costs money and we’ve been cutting taxes for 40+ years now.
Don’t know if you know this but Hippocratic oath is a) voluntary and b) not enforceable for people who work in medicine. Also the Hippocratic oath came from medics treating enemy soldiers on battlefields. The idea being that a medical professional wouldn’t refuse to treat someone because the patient they’re treating clashes with their personal beliefs. Modern example being a Christian nurse or Dr refusing to treat a gay patient.
Well you literally can’t enforce it. Take surgery, for example. In surgery, you must first do some harm so that you can do significantly more good.
I appreciate you. I had a good lawyer take up my wrongful termination case, back when i was idealistic.
He knew i was right, but on paper they skirted the law. He put in the work to get me unemployment & keep me housed, and he never even billed me.
Thank you for trying. I know its hard.
I knew a guy who wanted to be a lawyer for the same reasons. Got his degree and passed the bar, then quit and went back to school for biomed. He said he loved law itself, but realized he hated pretty much every coworker and every client, and he knew if he stayed in it he’d become a person he hated as well.
Mo’ like SCROTUS.
You could be a public defender, or do pro bono work. I’m sure that’d feel nice
I’m fortunate enough to be practicing in a field that does help people (though not nearly as much as I’d like…someone give me Elon’s money and then I’ll be able to make a real difference). The problem is that lawyers/judges like the ones who are handling cases like Trump’s are destroying the rule of law, the efficacy of the courts, and doing whatever they can to dismantle the very system we use to determine whether we have rights or not (dismantle it and the answer is a very clear “not”). The US legal system is already a clusterfuck with not enough budget and inequitable treatment depending on who you are; if things like precedent no longer mean anything, as SCOTUS has recently started making clear, then the legal system becomes completely unnavigable.
I like you. I prefer my lawyers to be a shield rather than a sword.