site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   2619 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 8, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Inspired by a discussion of recent comments by Liz Cheney:

How effective would it be, as a measure to prevent Trump from "weaponizing" the Department of Justice, if the various bar associations began disbarring DOJ attorneys for following "unacceptable" directives from Trump and/or his appointed Attorney General?

Not very, since bar associations are professional groups without any power. Attorney qualifications are usually set by the state supreme courts, and the Federal government only requires that their lawyers are barred in one state or DC, so unless everyone is on board it will only lead to inconvenience.

I feel like that would immediately escalate.

The power of lawyers to practice law comes from the bar association, but the power of bar associations to license lawyers comes from the government1. I suspect Trump has a bigger stick if they want to pick a fight.

1 the provincial government in my case. I'm not sure what it is in the States.

I would add that the antiquated guild system of the bar associations has obvious structural weaknesses that make their hand weaker. IE their licensing processes are outdated, their accredited schools are overpriced daycares for at least years 2 and 3, technologies threaten to render them obsolete, and people largely hate their members while their members largely hate the bar associations.

the provincial government in my case. I'm not sure what it is in the States.

According to Wikipedia, it's mostly set by the states — some via acts of the state legislature, some per orders of the state supreme court, and California has written the State Bar of California into it's constitution. And according to here, "Federal courts, although often overlapping in admission standards with states, set their own requirements." Further:

In general, an attorney is admitted to the bar of these federal courts upon payment of a fee and taking an oath of admission. An attorney must apply to each district separately. For instance, a Texas attorney who practices in federal courts throughout the state would have to be admitted separately to the Northern District of Texas, the Eastern District, the Southern District, and the Western District. To handle a federal appeal, the attorney would also be required to be admitted separately to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for general appeals and to the Federal Circuit for appeals that fall within that court's jurisdiction. As the bankruptcy courts are divisions of the district courts, admission to a particular district court usually includes automatic admission to the corresponding bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy courts require that attorneys attend training sessions on electronic filing before they may file motions.

Some federal district courts have extra admission requirements. For instance, the Southern District of Texas requires attorneys seeking admission to attend a class on that District's practice and procedures. The District of Puerto Rico has administered its own bar exam since 2004, part of which is an essay which tests for English proficiency. For some time, the Southern District of Florida administered an entrance exam, but that requirement was eliminated by Court order in February 2012.[47] The District of Rhode Island requires candidates to attend classes and to pass an examination.

An attorney wishing to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States must apply to do so, must be admitted to the bar of the highest court of a state for three years, must be sponsored by two attorneys already admitted to the Supreme Court bar, must pay a fee and must take either a spoken or written oath.

So not a lot of room for the executive branch to act here — it comes down to the individual states and federal court districts. So, no, I don't think Trump has the "bigger stick" here.

Bar associations are run by the sorts of risk-averse PMC types that are more afraid of Texas and Florida than Texas and Florida are of them.

that are more afraid of Texas and Florida

Except Texas and Florida only have control over the Texas and Florida bar associations. The bar associations in other states — like California, or Oregon — need not fear them.

These people are as neurotic as you are, just from the other direction.

What would count as “weaponizing the DOJ” that the Democrats haven’t already normalized? What “unacceptable directives” wouldn’t be illegal, yet would be beyond the pale?

New York Times columnist David Brooks said the quiet part out loud recently while on left-of-center “PBS Newshour”: “if you look at democracies in decline, then it is a pattern that people in office use their power to indict and criminalize and throw in jail the people who were in office before them of the opposing party. And so we are a nation, democracy in decline.” - The Hill

What “unacceptable directives” wouldn’t be illegal, yet would be beyond the pale?

Well, to quote Cheney herself:

Donald Trump knows his claims about the select committee are ridiculous and false, as has been detailed extensively, including by Chairman Thompson. There is no conceivably appropriate factual or constitutional basis for what Donald Trump is suggesting — a Justice Department investigation of the work of a congressional committee — and any lawyer who attempts to pursue that course would quickly find themselves engaged in sanctionable conduct.

(Emphasis added)

What would count as “weaponizing the DOJ” that the Democrats haven’t already normalized?

Well, remember, just because the Democrats have done it, doesn't mean it's been "normalized" when Republicans do it. "Кто, кого?" and all that.

Cheney is obviously lying, and the reason for her lying is also obvious - she is one of the persons who actively engaged in such conduct. Her bloviations however do not carry much weight. Would Democrats want to prosecute their political enemies? Of course they would, they are already doing it. Would they have any success to make bar associations sacrifice their reputations and position as an institution of the society on the altar of short-term political gain? I somehow doubt so, though they managed to make many people and categories of people do just that, so it's not impossible.

Would they have any success to make bar associations sacrifice their reputations and position as an institution of the society on the altar of short-term political gain?

I know I've seen various things in passing the last couple of years about bar associations and law schools pushing various DEI initiatives.

Around 2020-2021, it looked like DEI is the way to win (or, at least, not get a mob setting your building on fire). So, a lot of people were scared into going with the flow. As the flow turns now, we may discover much less people are willing to stick their necks out to fight for DEI when it may mean not only being praised and promoted.

As the flow turns now

Except from what I can see, it isn't turning. The idea that "the woke is being put away" or that we're seeing "peak woke" is utter nonsense, pure wishful thinking. DEI is going to keep on being "the way to win" for the entire 21st century at least.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats