319
Team Trump Is Ready to Lose the Supreme Court Immunity Case. They're Celebrating
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
319 points (100.0% liked)
News
36744 readers
2619 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And lawyers wonder why so many people hate them.
What a fucking disaster. :(
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.
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.
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.
No just the bad ones.