It occurs to me that the new lawyers could assert something which is so contradictory to what the previous team said that it actually implies that the first team engaged in ethical misconduct.
This is especially likely since I doubt the new team will even read, or carefully read, the earlier briefs.
I don’t think a judge can let a case proceed without finding out who is lawyering, and who is liar-ing. Is this a plausible scenario?
2 Likes
In court, yes. At this point I think they know that.
I think now they are just keeping it in the headlines in a effort to reduce response rates. I expect come time for the census, there will be mailers in high immigrant communities with all sorts of scary statements to further reduce response rates.
14 Likes
Maybe I am just stupid but I don’t even begin to understand how you can go to any court now and say that you had a different rationale at the time but you failed to mention it in any argument made before any court.
15 Likes
The career lawyers are all looking for work in the private sector. Another example of the long term damage the Trump maladministration is doing to the government — Trump and Barr have made working for the DOJ a blot on a lawyer’s CV. Not only are dedicated career people leaving, but good young lawyers don’t want to join the DOJ.
The same is happening in all the agencies. Good career people are being driven out and qualified new people who have other options don’t want to become part of the Trump shit show. They either don’t fill the jobs or they fill them with the dregs who can’t get jobs elsewhere.
For an example of how badly that can turn out, see what happened in Venezuela when the Chavistas took over the previously respected national oil company, blackballed the career people, and replaced them with incompetent loyalists.
12 Likes
More than plausible. The only way forward for them is to back up the bus over the prior legal team and assert that previous representations to the Court were not made with the client’s full approval or consent. But, given that the Asshat-in-Chief has twittered himself into a corner, even that play is certain to be rejected by the Judge. As a lawyer, watching this play out is going to be fascinating.
12 Likes
Corrupt Transferable skills:
Individual1
= Predatory Dick to Petulant Dick-tator
= Tax-fraudster to Fact-Fraudster
William Barr
= Attorney General of USA to Cover-Up General of Individual1
Wilbur Ross
= Money laundering to Truth Laundering
Dear SC Justices
If you do not stand up to people with corrupt transferable skills, pretty soon you will be obsolete because you are are giving them more power as they grab more and more power instead of acting as checks and balance to a very corrupted executive branch.
Moreover, if you pander to the corrupt, cruel, and callous Individual1/R administration, you are Derelict of Duty and are doing the INJUSTICE yourselves, which you are tasked to do the opposite - correct injustices!
2 Likes
Damn it. Now you have that song stuck in my head.
This is nauseating - and deeply disturbing.
If there are any "constitutional law / Supreme Court " scholars out there - please add clarity.
The massive concern is that the SC is really a forum for judgment of “constitutionality” - it is more “legal process” focused and - in theory - seek to stay away from rejudging the individual case’s specific interpretitation of specific pieces of evidence. They dont “retry the case” they sort of do “quality control” on the process. So it has seemed odd that Roberts went down the line of questioning underlying motivation and “reason” … it smells like a highly contrived way to give a mulligan.
1 Like
The head of the DoJ’s Civil Rights division is Eric Dreiband, masters of theology from Harvard and his JD from Northwestern. Came from Jones Day after serving in the Bush II administration.
So his notable cases are for he has sued Abercrombie and Fitch, for and against. I wonder how he’ll work in his “sincerely held religious beliefs” concerning the US census and the citizenship.
4 Likes
The problem they are going to have is that the “new” rationale has to appear in the existing administrative record and if it was there I am 100% confident that Roberts would have clearly hinted at what that was in the opinion. He didn’t. What I fear most is that the Court will ignore the requirements for agency rule making and just let the new rationale stand regardless of whether the proper procedures were followed. The precedent that sets for executive branch power will be devastating to good government and separation of powers,
6 Likes
Same client, on whose behalf DOJ lawyers lied, including to the Supreme Court. New lawyers don’t get to start with new facts.
Discovery in the District case will make that clear.
Same guys that say Dems don’t get a Mulligan of Meuller’s investigation now want a Mulligan to the Supreme Ct. Can’t make this stuff up.
12 Likes
I bet he never expected anywhere near the amount of pushback he’s mostly gotten from the courts on this and other matters, given what an imbecile he is when it comes to understanding how government actually works and the fact that he’s been able to worm his way out of legal troubles his whole life. I hope it’s giving him hives and anal warts and all that.
Btw, is there any aspect of the census and what it’s used for that would or could in any way legitimately need or benefit from a citizenship question, even if only in theory? The courts certainly don’t seem to think so. If such a purpose exists, Trump’s lawyers have clearly failed to find one and convince the courts of its need. I can see why they’re changing lawyers then, but it’s probably too late at this point.
2 Likes
Of course a tRump appointee
3 Likes
Totally misread the headline that
Trump Gets New Team Of Liars
7 Likes
I don’t think a lawyer CAN argue something for over a year and then just say, OH, ‘this’ is the reason we want to do it. Because THAT reason does not pass muster either.
The lawyers lost all credibility, I do not see how the case has any credibility.
7 Likes
You don’t actually expect consistency and integrity from these folks, do you? But it’s not up to you or me to see through this, but rather the courts. And so far, they’ve been pretty good about it, for the most part. Now if only the public saw through the dishonesty and bullshit too, and cared enough to vote him out of office and support impeachment. Alas, it’s not there yet and may never be, on impeachment at least.
3 Likes
IANAL but don’t you have to file a whole new brief at this point in the legal process and don’t get to modify or add to your original brief AFTER a ruling has been passed down and all appeals have failed? If so, there’s simply not enough time even assuming they can come up with a compelling enough reason this time, which I doubt they can or will.
2 Likes
Sorry but wouldn’t claim or issue preclusion prevent a court from entertaining this suit? After all, he did get his bite at the apple; it’s just his fault that he let out the real reason the first time.
2 Likes
Various observers are theorizing the mere confusion, angst and publicity surrounding this census question drama will accomplish what Trump and the GOP want, the non-participation in the census of large numbers of non-citizens.
Frankly I will not be surprised if Trump comes out and baldly states the census will be used to track down, arrest and deport migrants here illegally. That would be contrary to the law, but since when has that dissuaded Trump from announcing some goal he is pursuing?
17 Likes