[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: It's the lawyers' world (click to view)
Date: August 5, 2010
Over the last two weeks, two of the most contentious pieces of legislation in America have been derailed by the courts. First was the infamous Arizona "show your papers" law, which a federal justice suspended on July 28 for contradicting national immigration statutes, mere days before it was scheduled to take effect. And then yesterday a judge in California ruled that state's constitutional ban on gay marriage invalid on the basis that it arbitrarily denied same-sex couples legal rights.

Both matters will now very likely wind up on the desk of the Supreme Court, that mighty institution that seems to be doling out the last word on an awful lot of issues these days.

I know it's common to bemoan the activist judiciary and blah blah blah, but I don't hear many people making the equally valid observation that, hey, our governments sure are run by an awful lot of incompetent lawyers. I mean, legislatures spend enormous amounts of money on "legal counsellors" who are paid to review, and indeed, write most legislation so that it will be legally sound. And even then, most politicians themselves are lawyers too, so one assumes they should have some basic grasp of what is and is not constitutional.

But evidently not! Evidently we are just wasting tons of cash on legal advising for laws that no one really knows or cares will survive court challenges. And then more money when government lawyers argue the cases before government-appointed judges.

If one was conspiratorially-minded, it would not be much of a stretch to say the entire practice of modern democratic government is essentially one giant make-work scam for lawyers. No matter what happens, no matter what issue is at stake, they always wind up the winners.

Comment on Facebook.

[Psudo]

What's black and brown and looks good on an attorney?
A doberman.

[Pseudonym]

What do you call a lawyer gone bad?

Your Honor.

What do you call a judge gone bad?

Senator.

[Voyager]

Yep. That's about the size of it.

[Calbeck]

Atchooly, the main part of the AZLaw was supposedly infringing on the rights of legal aliens because it would purportedly cause some to be detained while their identification was checked.

Problem: legal aliens are required by federal law, on risk of deportation, to have their immigration papers on their persons at all times.

Thus, no risk of detention for those obeying the existing law, as they can immediately identify themselves, and for those who have forgotten their papers, they'd be in the same boat anyways regarding any potential ID checks.

Hence the "activist judge" cries.

Not so much the issue with the California judge, who actually cited equal-treatment concerns as a basis for Proposition 8 being unconstitutional. Problem with that: Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment, IIRC. We'll have to see how the technical jargon works out there, because I don't think the Cali judge was actually saying the amendment was against the federal Constitution, which at least theoretically would trump the Cali constitution.

[Pseudonym]

The judge in the Prop 8 case was, in fact, stating that it was againt the US constitution. Amendment XIV, to be precise, although I am not sure I follow his logic on that one. It would be ridiculous if he were trying to say that an amendment to the California constitution was disallowed by the California constitution.

[bootlegga]

It's been a lawyer's world for hundreds of years...

[raydan]

A guy goes to a bar and a while later, he's talking to a lady.
At one point, she whispers in his ear, "I screw anybody".

The guy leans back and says, "Hey, I'm a lawyer too, where do you practice?".

[Zipperfish]

ACtually, that's one of the things I actually liked about the Reform Conservatvies, in relation to the Liberals--way less lawyers, from my perception anyway (I never actually did the math to see if my perception was correct). I have nothing against lawyers; I just think that Canadians would be better served by politicians with a wide diversity of backgrounds. Lawyers, however, are trained in rhetoric and the adversarial system, so they've got a leg-up to start with.

One thing that does bother me about the whole profession is that is fundamentally parasitic in nature. It doesn't produce anything, but exists as a transactional cost to those who produce. A civil means of ruling on disputes is, of course, necessary, but I fear that since lawyers have more than their fair of control of the political and legislative areans, they can game the system in favour of their profession. By such means, mediators were run out of the divorce business, as lawyers claimed that the mediators were practicing law.

[Calbeck]

Pseudonym wrote:

The judge in the Prop 8 case was, in fact, stating that it was againt the US constitution. Amendment XIV, to be precise, although I am not sure I follow his logic on that one. It would be ridiculous if he were trying to say that an amendment to the California constitution was disallowed by the California constitution.

Thanks for the clarification! All I seem to pull up in my searches on the subject are the same summaries which don't quite clear that up.

Zipperfish wrote:

One thing that does bother me about the whole profession is that is fundamentally parasitic in nature. It doesn't produce anything, but exists as a transactional cost to those who produce.

Believe it or not, I feel much the same way about our standing military. It is a necessity to have one, of course, but the huge size of it was only justified by the Second World War and subsequent Cold War. Even after WWI, we demobilized and went back to our "cadre-plus-militia" system (though we also updated the "organized militia" and integrated those units into the modern National Guard roughly around WWI).

Our military is an immense expense which we primarily decided to retain after the Soviet collapse out of some sort of national pride --- and, perhaps, its 1991 performance versus Iraq. We had already become the World's Policeman from 1945-1990, so demobilizing would mean we could not fulfill that role...and this, we believed, would destabilize the planet with bad results for our foreign trade.

Or at least, that's how we mostly rationalized it.

Now, we are finally past the point where we must choose Guns or Butter. It is currently a fact that if all other US federal spending was eliminated, aside from the "Three Third Rails" of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we just MIGHT balance the budget. In the face of massed social opposition to slashing these (without equal or better replacement, as per the recent "ObamaCare" slashing of Medicare), the military will almost certainly be one of the first on the chopping block once the Iraq and Afghan crises are over.

[Marcus_Ozius]

Doesn't Adam Smith say somewhere that the purpose of any organization is to perpetuate itself?
I actually work at two law offices. It's amazing what goes on.
Really, though, I think that the increase in litigation is the breakdown of societal pressures. In the old days, peer pressure, the need to conform, social expectation, and a general sense of mores and tradition kept people in line. Well, we got rid of those, and low and behold people started getting crazy. Well, we'll bring in lawyers to fix the problem! The difficulty is that society is capable of molding itself gradually to any change necessitated upon it. The legal system? Oh, that's a touchy subject. You'd be amazed just how much money is tied up in having people VERY specialized in minute legal technicalities.
I knew a man who made millions as an expect witness regarding seat belts. Seat belts. If the libertarians had their way and we didn't need them, he'd be out of a job and his congressman would be out of a great deal of support.
In workers compensation cases I see two men arguing non stop about the very nature of the universe, it seems, but as soon as the judge is gone they're swapping war stories. The sense that lawyers don't need to focus on rights, wrongs, justices, and injustices, but rather that they must focus on their CASE as an amoral exercise in legal rhetoric ensures an atmosphere that doesn't want to rock the boat. They're all in it together and they've got quite a racket.

[CKASlacker]

Lawyers exist to keep themselves in power -- I think that's the underlying point I take away from JJ's comic. Dickens put it nicely in "Bleak House" where careers of various lawyers were made in a case that, in the end, terminated because the funds available in the estate were swallowed in legal fees.

Or perhaps Bill put it better:

The first thing we do,
Let's kill all the lawyers

Henry VI, Part II

[Zipperfish]

Calbeck wrote:

Believe it or not, I feel much the same way about our standing military. It is a necessity to have one, of course, but the huge size of it was only justified by the Second World War and subsequent Cold War. Even after WWI, we demobilized and went back to our "cadre-plus-militia" system (though we also updated the "organized militia" and integrated those units into the modern National Guard roughly around WWI).

Our military is an immense expense which we primarily decided to retain after the Soviet collapse out of some sort of national pride --- and, perhaps, its 1991 performance versus Iraq. We had already become the World's Policeman from 1945-1990, so demobilizing would mean we could not fulfill that role...and this, we believed, would destabilize the planet with bad results for our foreign trade.

Or at least, that's how we mostly rationalized it.

Now, we are finally past the point where we must choose Guns or Butter. It is currently a fact that if all other US federal spending was eliminated, aside from the "Three Third Rails" of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we just MIGHT balance the budget. In the face of massed social opposition to slashing these (without equal or better replacement, as per the recent "ObamaCare" slashing of Medicare), the military will almost certainly be one of the first on the chopping block once the Iraq and Afghan crises are over.

I grew up under the threat of constant nuclear annihilation, so the whole Al Qaeda thing--I can't see why people get so worked up. I mean, they're a threat, but not an existential one. They got in a sucker punch that will never be repeated, and even that, horrific as it was, was completely irrelevant from a military perspective.

But it's hard to predict the future. China is coming on line fast, in all aspects including military, and I can't help but think (much as I wish I could believe otherwise) that the Cold War will be back with China as the new nemesis. I wonder if that will be used as an excuse to fund continued military supremacy? Will we see the "proxy wars" of the last Cold War?

It's interesting to guess what's going to happen.

[xerxes]

Pseudonym wrote:

The judge in the Prop 8 case was, in fact, stating that it was againt the US constitution. Amendment XIV, to be precise, although I am not sure I follow his logic on that one. It would be ridiculous if he were trying to say that an amendment to the California constitution was disallowed by the California constitution.

The logic is that the amendment says that everyone in the US should be given equal protection under the law and that Prop 8, through the banning os SSM, created a class of people who aren't being treated equally under the law.

This is also the same rationale as to why "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" (in lieu of marriage) don't fly; because they create a seperate, inferior class of people.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish wrote:

I grew up under the threat of constant nuclear annihilation, so the whole Al Qaeda thing--I can't see why people get so worked up. I mean, they're a threat, but not an existential one. They got in a sucker punch that will never be repeated, and even that, horrific as it was, was completely irrelevant from a military perspective.

But it's hard to predict the future. China is coming on line fast, in all aspects including military, and I can't help but think (much as I wish I could believe otherwise) that the Cold War will be back with China as the new nemesis. I wonder if that will be used as an excuse to fund continued military supremacy? Will we see the "proxy wars" of the last Cold War?

It's interesting to guess what's going to happen.

A bit off topic, but I want to at least offer my opinion, being a part of the generation that grew up after the Berlin Wall fell.

I don't see as much of a threat of a global nuclear war anymore. Even China, as a rising power, probably won't want to nuke it's largest customer. One of the biggest differences about today and the Cold War is the globalized market. I really do think that the massive trade occurring amongst everybody will be worth more than attempting to start a global nuclear war.

More importantly though. States can be reasoned with. If China, or Russia, or whoever else has an issue with the United States, they can, and most likely always, will resolve it through some diplomatic action. Even though we came so close to nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the only reason why we didn't start firing off nuclear weapons was through diplomacy.

With terrorism, it's totally unexpected. There usually isn't any warning. Tomorrow we might wake up with Toronto's subways bombed, or with a few more hijacked planes. More importantly, there really isn't any diplomatic option or way to reason with terrorists. They have no form of government, nobody to take orders from, no uniform or rules of engagement.

Also, although AQ is the threat that we're actively combating now, it certainly isn't the only threat. Most terrorists usually stick to local operations (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad sticking around Israel, for example) but a terrorist that recruits from different states, striking at targets outside of just a singular country, is pretty worrisome. Not because of the terrorism itself, but of their irrational nature.