If you wish it were, check yourself for your authoritarian instincts.
"I want the government to punish attorneys who challenge it via its own courts and procedures" is a take so gross, in fact, that the understandable indignation at the bullshit some lawyers get up to doesn't really excuse it.
Our profession is regulated civilly by people who know our profession, how it works, and how it needs to work.
Is it regulated fairly or aggressively enough? Certainly not. I'd rather err towards laissez-faire than criminalize advocacy based on obsequious devotion to the state.
Less things should be crimes. Of all the things that might be crimes but aren't, civil lawyering against the government and its officials is probably at the bottom the list of need do be converted.
Not near the bottom. The bottom. The very bottom.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Common sense can get you through a lot of this stuff. Seriously.
If electors can be appointed because the state party simply decides to send them, and if certification is unnecessary in the face of the whims of the VP playing master of ceremonies, what does that mean?
Common sense can get you through a lot of the psycho litigation, too.
If thousands of votes can be dumped and states can be switched on briefs with no credible evidence, and grammar, spelling, and argumentation so bad an 8th grader would be ashamed, what would that mean?