- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It goes without saying that "lawfare" is a newfound term that is thrown around with varying definitions, given the context
Agree
quote:
So can we give a universally agreed-upon definition of "lawfare"?
No. It is effectively-- and perhaps technically-- best considered a slang word (even if it's a slang word more generally utilized by a better educated group of people than slang words are generally attributed to). As a slang word, it will inherently have a somewhat elastic meaning in contrast to something specific like "toxic tort".
Even terms like "show trial"-- which is a variant of lawfare-- has a slang-like quality that resists the specificity that you're trying to impose on "lawfare" itself. For example, to many, both the Jan 6 hearings and prosecutions have been a type of show trial intended to dissuade people from standing up to the govt. To the other side, these are justified proceedings which hold a valid end.
If you can't reach a consensus on the validity of some trials, you cannot reach a consensus on what lawfare is either (as they're inherently intertwined). It is thus an open-ended philosophical question compared to a closed-ended philosophical question.
To be clear, lawfare is a real thing... Unequal application of the law (one party getting prosecuted for an offense when the other does not), show trials, cases designed purely to slow down a political opponent are all examples of lawfare. But it is a matter of discernment and personal opinion to define it. There's no way around that, and it will impede your intention of pinning it down. This is partly a function of people having unequal facility at perception and discernment (some people are sheep and not everyone can be Goethe); and is also a function of the dishonesty of some people who promote and / or support lawfare activity.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News