- 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
Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 3:54 pm
It goes without saying that "lawfare" is a newfound term that is thrown around with varying definitions, given the context (like globalism, Uniparty, fascist, etc.). So can we give a universally agreed-upon definition of "lawfare"? Once we do that, we can move onto the more important questions, like:
What are the specific characteristics of a suit or prosecution that distinguish permissible litigation into lawfare?
Which of the above characteristics are improper?
Which of the above characteristics are illegal?
Is lawfare litigation illegal?
If not, then what are the standards or propriety you use to criticize lawfare?
And, the most important one (now that we have a definition and the crucial building blocks for a discussion set out): what are the legal (as in within the Constitution and the due process and police powers granted therein) ways to slow or stop the proliferation of "lawfare"?
What are the specific characteristics of a suit or prosecution that distinguish permissible litigation into lawfare?
Which of the above characteristics are improper?
Which of the above characteristics are illegal?
Is lawfare litigation illegal?
If not, then what are the standards or propriety you use to criticize lawfare?
And, the most important one (now that we have a definition and the crucial building blocks for a discussion set out): what are the legal (as in within the Constitution and the due process and police powers granted therein) ways to slow or stop the proliferation of "lawfare"?
34
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
Unique or untested theories concerning the implementation of the laws forming the subject matter of the prosecution are one of the hallmarks of lawfare. The other is the biased application and implementation of said laws to benefit your political allies and hinder your political opponents.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:04 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Unique or untested theories concerning the implementation of the laws forming the subject matter of the prosecution are one of the hallmarks of lawfare
So like the various litigations following the 2020 election testing novel theories to decertify elections?
quote:
The other is the biased application and implementation of said laws to benefit your political allies and hinder your political opponents.
So like the various litigations following the 2020 election testing novel theories to decertify elections?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:04 pm to SCLibertarian
Don't humor the board retard.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:07 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
the board retard.
That would make the average poster on here Goethe
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So like the various litigations following the 2020 election testing novel theories to decertify elections?
quote:
So like the various litigations following the 2020 election testing novel theories to decertify elections?
Lawfare targets individuals. Your examples concern the outcomes of an election. Ruining someone financially or putting someone in prison are the end results of lawfare. It's a warning to all challengers to the political establishment that you will be ruined if we want you to.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Goethe
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
It's obvious the source of lawfare emanates from the left. It derives power form the left leaning law schools, the institutions they occupy (see DOJ) and a lot of the judicial branch (especially the DC Circuit). They used to have SCOTUS but as evidence by yesterday's melt on MSNBC they are terribly mad they do not have SCOTUS.
It's always that damn constitution getting in their way when they try to censor, gun grab, and regulating people. They are such busybodies. Why can't they just leave enough alone already and mind their own damn business?
It's always that damn constitution getting in their way when they try to censor, gun grab, and regulating people. They are such busybodies. Why can't they just leave enough alone already and mind their own damn business?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Now do culturefare?
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 8:27 am
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:16 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Lawfare targets individuals.
Ok well that changes what you said.
quote:
Ruining someone financially or putting someone in prison are the end results of lawfare.
So what separates a normal lawsuit or prosecution from this?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:16 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Yes. If I am a retard, that's what the average poster on here would have to be, comparatively.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:18 pm to GumboPot
The incestuous nature of all of these prosecutions should scare everyone. You have a small group of the following: 1) powerful folks in Congress; 2) DOJ lackeys; 3) partisan zealots at a handful of powerful law firms; and 4) one-sided jurists at both the state and federal level. These small groups of people are essentially engineering a plot to prevent one man from being President. Whatever you may think of Trump, these folks are far more dangerous than he ever could be. That they hide behind terms like "our democracy" and the "rule of law" makes them even more despicable.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
C'mon SFP, you know it is employed by both sides of the political spectrum.
Legally most lawfare is employed to produce legally that which the opposite side could not accomplish at the ballot box and to punish the opposition . It's not about the law, per se.
It's employed by Globalists and non Globalists alike. Fascists and communists and corporations love it. For the past 50 years this country has been engaged in it starting with Nixon and Watergate, followed up with Iran/Contra ( Boland Amendment was Congress overstepping IMHO) followed by the Clinton Impechment/ Whitewater indictments.
Most IC or SCs are nothing more than political witching dressed in the masquerade of some "great threat to Democracy"
Really, it is the attempt at criminalizing policy differences. However, in Clinton and now Trump, it's an attempt to use the courts to affect political payback. Rarely is the motive about making someone pay because they broke the law. It's about revenge and retribution.
Legally most lawfare is employed to produce legally that which the opposite side could not accomplish at the ballot box and to punish the opposition . It's not about the law, per se.
It's employed by Globalists and non Globalists alike. Fascists and communists and corporations love it. For the past 50 years this country has been engaged in it starting with Nixon and Watergate, followed up with Iran/Contra ( Boland Amendment was Congress overstepping IMHO) followed by the Clinton Impechment/ Whitewater indictments.
Most IC or SCs are nothing more than political witching dressed in the masquerade of some "great threat to Democracy"
Really, it is the attempt at criminalizing policy differences. However, in Clinton and now Trump, it's an attempt to use the courts to affect political payback. Rarely is the motive about making someone pay because they broke the law. It's about revenge and retribution.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
Rambling off the top of my head....
The intent is not justice but ruin the target - ie "the process is the punishment".
The legal theory proposed is beyond the intent of the written law and involves rather convoluted thinking....
Often involves "judge - shopping" or "venue shopping"
A specific case may not have all the characteristics but some combination of several
Not sure what you can do legally beyond hoping that the system tosses the case before damages are done...
The intent is not justice but ruin the target - ie "the process is the punishment".
The legal theory proposed is beyond the intent of the written law and involves rather convoluted thinking....
Often involves "judge - shopping" or "venue shopping"
A specific case may not have all the characteristics but some combination of several
Not sure what you can do legally beyond hoping that the system tosses the case before damages are done...
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
I know it when I see it…
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
One of the intentions of lawfare is to sway public opinion, the optics of being on trial constantly, the casual American hears every day how Trump is on trial here, on trial there, and it gives the impression he is a criminal. That’s probably the most damaging aspect for a presidential candidate. As we all know, innocent until proven guilty, and appeals. The timing of these cases are no coincidence!
As to how to stop it?!
That’s an interesting question; each USSCJ presides over circuits (ex: 9th circuit) the presiding justice needs to exercise their power to disbar activist judges. I understand it’s a slippery slope that is subjective, however, it’s their duty as a judge!
As to how to stop it?!
That’s an interesting question; each USSCJ presides over circuits (ex: 9th circuit) the presiding justice needs to exercise their power to disbar activist judges. I understand it’s a slippery slope that is subjective, however, it’s their duty as a judge!
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So like the various litigations following the 2020 election testing novel theories to decertify elections?
You mean the ones trying to enforce the plainly written law?
Lawfare created the stage for the fake election.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:28 pm to GumboPot
Both Republicans and Democrats use it. Democrats use it more though, historically. Democrats never forgave Nixon for winning in 1968. The also never forgave the voter for electing Reagan in 1980 or 1984. Conversely, Republicans never forgave Clinton for outflanking them in 1992. Today , it's payback for Trump upsetting Hillary in 2016...you have no idea how that enraged the Democrats....so much so that they continue to want to make Trump and the voters that elected him pay greatly for the impertinent action beyond wi,ing an election.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:29 pm to KiwiHead
By any means necessary
It’s a dangerous game. That genie is out of the bottle though.
It’s a dangerous game. That genie is out of the bottle though.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So what separates a normal lawsuit or prosecution from this?
The NY legislature expanded the SOL specifically so E. Jean Carroll could file suit against Donald Trump. The fraud case would have either been dismissed or the damages judgment would have been monumentally lower in almost every other jurisdiction in this country. This is lawfare.
Page 1 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News