- 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: ACLU tricked the DOJ, thwarting review of immigrant abortion case
Posted on 11/3/17 at 12:51 pm to CommoDawg
Posted on 11/3/17 at 12:51 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
But I can imagine a situation in which lying to prevent opposing counsel from using delay tactics can further the interest of justice
Oh, I'm sure you can. But then, you are a despicable person, as you openly celebrate this sort of lying and deceit just to take a human life, so there's that.
This post was edited on 11/3/17 at 12:53 pm
0
Posted on 11/3/17 at 12:52 pm to NIH
quote:
unethical behavior doesn't seem to bother people like OP
this is that whole "clever" stuff that liberals get off on for some reason
Posted on 11/3/17 at 12:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
It's unethical behavior like this that gives the ACLU a bad name. Can you imagine how the ACLU would react if the State pulled some kind of unethical trick to ensure a prisoner got executed before a last second appeal could be processed?
Posted on 11/3/17 at 12:56 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
"The Trump administration blocked Jane Doe from getting constitutionally protected care for a month and subjected her to illegal obstruction, coercion, and shaming as she waited. After the courts cleared the way for her to get her abortion, it was the ACLU's job as her lawyers to see that she wasn't delayed any further — not to give the government another chance to stand in her way."
that argument basically admits a complete disrespect for the rule of law itself
a. that's not her lawyer's job
b. they intentionally deceived opposing counsel to accomplish this. if this is somehow not unethical, it's certainly not professional or in the spirit of litigation. anyone involved in this should be blacklisted and relegated to the level of lawyering that i do
quote:
"Our lawyers acted in the best interest of our client and in full compliance with the court orders and federal and Texas law. That government lawyers failed to seek judicial review quickly enough is their fault, not ours."
this kind of shite gets you punched outside of court
Posted on 11/3/17 at 12:57 pm to Damone
quote:
Can you imagine how the ACLU would react if the State pulled some kind of unethical trick to ensure a prisoner got executed before a last second appeal could be processed?
yeah i was trying to think of a good comparison earlier but that one does it
Posted on 11/3/17 at 12:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
should be blacklisted and relegated to the level of lawyering that i do
unnecessary but I laughed 
Posted on 11/3/17 at 12:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
lying is not brilliant layering
it's lying
Is it lying if you aren't required to give the info?
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:00 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Is it lying if you aren't required to give the info?
What would your wife say if you withheld info?
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:01 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
I’ve never seen another poster on this site actually giddy over aborting an unborn child
Yeah, they usually don't like to let people know they feel that way
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:02 pm to MSMHater
quote:
there was never any possible positive outcome.
Well, there could have been one. The baby could have been born instead of murdered.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:02 pm to gamatt53
Lol the shining beacon of morality around here pivots from case to case.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:03 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
What would your wife say if you withheld info?
Sorry. I don't confuse my family with my government.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:10 pm to CommoDawg
I think that the fact that Doe's lawyers notified the DOJ of the new timing of the appointment, without telling them that the nature of the appointment had been changed, is, in effect, a misrepresentation, makes it a sanctionable offense.
If they hadn't contacted the DOJ at all, I think it would be a much closer call. Then it would be a question whether or not they had a duty to disclose.
If they hadn't contacted the DOJ at all, I think it would be a much closer call. Then it would be a question whether or not they had a duty to disclose.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:17 pm to texridder
quote:
I think that the fact that Doe's lawyers notified the DOJ of the new timing of the appointment, without telling them that the nature of the appointment had been changed, is, in effect, a misrepresentation, makes it a sanctionable offense.
That's not quite right here. They informed the shelter where the girl was staying about the change in appointment time. They never notified the lawyers working on the case. The brief states that the shelter started to wonder if something crucial had changed, but since no one with the ACLU asked them to put the girl on surgery protocol (which they expected if the girl was undergoing a procedure), they believed that nothing about the type of visit actually changed.
This was designed to be as deceptive as possible and smells to high heaven.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:28 pm to FalseProphet
I am still confused as to why an illegal has some constitutional right to an abortion? I get that a citizen has the right as it is still a legal medical procedure but an illegal?
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:39 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
I am still confused as to why an illegal has some constitutional right to an abortion? I get that a citizen has the right as it is still a legal medical procedure but an illegal?
The government, for some unknown reason, refused to take a position in this case on whether such a right existed. Every court they went in front of asked them repeatedly to take a position on whether she had this right, and each time the government refused to.
It's one of the main reasons the court of appeals was able to make the ruling that it did. They assumed that the right exists, and proceeded from there, because the government wouldn't say it didn't.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 1:55 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
The government, for some unknown reason, refused to take a position in this case on whether such a right existed. Every court they went in front of asked them repeatedly to take a position on whether she had this right, and each time the government refused to. It's one of the main reasons the court of appeals was able to make the ruling that it did. They assumed that the right exists, and proceeded from there, because the government wouldn't say it didn't.
Thanks - I can only surmise that this was a fight the government didn't want to get into...I assume that a Republican administration would likely be in favor of rolling back access to abortion but they were worried they would lose the argument and set back that agenda.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 2:34 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Is it lying if you aren't required to give the info?
how i read it (i haven't read the brief like Prophet), the ACLU represented a timeline for the possible abortion
the DOJ relied on this as a de facto timeline and notified the court/ACLU of their planned date to file the say
when the ACLU had this information (given in good faith in response to the information they gave), they then unilaterally changed the date they represented to the DOJ/Court in order to take advantage of the DOJ's notice date. they did not notify the Court or DOJ in order to allow either to shift their timeline, with the intent to purposefully deceive both
if there was no reliance on the initial, reported date, there likely would be no issue. since there was actual reliance by a party, there was an ethical duty to give this info out to the opposing party.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 2:40 pm to CommoDawg
CommoDawg you sure do love abortion, you freak.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 3:00 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
I am still confused as to why an illegal has some constitutional right to an abortion? I get that a citizen has the right as it is still a legal medical procedure but an illegal?
What business is it of the government's anyway?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News