- 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 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So can we give a universally agreed-upon definition of "lawfare"?
In the words of Justice Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it.
0
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
One of the things I see not presented is just the intent to cow opponents into submission with the threat of bankrupting them or diluting their efforts via lawsuits.
When you have a cadre of Soros-type mega millionaires with a political agenda, they can hire legions of lawyers to tie you up in court until you submit or obey.
I think a lot of the current Trump attacks are motivated by "at least we can keep him in court - generating hours of bad publicity via our allies in the media. If we get a good verdict, that is just icing on the cake."
When you have a cadre of Soros-type mega millionaires with a political agenda, they can hire legions of lawyers to tie you up in court until you submit or obey.
I think a lot of the current Trump attacks are motivated by "at least we can keep him in court - generating hours of bad publicity via our allies in the media. If we get a good verdict, that is just icing on the cake."
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:47 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
C'mon SFP, you know it is employed by both sides of the political spectrum.
Yes. I don't there is any real intent to have a discussion. The thread is akin to saying "What is Crime? and How do we stop it?" Lawfare is both a genus of problems in our legal system, and has already has a definition recognized in many legal dictionaries, e.g.
quote:Collins dictionary
the strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent
2. the use of the law by a country against its enemies, esp by challenging the legality of military or foreign policy
A non-exhaustive list of how its been invoked:
(1) The changing of a statute of limitation for the purpose of exposing an individual to peril on actions that would otherwise be outside the statue of limitations.
(2) The formation of entities and/or fundraising with said entities for the sole purpose of engaging in litigation in various US states which attempt to limit someone's candidacy.
(3) The coordination of various legal actions in multiple venues by an organization to target an individual.
(4) Campaign promises to use state power to target an individual with a follow up of using said state power.
All of those are potentially actionable with corrective legislation. Of course, the legislation could also have downside perils, so lawfare is one of the reasons we can't have nice things.
I'm sure there are others that I missed where a public policy discussion could ensue, but I doubt that is the intent of this thread.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
Lawfare is using existing law to achieve a governmental or military objective.
It’s no different from what lawyers have done for ages. Find a statue or precedence that supports your position, and use it to your advantage.
Courts exists to make judgement calls on who is right, or more likely when it comes to lawfare in the context you are using it in, international opinion will dictate who is right and who is wrong.
It’s no different from what lawyers have done for ages. Find a statue or precedence that supports your position, and use it to your advantage.
Courts exists to make judgement calls on who is right, or more likely when it comes to lawfare in the context you are using it in, international opinion will dictate who is right and who is wrong.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 4:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
Do powerful democrats ever overvalue their property? Do they get taken to court over it?
If the answer to those is yes and then no, you’d have the foundation for what I think constitutes lawfare.
If the answer to those is yes and then no, you’d have the foundation for what I think constitutes lawfare.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
The pertinent question to pose when trying to determine if the legal proceedings against any American is lawfare is as follows.
Can the judge overseeing the legal proceedings and jury candidates pass the screening process to be an unbiased member of the jury?
In recent cases against Trump and cases against those Americans associated with Trump........so far the answer is a resounding no!
Can the judge overseeing the legal proceedings and jury candidates pass the screening process to be an unbiased member of the jury?
In recent cases against Trump and cases against those Americans associated with Trump........so far the answer is a resounding no!
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:04 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
The NY legislature expanded the SOL specifically so E. Jean Carroll could file suit against Donald Trump. T
But they didn't close it after and Democrats have faced the brunt. How is that partisan? I agree it's bullshite, but it's snagged non-Republicans, too.
quote:
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.
That is because no other jurisdictions have that law, and it's not new or anything. It's been litigated quite extensively, too, so Trump isn't alone in the brunt. How is it lawfare?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How is that partisan?
They change a law specifically to target a political opponent from the other party,
Sfp: "how is that partisan? and I totally haven't lost my mind"
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:07 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
You mean the ones trying to enforce the plainly written law?
Yes, with novel theories to benefit political allies (his terms, not mine).
quote:
Lawfare created the stage for the fake election.
Oh boy
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:07 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
One of the things I see not presented is just the intent to cow opponents into submission with the threat of bankrupting them or diluting their efforts via lawsuits.
Because that exists with ALL lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.
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.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:09 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
The pertinent question to pose when trying to determine if the legal proceedings against any American is lawfare is as follows.
Can the judge overseeing the legal proceedings and jury candidates pass the screening process to be an unbiased member of the jury?
We are about to have to unravel tens of thousands of criminal prosecutions now.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:10 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
They change a law specifically to target a political opponent from the other party,
If this were true, it would have been changed after her suit was filed.
I said the change was bullshite, but it's the law now, and that law has ensnared non-Republicans.
Just because something is bullshite doesn't make it partisan.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Are those snagged worth snagging to get Trump?
But they didn't close it after and Democrats have faced the brunt. How is that partisan? I agree it's bullshite, but it's snagged non-Republicans, too.
If the answer is yes, seems like lawfare to me.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If this were true, it would have been changed after her suit was filed.
I believe the limitations were sunsetted.
If not for the E Jean Carrol case it was for the Bragg case.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If this were true
It is
quote:
it would have been changed after her suit was filed.
Doesn't mean anything
quote:
I said the change was bullshite
But you said it wasn't partisan, which is nuts.
quote:
law has ensnared non-Republicans.
Doesn't change intent,
quote:
Just because something is bullshite doesn't make it partisan
No one is saying that. Thanks
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Why do you assume this?
If this were true, it would have been changed after her suit was filed.
quote:YOU DONT THINK THE EFFORTS AGAINST TRUMP ARE PARTISAN?
Just because something is bullshite doesn't make it partisan.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Do you think whats happening to Orange Man is lawfare?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
"How can it legally be stopped?"
The second amendment
The second amendment
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It goes without saying that "lawfare" is a newfound term that is thrown around with varying definitions
I may not be understanding your statement here, but "lawfare" ain't new. Businesses have speciously sued each other for all sorts of reasons not related to the bogus suit brought forth.
If you want to curb it, penalize the attorneys willing to take nonsense cases to the court.
Page 2 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News