Posted on 03/29/2025 5:42:54 AM PDT by MtnClimber
In recent years, the term “lawfare” has gained prominence in legal and political discourse, referring to the strategic use of legal proceedings to harm, intimidate, or silence an adversary rather than to pursue justice in good faith, most notably brought to public awareness in the multi-year legal pursuit of President Donald Trump. Currently, the unprecedented plethora of cases against the Trump administration has the public and the Republican House of Representatives crying “lawfare,” instigated in a conscious effort to interfere with the president’s electoral mandate and his constitutional prerogatives. As this phenomenon becomes more prevalent, a critical question arises: If a judge agrees to hear a case widely recognized as lawfare, does his participation render him complicit in the misuse of the judicial system?
Lawfare, a term coined by legal scholar Orde Kittrie in his book Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, refers to the strategic use of legal systems as a tool of warfare, wielded to advance political, economic, or personal objectives rather than to address genuine legal disputes. Unlike traditional litigation, lawfare prioritizes tactical advantage over justice, exploiting judicial mechanisms to drain resources, smear reputations, or delay accountability.
Judges, as gatekeepers of the legal system, wield significant authority to either curb or enable such strategies. Their decision to hear a case — particularly one with hallmarks of lawfare — carries weighty implications.
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges emphasizes that a judge must “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” When a judge takes up a case that appears designed to weaponize the law, he risks violating this principle. By providing a platform for lawfare, the judge may inadvertently — or, in some cases, knowingly — lend credibility to an effort that subverts
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
We all do.
Yes, judges are complicit. They are suppose to be out of and above politics, but the worst of seek the opportunity to eneter the political arena and make a political name for themselves.
Without these DemonRAT activists posing as “judges”, there would not be a weaponized judicial system in this country and LAWFARE wouldn’t exist.
“Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War”
Cute term. But they should stop and think of the root word. They are engaging in war. The lesson of history is that in war the enemy might decide to use a different weapon, tactic or open a new front. When the idea of impartial Justice is perverted, the battlefield can and will spill outside the courtroom. An example is in the godfather film. When the police captain was corrupted, Michael Corleone killed him in that restaurant.
Judges are complicit in lawfare the easiest was to find out check their party affiliation if Democrat results proved true.
“Judges” my eye. Shyster lawyers will always be shyster lawyers. They just buy their robes from a Satanic Fashionwear shop where lawyers buy their suits from Trojan.
The “random” assignment of cases to judges is a sham and a joke. Judges like Boasberg somehow seem to “randomly” be assigned all the cases designed to destroy President Trump.
Well, Judges are only human and humans can be greedy, especially when they lust for power.
We did ok in nominating trump judges his first term. Unfortunately, Biden made appointing judges a priority during his one term and got more judges than trump did. Trump has a chance to appoint even more than Biden did but needs to make it a huge priority. So far, I’m not convinced he’s doing it. Not one nomination.
Does a bear poop in the woods?
“What do you call 25 skydiving lawyers? Skeet.”
Does a bear crap in the woods? You have your answer.
They become gods in their second year of law school.
Yes.
5.56mm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.