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 ...
Yes, I think the leftist judges are complicit in lawfare including assisting the illegal invasion.
A judge is a lawyer who works for the government.
I leave the rest to your imagination.
The random system that assigns cases to judges seems to always give the juicy Trump cases to Judge Boasberg. Odd, huh? The judges enable lawfare, and the system behind the judges enable lawfare. The whole thing is rotten now.
“...I leave the rest to your imagination....”
Reminds me of the old joke: “what’s the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
Well, one is a bottom-dwelling, mud-sucking scavenger.....and the other is a fish!”
The corps of activist judges is what makes lawfare POSSIBLE. An honest and impartial judge would have looked at the case presented to him (or her), told the prosecuting attorney the case was untenable and without merit, and thrown it out.
Bearing a lamp in broad daylight, Diogenes the Cynic declared, “I am seeking a man of honor.” He would have a difficult time today in many of the courts across the United States.
Does bear live in the woods?
BTTT
They are fully complicit and doing exactly why they were installed by the communist deep state....
Of course.
and Insurrection
Are judges the only pure, holy, honest, incorruptible men in the world?
If we had honest judges - most of these cases would not even be brought
forward to get thrown out
No consequences = corrupt judges.
All the judges in question are without any doubt complicit in a conspiracy to weaponize the law to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump.
Such a conspiracy must be punishable by death
They are not only comp,initially, they are guilty of organized colluding (Rico act violation?)
There are EVIL judges in the republic.
This kind of thing exists in the private sector workplace as well. Not all of them, but in situations where office politics often rears it’s ugly head. However, there are no black robes, no legal standing, no provable illegality...But group-thinking cliques and hellbent individuals will line up on soft target co-workers because members of an opaque and presumed elite class of employee could face evidence of being outperformed given half a chance...And it doesn’t stop there because additional versions exist in ordinary average neighborhoods and educational institutions but I’d rather not get into that in this thread. You can try to stay above the fray but that won’t guarantee that the bastards won’t try to bring you down for whatever micro-aggression, transgression or trespass they happen to imagine.
\/
its statistically analogous to winning the lottery every time you play.......... .... simon says boasberg is just jack the ripper smith 2.0 imo.
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.