Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Resolute Conservative

To all of you people using this opportunity to attack lawyers and argue that this abridges one’s chance at ‘justice’, let me just say that having an experienced lawyer argue before the Supreme Court is the best opportunity to obtain a chance at ‘justice.’

Oral argument is an opportunity to argue the finer points of facts, policy, and legal precedent that the great majority of lay people will not be able to do successfully. Appellate attorneys are specialists in this area. Many pro se parties have difficulty grasping even the basic tenets of law and focusing on the important issues even at the small claims court level, much less on the federal level.


16 posted on 07/01/2013 9:56:21 AM PDT by 3Quartets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: 3Quartets
To all of you people using this opportunity to attack lawyers and argue that this abridges one’s chance at ‘justice’, let me just say that having an experienced lawyer argue before the Supreme Court is the best opportunity to obtain a chance at ‘justice.’

I'm glad you put the word justice in quotes - because there is no longer any justice ...

Oral argument is an opportunity to argue the finer points of facts, policy, and legal precedent that the great majority of lay people will not be able to do successfully. Appellate attorneys are specialists in this area. Many pro se parties have difficulty grasping even the basic tenets of law and focusing on the important issues even at the small claims court level, much less on the federal level.

Then as an earlier poster already commented, the law itself is flawed! The Constitution, as written, including the BoR and (most) of the Amendments is very clear and concise in meaning - only lawyers think it needs to be interpreted (to death) and that we common folk can not possibly understand it. And now, after decades of "precedent" - we can not even refer to the Constitution itself as a basis for our laws! Instead we must wade through page upon page of legal "opinion" - most of which is CLEARLY at odds with what was originally written.

As a result, we get laws governing aspects of our lives that congress / the government was never given the power to regulate, and a citizenry which is unable to prevent because we can not prove "harm".

This "rule change" is a direct infringement of our right to petition and seek redress - there is no stipulation in the Constitution that requires a government approved lawyer to represent us before the government and no stipulation granting the power to make such a stipulation!

26 posted on 07/01/2013 10:31:40 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: 3Quartets
To all of you people using this opportunity to attack lawyers and argue that this abridges one’s chance at ‘justice’, let me just say that having an experienced lawyer argue before the Supreme Court is the best opportunity to obtain a chance at ‘justice.’

That would be a wonderful way to describe justice if those laws only applied to judges and lawyers.

But they apply to all of us, and we're all supposedly bound to follow them. If they're so incomprehensible that we can't know what they mean, then one would have to argue that the laws are written precisely so we can't follow them. That's not justice by any reasonable definition.

"There's no way to rule innocent men" seems to fit.
34 posted on 07/01/2013 1:28:30 PM PDT by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson