True. Plenty of FedSoc-inclined profs would have attested to virtually the same impeachment standard & would have given the inquiry even more legitimacy. A clear error by Nadler & Co. https://t.co/UfpzupLHHv— Heath Mayo (@HeathMayo) December 4, 2019
The joke in trial work is the power of law journals. One, in memory, was cited in a footnote in Roe v. Wade, which is about as high as a law journal rises. Mostly they serve to allow law professors to act like academics (it's a professional degree, after all, not an academic one, that most lawyers hold) while ruminating on bizarre and fabulous (as in "fable based") legal theories like the Rule Against Perpetuities, which has little or no effect in cases concerning property law issues. I take it back, one law review article made its way into a California Supreme Court decision, establishing the concept of strict liability in products liability cases. That caused trouble or gave benefits for a while (it was a ringer; the Chief Justice of the court was waiting for it to be published to use as the basis of his opinion), but not for long. Exceptions that prove the rule, nothing more.
So a gaggle of lawyers talking to the Judiciary Committee may be good form, but who remembers the same thing happening in Nixon's impeachment, or Clinton's? I'm seriously asking, because I don't, and I was a lawyer when Clinton was impeached, I think I would have noticed. Eh, probably not.
Still, it's laughable that lawyers think the right mix of lawyers droning on about arcane points of law would impress the many-headed and turn the hearts of Senators to their Constitutional, rather than partisan, duties. Go write a law review article about it, or better yet a book (at least one is out). That'll sway public opinion!
Sure it will....
No comments:
Post a Comment