I think the title kind of says it all. We should sue the federalist society and/or heritage foundation for undermining the legitimacy of our legal system. Incalculable damages. It needs so much attention in current politics. And it would point out all the harmful and wrong rulings they have led to, recent and over time. And it would prevent Biden from using the court as an excuse to be ineffectual. I would so love to see all the judges have to recuse themselves. Just thinking about it makes me feel how I want justice on this so much.
If we don’t actually choose this for operation hope, can I start this on my own? Anyone know a good law firm?
Do something really effective
Do an exposé on these groups with details on where they get their money and whee they use it and why.
Put the pieces together
I’m a lawyer and I have no idea what the actual legal claim would be. The claim would have to arise under the common law or statute, but this doesn’t fit under any common law or statutory claim. It appears you want to go after them for their influence on judicial appointments that have led to terrible court rulings. There’s no claim or case there, unfortunately, for several reasons, including the inability to establish proximate causation between the influence and the court rulings. All judges, including the most left leaning, would rule that the judicial rulings are independent actions to which the fed society and heritage society had no impact. Plus, even if there were solid evidence of direct influence on a particular judicial ruling, e.g. fed society wrote the opinion, any damages claim based on the impact of a judicial ruling would be viewed as an attack on the ruling itself, for which the judge has absolute judicial immunity.
Something I’ve learned over the years is that the legal system is ill-equipped to address most wrongs. A more effective strategy would be educating the public about the impact of these organizations.
Thanks for the help If you don’t mind, I would probe you briefly with questions. let me state my take on what is in historical record:
Wealthy private persons, (opposing democracy), plan and invest obscene wealth in academia to breed legal “scholars/operatives” to specifically “amend” constitutional law; more specifically, to amend first amendment (citizen’s united) in order to then continue investing obscene wealth to bribe politicians and capture the rest of government.
So now, maybe I’m not really referring to some valid “influence” of court rulings, so much as conspiracy to defraud our constitution with their specifically intended ruling, (as they intended it should ideologically follow from their academic breeding).
Obviously I’m not a lawyer, but, I guess I don’t see how this isn’t clearly causation. And for my second question:
We know citizens united needs to be corrected. It was implemented through illegitimate legal operation. What would that look like to correct the ruling through legal operation? Is it not through some legal challenge, like what I’m suggesting? If it is so, then, shouldn’t I be suing as I suggested, or should I be suing all our elected government for violating what first amendment should be had it not become illegitimately amended?
And, perhaps you can share some insights you might see I am missing. I would also ask, have you read Democracy in Chains?
PS, oh, and I should clarify, I wouldn’t be suing for damages in cash, I think, but for the removal of illegitimate legal professionals from our legal system. I would want to get a legitimate constitution back, not cash.
Jared, happy to engage in this dialogue! Unfortunately, while you can certainly have a conspiracy to defraud persons, associations, or corporate entities, the Constitution is none of those things. There is no claim for defrauding the constitution.
Also, I guess I disagree with your premise that the bribing of politicians was illegitimate/illegal, or at least that the courts would find it as such. As Cenk says, unfortunately these bribes are LEGAL bribes. It’s damn near impossible to prove an illegal bribe. You need to prove a quid pro quo, and those damn politicians know better — most of the time — to avoid making promises in exchange for money.
Also, there’s nothing wrong with the general premise of supporting organizations that file lawsuits to change how the constitution is interpreted. It happens all the time on the left. That is a legitimate process. Think of organizations such as the ACLU or NAACP, to name a few, whose advocacy at the Supreme Court amended the constitution for the better, ending de jure desegregation, prohibiting the government from retaliating for pure political speech. Nothing wrong with leftist scholars and rich leftists banding together to advocate for such changes through the courts.
I have not read that book, will check it out.
Not sure who these legal professionals are that you speak of, but if they are judges, there’s no chance judges would agree to the removal of other judges based on the motive or impact of their judicial rulings. That would literally be unconstitutional in the federal judiciary, as Article III judges can’t be removed expect though impeachment and conviction in Congress.
Hope this all makes sense!
Yeah, this is quite helpful. Thanks! I suppose it is a bit futile to argue in an illegitimate legal system that the legal system is illegitimate.
The feeling I get is they all know. They just don’t want us to.
I found a valuable resource on legal illegitimacy, (I particularly appreciated Chomsky and Hanson). I would especially highlight the eighth video featuring Senator Whitehouse, as it may be more concretely relevant for this thread topic.
Look under: 2023 Corporate Capture Conference
(Apart from the previously posted videos,) here is a lecture from Hanson about the law’s empty promise of justice, which you may find interesting:
This article is also illustrative of the issues:
Thanks brother, very interesting watch, appreciate you sharing. The bait and switch that is the legal system and law school—I am all too familiar with it. Fortunately, we do have some laws that work within our capitalistic system to disincentivize bad actors from doing bad things, but these laws are often inadequate and sometimes unjust. So I do what I can to help the cause of justice within the system. I really want to have more influence over the lawmaking process, but that requires addressing a host of obstacles to voting rights such as gerrymandering and effectively unlimited campaign contributions with no meaningful disclosure requirements, and many more. The obstacles to change are daunting. But, whenever I feel like the task is too much to bear, I remind myself that women helped establish a constitutional amendment to give themselves the right to vote, all while obviously not having the right to vote. Amazing. If that can be done, I remain hopeful about changing our system from within to make it more just.
I often thought we need a system of lawyers to pool behind a website who object is to triage cases that are the most egregious and need to accepted on a pro bono basis. This would allow others to see the good work you’re doing to help others. Also when a case is really bad we could help get those people legal relief.