National Law Day, marked by the participation of over 10,000 lawyers this year, highlighted the ongoing commitment to uphold the Constitution. Lawyers took their oaths seriously, emphasizing their duty to defend constitutional principles. The article raises concerns about whether some officials, including the president, truly support constitutional due process, questioning the integrity of legal commitments. Disrespect towards court decisions undermines the rule of law and encourages a worrisome precedent. The State Bar of California also faces scrutiny over its actions, reflecting broader issues in legal professionalism today.
However, despite the oath he took, 47 is not certain as to whether he supports constitutional due process.
Does our duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution have an expiration date, a statute of limitations, so that peeps have carte blanche to toss away that oath, pretending that it no longer exists?
We learned in law school that if you disagree with a trial court's opinion, appeal it. That's what appellate courts are for, but to denigrate a court's opinion... is a disgrace to every lawyer.
As Joe Patrice commented, the most recent antics of the California Bar defy credibility, and only lead to one conclusion: we are not making this stuff up.
Collection
[
|
...
]