The Federalist When disbarment becomes a foreseeable consequence of advancing controversial legal theories in politically charged contexts, the effect is to narrow the range of permissible legal thought.
The disbarment of John Eastman represents the logical endpoint of a systematic abuse of legal and administrative processes commonly described as lawfare, a pattern that has been escalating for nearly a decade. What began in 2016 with the targeting of Trump campaign associates, who at least operated within the political arena, has evolved into the professional destruction of a law professor who held no office, ran no campaign, and whose only “offense” was providing a legal opinion on constitutional law.
The modern term “lawfare,” a blend of “law” and “warfare,” was popularized in 2001 by U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr., who defined it as “the use of law as a weapon of war,” specifically the exploitation of legal processes or rules of war to gain military advantage. In the contemporary American context, it increasingly refers to the use of law as a weapon of politics, where those who fail at the ballot box turn to investigations, prosecutions, and professional disciplinary processes to achieve what they cannot win electorally.
Environmental groups pioneered the technique domestically, using regulatory complaints and litigation to obstruct economic activities they could not stop legislatively. But lawfare entered the political arena in earnest during the Trump presidency. The result is an inversion of law, where legal mechanisms are applied not to remedy wrongdoing but to punish association and deter participation.
…
Read Full Article Here… | The Federalist
Home | Caravan to Midnight (zutalk.com)
Be First to Comment