• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Judicial Watch attacks Sen. Whitehouse after he filed suit threatening to restructure Supreme Court

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by NightHawkeye, Aug 21, 2019.

  1. NightHawkeye

    NightHawkeye Work-in-progress Supporter

    +7,967
    Methodist
    Married
    Judicial Watch Files Complaint Against RI Sen. Whitehouse Alleging Unauthorized Practice of Law

    “Senator Whitehouse is violating basic legal ethics in threatening the Supreme Court while engaging in the unauthorized practice of law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “He should be held accountable for these abuses.”
    ...
    The complaint alleges “Whitehouse filed a brief with U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of four clients while maintaining inactive status and that the brief was nothing more than an attack on the federal judiciary and an open threat to the U.S. Supreme Court.“
    ...
    Attacking the federal judiciary and openly threatening the U.S. Supreme Court is unbecoming for a member of the legal profession as well as a sitting U.S. Senator. Senator Whitehouse’s assertion, without basis, that the Court does not rule on the merits of cases but rather on partisan beliefs undermines confidence in the legal system. It is one thing for a politician to make such a claim on the campaign trail, it is another for a lawyer to make such a charge as part of a legal proceeding. In doing so, Senator Whitehouse has violated the rules of professional conduct.

    The misconduct of Senator Whitehouse noted above appears obvious on its face. Senator Whitehouse either violated Rhode Island’s or D.C.’s rules, or both. Senator Whitehouse’s filing of a brief on behalf of clients without an active law license anywhere in the country is inexcusable
    .​
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +7,614
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    ? Trump has a regular practice of making these kind of remarks about anyone in the DOJ, or any judge, who says anything he doesn't like. I wonder why the super honest folks at JD aren't complaining about that? Their little disclaimer about the campaign trail is a bit feeble.
     
  3. NightHawkeye

    NightHawkeye Work-in-progress Supporter

    +7,967
    Methodist
    Married
    When has Trump ever filed a legal brief for clients?
     
  4. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +7,614
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    Do you think there is any essential difference between this and Trump, actually as president, calling into question the actions of anybody who doesn't do what he likes? Which do you think actually has the biggest impact? On society, on the minds of the easily lead, on your political and judicial systems?
     
  5. NightHawkeye

    NightHawkeye Work-in-progress Supporter

    +7,967
    Methodist
    Married
    Do you want lawyers to practice without a license?
     
  6. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +7,614
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    Read my post again - 'these kind of remarks' - this is JD's (extremely biased) opinion:

    It is one thing for a politician to make such a claim on the campaign trail, it is another for a lawyer to make such a charge as part of a legal proceeding. In doing so, Senator Whitehouse has violated the rules of professional conduct.

    The issue is part of a bigger picture as to how politics is being conducted in the US, which you seem to be unwilling to consider from anything but an extreme partisan position.
     
  7. NightHawkeye

    NightHawkeye Work-in-progress Supporter

    +7,967
    Methodist
    Married
    Noting that this is a legal matter now. It will be interesting to see how the state of Rhode Island responds.
     
  8. Arcangl86

    Arcangl86 Newbie

    +2,901
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Green
    Is Whitehouse a member of the Supreme Court Bar? Because that's all that matters, not if he is an active member of the Rhode Island Bar.
     
  9. Arcangl86

    Arcangl86 Newbie

    +2,901
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Green
    They probably won't. Judicial Watch is making a baseless claim. The federal and state legal systems are completely separate from each other. Just because he happened to live in Rhode Island doesn't mean that he can't practice law in a jurisdiction besides Rhode Island if he is licensed to do so.
     
  10. The IbanezerScrooge

    The IbanezerScrooge Active Member

    354
    +494
    Atheist
    Private
    I'm not sure that you have to even be a practicing lawyer to file a legal brief with the SCOTUS. As long as you follow the format and your facts and case citations are correct and coherent there doesn't seem to be that restriction. It might not carry as much weight with the court if you're not a lawyer but you don't seem to have to be one.

    Non-Lawyer Tips: Writing A Legal Brief
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. NightHawkeye

    NightHawkeye Work-in-progress Supporter

    +7,967
    Methodist
    Married
    The issue appears to be that Whitehouse filed the legal brief on behalf of four "clients".
     
  12. The IbanezerScrooge

    The IbanezerScrooge Active Member

    354
    +494
    Atheist
    Private
    Perhaps, Supreme Court Rule 9 seems to indicate that.
     
  13. LoAmmi

    LoAmmi Dispassionate

    +9,562
    Judaism
    Married
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  14. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +8,956
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    Five if you include himself.
    Sen. Sheldon WhitehouseCounsel of Record

    INTEREST OF AMICICURIAE1 Amicicuriae are U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Richard Durbin of Illinois, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Amici share with the Court a strong interest in the preservation of the separation of powers that sustains our constitutional form of government. This brief centers on the practical, political, and historical context of this case.

    1 The parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Under Rule 37.6 of the Rules of this Court, amici state that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.

    According to his office, yes, he is.

    GoLocalProv | News | Sen. Whitehouse Subject of RI Supreme Court Complaint by Conservative “Judicial Watch”

    Judicial Watch is claiming the senator did the work in Rhode Island and is therefore practicing with an inactive license; the senator says he did the work in DC where he is a member of the Supreme Court Bar. According to the brief, he filed on behalf of himself and four other senators. I think JW is full of it. It is known for its partisan attacks.
     
  15. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,624
    Non-Denom
    Private
    What does that have to do with someone filing in the court w/o a law license?
     
  16. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,624
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Well. It will be dismissed if it was valid.

    So, no biggie then. :oldthumbsup:
     
  17. Tanj

    Tanj Redefined comfortable middle class

    +3,317
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    It's another smearing frivolous attack by Judicial Watch, who will not post the inevitable dismissal of their pointless and erroneous suit. These things are "biggies" to the people that have to defend against them, and nothing can be done about the loss of reputation.

    Judicial Watch are like a reverse garbage truck, instead of picking it up they throw it about the streets.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  18. Arcangl86

    Arcangl86 Newbie

    +2,901
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Green
    Which is such a bizarre argument that I never heard of. The state bar of Rhode Island has no role in regulating the practice of federal law.
     
  19. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +8,956
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    There are lawsuits and there are frivolous lawsuits. Democrats have taken Donald to court to stop his illegal actions; Republicans repeatedly filed suit against Obama saying he was not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to be president (those of course were dismissed, but it still cost money to defend against).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 26, 2019
  20. NightHawkeye

    NightHawkeye Work-in-progress Supporter

    +7,967
    Methodist
    Married
    Not quite correct.

    Democrats have attempted to stop actions they don't like ... whether legal or illegal. Courts have consistently ruled against Democrat challenges and in those instances when courts sided with Democrats Trump changed his approach to work within a framework acceptable to the courts.
     
Loading...