site banner
zataomm  2yr ago (text post)   6991 thread views

Colorado Supreme Court Thread

Link to the decision

I don't know to what extent there are established precedents for when a topic is worthy of a mega-thread, but this decision seems like a big deal to me with a lot to discuss, so I'm putting this thread here as a place for discussion. If nobody agrees then I guess they just won't comment.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think it's a more plausible argument for public defenders than it is for people on the SCOTUS bar. Unikowsky was not assigned to work with Montana out of some computerized selection criteria or preset longstanding contract. At minimum, he joined Jenner and Block knowing it was arguing these sort of cases with this sort of valiance, he's done so in a variety of contexts (eg whether public employees can be fired for inadvertent misgendering), and some of those he's argued separately from his clients or employer. More likely, while he wasn't the sole decision-maker, he had a pretty sizable degree of control and advocacy, and personally chose to be involved in the case.

At what levels do litigators argue in the interests of their own interpretations of the Constitution, rather than the interests of their client or a preferred alternative to the status quo, with respect to the specific controversy of the case? Are the arguments at SCOTUS the personal interpretations of the litigators, or the arguments they think are most likely to succeed with respect to the specific controversy of the case?

I'd argue that if you're writing a substack that pushes entirely based on your career as a SCOTUS-barred lawyer, and you talk about success in one situation, and personal interpretations in the other situation, even if you're being absolutely honest, if you make absolutely zero distinction in writing, there's absolutely zero reason to care what you say, or take it seriously as anything but a way to talk other people into believing something you'd never do.

Sorry to bump the thread again, but I think I disagree with this claim. It is a lawyer's job to make the best possible argument for your client's position. By the standards of the legal profession, if Adam was arguing in front of SCOTUS and didn't make the best possible arguments just because he personally thought that they were probably not as convincing as the best opposing arguments, that would be doing wrong by his clients! I do think there's something a little off there, but it doesn't make sense to hold it against Adam individually. Like let's say he takes a case, researches and thinks about it for a while, and realizes that on balance probably the other side is right. What do you want him to do, give it up? Or make the argument, and then never be allowed to have a personal opinion on any related issues of legal philosophy ever again? And of course it would look pretty bad if you just said 'yeah all that stuff i said in front of the supreme court was wrong lol'. Again I think this situation as a whole is slightly questionable but why should we hold it against a specific person?

[not a lawyer, could be missing something ofc]

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats