site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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]