Quote:
I think Sydney, herself, said it perfectly in her statement (as to why).
Quote:
Quote:
We had a legal obligation to the country and the electors to raise these issues. It is the duty of lawyers in the highest tradition of the practice of law to raise difficult and even unpopular issues. The fact that there may have been even adverse precedent against us does not change that fact.
Using
Brown v. Board of Education as an example of a case being brought despite a binding Supreme Court precedent in
Dred Scott was a nice touch and explained it perfectly. Were I still practicing, it would be around my 38th year. She's been practicing for 43 years so we likely received quite similar legal ethics training. You can stretch the boundaries if the right fact situation, such as one that is unique as 2020 was without running afoul of Rule 11.
But one thing that I wish more people would focus on and that is changing the laws on election cases that provide for standing and change statute of limitations to stop the ridiculous use of laches/standing for dismissal of post election suits.
The changes in the way elections are run are good but things will still happen> The court system really needs to be able to have meaningful remedies available.
