“Today’s Outrage” is a new feature. Since January 20, outrages at the federal level have been coming so thick and fast that trying to absorb them has been like trying to drink from a fire hydrant.
We thought we’d try to slow things down, and focus on one at a time.
We’re not worried about running out of material.
Many thanks to our authors!
2. TODAY’S OUTRAGE: Let’s NOT Kill All the Lawyers
I realize that eminent law firms may not be on your shortlist of people to worry about. For one thing, they tend to have a lot of money: undoubtedly some lawyers struggle financially, but probably not the ones who work for large, prestigious firms. For another thing, many people feel distaste for the legal profession as a whole. We all know about sharks and shysters and ambulance chasers. We’ve all seen “Jungle Law” ads for personal injury lawyers who browbeat their way to big settlements. The patron saint of lawyers, St. Ivo, who died in 1303, is said to have been sanctified, according to a 14th century poem, because he “was a … lawyer, but not dishonest – An astonishing thing!” There are reasons why one of Shakespeare’s most quoted lines is, “Let’s kill all the lawyers.”
What these disparagements overlook, however, is a benefit we’ve received for so long that we take it for granted: that in a modern society, most disputes can be resolved without violence. That isn’t how things go in the state of nature. For most of human history, disputes were resolved as they are in the animal kingdom, with the biggest and scariest getting their way. If that meant beating, robbing, raping, killing – well, that was how life was. The fact that nowadays, it is often not how life is – that many of us can go for decades without being beaten or robbed or raped or killed – is because, over millennia, and with enormous effort, we developed another method: the rule of law. Instead of finding a brute to represent you in trial by combat, you find a lawyer to represent you in trial by jury. Instead of trying to win a knife fight, you try to win an argument.
Of course a conflict is still a conflict. It is still an occasion of anger and aggression. It’s no fun to be involved in a lawsuit, especially if you feel that someone slick and nasty on the other side is misrepresenting you. Anyone who has been through a trial knows how awful the experience can be. But a fight with words is still preferable to a fight with bullets.
We go with the rule of law not because it’s perfect, but because it’s better than any of the alternatives. There is a code of justice. You try to argue rationally that your wishes accord with that code. Since it’s hard to remain rational when you’re emotionally enmeshed in a conflict, you hire someone to argue for you. (That emotional enmeshment is why a man who serves as his own attorney has a fool for a client.) The competing arguments are judged by persons–judges and juries – whom we strive to make impartial. This system has evolved over centuries. It may not give you what you want, but it has a pretty good chance of giving you what you deserve.
The structure only works, however, if each side has an advocate. That’s why a person who is accused of a crime, and can’t afford a lawyer, receives a public defender. But this, of course, points towards one of the ways in which life is unfair. A public defender is usually less experienced, less well-paid, and far more overworked than a private attorney. Furthermore, you don’t get a public defender for a civil suit, and if I, say, try to sue United Healthcare, they can afford better lawyers and longer lawsuits than I can. In the legal world, the wealthy have a built-in advantage. One way we try to mitigate this unfairness is through contingency suits: if United Healthcare has done something truly terrible to me, perhaps I can find a lawyer who thinks an indignant jury will give me a large settlement, out of which he can then take a large percentage.
Class action lawsuits work similarly. Still, not every wrong can be trusted to generate outrage, and unless we put all lawyers on a public payroll and dole them out by lottery – unless we give everyone a public defender, and nothing but – it’s hard to see us all becoming truly equal before the law. Furthermore, if we did somehow manage to make free legal services available to everyone, the system might well drown in frivolous lawsuits, because people are good at feeling injured. Thus, we are stuck with a private, for-profit system, with all its attendant flaws.
We are used to the rich having an unfair advantage over the poor. But now we are seeing something new, or at least new to the United States. The Trump Administration is trying to deny legal representation, or at least the most skilled legal representation, to its political enemies. On February 25, 2025, the president directed the federal government to penalize the law firm of Covington & Burling because it provided pro bono legal services to Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by the Biden Administration to investigate Trump for federal crimes. When Trump was re-elected in 2024, Smith resigned ahead of being fired, and he has disclosed that at that time, faced with threats of legal harassment from Trump and Trump allies, he received $140,000 worth of free legal advice from a Covington & Burling partner, Peter Koski. For this, Koski’s firm was stripped of its security clearances and federal contracts.
Is Jack Smith is entitled to legal counsel? Of course he is: Charles Manson was entitled to legal counsel. Is Smith entitled to top-flight legal counsel – say, from someone like Peter Koski, a partner with a distinguished resume who works at a distinguished firm? He is if Peter Koski wishes to represent him. In the course of his career, Koski seems to have taken a special interest in public integrity cases, and perhaps Smith’s case struck him as relevant to that interest. But whatever Koski’s motives, I have never heard of an American president punishing a law firm for whom they defended. I don’t remember the Biden Administration going after Trump’s lawyers. Everyone gets counsel, and everyone is entitled to the best counsel they can obtain. You don’t go after lawyers unless they break ethical rules or commit a crime. That’s a basic principle which has always been taken for granted.
Not anymore. The memos and executive orders have been coming thick and fast. The firm of Perkins Coie was targeted because it worked for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and hired Fusion GPS, which produced the Steele Dossier. (If you don’t know about the Steele Dossier, look it up – it’s a doozy.) The firm of Paul Weiss was targeted for bringing actions against January 6th rioters. The firm of Jenner & Block was targeted for hiring Andrew Weissmann, who assisted Robert Mueller in the Trump-Russia investigation. The firm of WilmerHale was targeted because it hired Mueller himself, both before and after the Trump-Russia investigation. The firm of Susman Godfrey was targeted for representing Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News. The list goes on. Along with losing security clearances and federal contracts, firms have been banned from federal courthouses. It’s hard to represent your client if you can’t even enter the courthouse.
What’s all this about? It’s about making the best attorneys, and especially the best-resourced attorneys, afraid to work for people whom Donald Trump dislikes. Which means that ultimately, it’s about making it hard for his opponents to receive justice.
Much of this is probably unconstitutional, and some of the targeted firms are fighting back, in cases which are making their long and winding way through the courts. Quite a few other firms– nine, at last count – have surrendered, making deals to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono work to causes favored by the Trump Administration. If that sounds like acceding to extortion, well, law firms are in business to make money, and they fear losing clients who don’t want to get on the federal government’s bad side. Of course there is no shortage of companies who don’t want to get on the federal government’s bad side, especially this federal government, whose civil servants are exposed to political pressure in a way unseen since the 1880s.
Bullied justice is no justice. The problem with Trump’s war on law firms is not what happens to some people in expensive suits; the problem is what happens to the rule of law. In a democracy, where manifold interests and philosophies compete, every side needs a level playing field in court, which means being able to get lawyers – good lawyers. Otherwise, instead of justice, we have the will of the boss.
2 TODAY’S WIN: The Courts are Reigning in Ridiculous and Dangerous Executive Orders.
(A thank you to Robert Hubbell for his analysis of these 3 significant wins in court.)
An executive order, known as the SAVE Act, was issued, that would remove the management of elections from the states and congress, placing them directly under executive control. It ordered the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an organization created by and solely responsible to Congress, to enact this executive order. What could go wrong? It would require new and re-registering voters to show proof of citizenship with birth certificates, passports, and documents supporting name changes.
Time to collect those documents and be ready if they are needed! With the gutting of agencies, it will be extra challenging to get necessary documents and the expense could be prohibitive for many.
The order also denies states the ability to certify any ballots received after election day. This would disenfranchise many overseas civilian and military mail-in voters. Any state defying this order would be deprived of federal funds. This edict, oops!, executive order, would result in serious voter suppression.
Thanks to the involvement of LULAC (a coalition of voter advocacy groups) and several law firms, a D. C. Federal judge has issued an order denying the president access to managing our elections; reaffirming that privilege belongs to states and congress. Whew! We take our wins as they come.
Now, hold on to your seat. The SAVE Act is currently under review by congress to see if they can implement it. We will have to earn that celebration at a later date. Be prepared to work for it at both the congressional and state level.
(Today’s Edition News by Robert Hubbell; Democracy Docket; and White House Executive Orders, April 25, 2025)
Trump also issued an executive order prohibiting public schools from teaching or using “DEI”. A “Dear Colleague” letter sent to schools across the nation by the Department of Education, threatened to cut off federal funding to schools that taught or utilized “DEI” in their curricula or operations. Three separate groups filed suits against The Department of Education, challenging the ruling: the NAACP, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association. Each of the three judgements came to the same conclusion, using a different legal pathway. It’s really, really, really illegal! Here’s to the constitution and courts! We also owe a big vote of appreciation to our educators.
Now we know why wannabe dictators hate education!
(US Dept. Of Education for Civil Rights, February 14, 2025; Today’s Edition News, Robert Hubbell.)
In 2017 our “once and present king” president tried to threaten sanctuary cities with defunding. Again with the money! He lost in court. That went so well, he tried it again this time – in the same court with the same judge! US District Judge William H. Orrick, of San Francisco, issued an emergency order preventing implementation of any withholding of federal funds.
(Today’s Edition News, Robert Hubbell)
BONUS: The Progressive Movement is Gaining Traction
The MeidasTouch Network, was awarded the Webby’s highest recognition for Podcast of the Year . Webby, gives out awards for internet achievement. The Meidas Touch can be seen on UTube where they run commentary and interviews on today’s political issues. Their appeal to a younger audience is much needed as progressives begin to recognize the need to attract the youth vote.
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett was also recognized by Webby as Advocate of the Year. Listening to her brilliant analysis and sassy commentary is encouraging and just fun.
Heather Cox Richardson has become a national phenomenon. She hosts her daily newsletter, entitled Letters From an American, with 100,000 paid subscribers. As those daily posts are not paywalled, her readership extends far beyond the paid subscribers. She can be found on Facebook and Substack.
Also breaking records is the whirlwind movement of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Bernie reports that as of mid April they had drawn over 250,000 attendees to their Fighting Oligarchy Tour. (Bernie Sanders, UTube)
We are seeing more national leaders beginning to speak out against the abuses of power. Of note are Jamie Raskin, Chris Murphy, Hakeem Jeffries, Corey Booker, and Pete Buttigieg.
Last, but not least, we must applaud our people’s protest movement. Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Erica Chenoweth, a political science researcher from Harvard, found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent one’s. She has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change . (from the BBC). 50501 and Indivisible have been leaders in the growing nationwide peaceful protest movement. Nationally designated days of protest have reported numbers as high as 5 million participants. Boone County Democrats are activelyinvolved, with weekly protests in front of our federal congressmen’s office.