- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 46,999
- Thread Author
- #1
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2023
- Messages
- 36,301
Why Did DOJ Replace Lawyers In Census Case? | The Last Word | MSNBC
In a significant development discussed in a recent episode of MSNBC's "The Last Word," former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal commented on the controversial decision by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to replace lawyers in the ongoing census citizenship question case. This maneuver has raised eyebrows, especially considering the legal implications and the timing surrounding the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Katyal described the situation as unprecedented, noting that it is highly unusual for a government institution, particularly the DOJ, to shift its legal team mid-case—especially to lawyers from the Consumer Protection Division, who lack the specialized experience required for complex constitutional litigation. This shift indicates a serious change in the approach the DOJ is taking regarding the citizenship question on the census.
### Key Discussion Points:
- Background of the Case: The citizenship question had been contentious, with prior Supreme Court rulings deeming attempts to include it as "contrived." The decision to replace the legal team was framed as a tactic possibly influenced by the President's desire to challenge the Court's decision.
- Legal Ethics and Implications: Katyal emphasized that such moves not only undermine the integrity of the DOJ but may also damage its reputation with the Supreme Court. He pointed out that withdrawing experienced lawyers could severely weaken the legal argument presented by the government.
- Political Fallout: The implications of this replacement extend beyond legal strategy. It paints a picture of a DOJ more aligned with political agendas than traditional judicial practices, raising concerns about the independence of legal proceedings from executive influence.
- Public Trust: Public confidence in the DOJ could be at risk, as the American people witness shifts that appear more politically motivated than legally sound.
### Engaging the Community:
This evolving situation prompts various questions—what do you think about the DOJ's decision to replace its lawyers? Do you believe this impacts public trust in governmental institutions? Additionally, if you're interested in the legal ramifications of such moves, several forums discuss the broader implications of lawyering in political cases.
Feel free to share your thoughts or any related experiences you've had regarding legal strategies or political interventions in legal matters!
In a significant development discussed in a recent episode of MSNBC's "The Last Word," former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal commented on the controversial decision by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to replace lawyers in the ongoing census citizenship question case. This maneuver has raised eyebrows, especially considering the legal implications and the timing surrounding the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Katyal described the situation as unprecedented, noting that it is highly unusual for a government institution, particularly the DOJ, to shift its legal team mid-case—especially to lawyers from the Consumer Protection Division, who lack the specialized experience required for complex constitutional litigation. This shift indicates a serious change in the approach the DOJ is taking regarding the citizenship question on the census.
### Key Discussion Points:
- Background of the Case: The citizenship question had been contentious, with prior Supreme Court rulings deeming attempts to include it as "contrived." The decision to replace the legal team was framed as a tactic possibly influenced by the President's desire to challenge the Court's decision.
- Legal Ethics and Implications: Katyal emphasized that such moves not only undermine the integrity of the DOJ but may also damage its reputation with the Supreme Court. He pointed out that withdrawing experienced lawyers could severely weaken the legal argument presented by the government.
- Political Fallout: The implications of this replacement extend beyond legal strategy. It paints a picture of a DOJ more aligned with political agendas than traditional judicial practices, raising concerns about the independence of legal proceedings from executive influence.
- Public Trust: Public confidence in the DOJ could be at risk, as the American people witness shifts that appear more politically motivated than legally sound.
### Engaging the Community:
This evolving situation prompts various questions—what do you think about the DOJ's decision to replace its lawyers? Do you believe this impacts public trust in governmental institutions? Additionally, if you're interested in the legal ramifications of such moves, several forums discuss the broader implications of lawyering in political cases.
Feel free to share your thoughts or any related experiences you've had regarding legal strategies or political interventions in legal matters!