Barr in Contempt of Congress

STANV said:

BG9 said:
Yes, state bar, but Federal magistrates have the power to bring relief if they find a constitutional violation. 
Using the pardon power to pardon congressional offenses will be decided by the courts. That may take awhile whereas the pardon can be issued within a day.

ps - I realize, normally, federal courts often tell plaintiffs to first go to the state courts for relief against state entities. However, Trump judges are not normal judges.
Besides, Barr being the chief law officer of the U.S., may get preferment to have his case heard quickly by a federal court having submitted that disbarment impedes his job which is detrimental to the functioning of the executive branch.

 Lawyers are licensed by States. If the State licensing authority takes away someone's license pursuant to its own rules can a Federal Court overturn that? On what basis? Good questions.
In New Jersey the State Supreme Court holds the power to disbar a lawyer. If they disbar a lawyer so that he is prohibited from practicing before the State Courts could a Federal Court order the State Supreme Court to allow that person to practice? If so how would they enforce that, by sending in Federal troops?
Talk about a Constitutional Crises.   

The supremacy clause ensures that federal courts have the final say on federal constitutional issues. 

I think the usual court remedy for disobeying a court order is contempt. If a federal court finds that a Barr disbarment violates his constitutional rights with a state SC disregarding that order, then the state SC justices could be found in contempt.

There would be no constitutional crisis, just as there was none when Wallace acted up.

Kudos to Ridksi.  Meme trending on Twitter.  Keep ‘em coming.

Robert_Casotto said:
Kudos to Ridksi.  Meme trending on Twitter.  Keep ‘em coming.

Mangled name. Upside-down apostrophe. All hail the king of the mote juste.

BG9 said:
The supremacy clause ensures that federal courts have the final say on federal constitutional issues. 
I think the usual court remedy for disobeying a court order is contempt. If a federal court finds that a Barr disbarment violates his constitutional rights with a state SC disregarding that order, then the state SC justices could be found in contempt.
There would be no constitutional crisis, just as there was none when Wallace acted up.

 Licensing of lawyers is not a Federal Constitutional issue, although I guess if a State refused to allow black people to practice law it would violate the 14th Amendment.

What provision of the US Constitution is violated by disbarring a lawyer for being cited for Contempt of Congress? Is there a Constitutional Right to practice law?

Some years ago lawyers in NJ who didn't like a particular ruling of the NJ Supreme Court filed a law suit against the Justices in the US District Court for NJ. The case was dismissed.

I believe it was US AG Ed Meese who maintained that State ethics rules did not apply to the Lawyers in his Department because of Federal Supremacy. By that argument a member of his department could commit a murder and not be prosecuted because murder is a violation of State Law.

BG9,

Are we having fun yet?

STANV said:
 Barr is an appointee of Trump and part of the Executive Branch. He is a member of the President's cabinet. He is not part of the Judicial Branch. The head of the Judicial Branch is the Chief Justice. 

 This is what I read that confused me. Its from the Department of Justice website.

https://www.justice.gov/ag/about-office

The fist few sentences seem to point to him as the head of the department but the last sentences seem to place him in the Executive branch.

"The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws."

STANV said:

BG9 said:
The supremacy clause ensures that federal courts have the final say on federal constitutional issues. 
I think the usual court remedy for disobeying a court order is contempt. If a federal court finds that a Barr disbarment violates his constitutional rights with a state SC disregarding that order, then the state SC justices could be found in contempt.
There would be no constitutional crisis, just as there was none when Wallace acted up.

 Licensing of lawyers is not a Federal Constitutional issue, although I guess if a State refused to allow black people to practice law it would violate the 14th Amendment.
What provision of the US Constitution is violated by disbarring a lawyer for being cited for Contempt of Congress? Is there a Constitutional Right to practice law?
Some years ago lawyers in NJ who didn't like a particular ruling of the NJ Supreme Court filed a law suit against the Justices in the US District Court for NJ. The case was dismissed.
I believe it was US AG Ed Meese who maintained that State ethics rules did not apply to the Lawyers in his Department because of Federal Supremacy. By that argument a member of his department could commit a murder and not be prosecuted because murder is a violation of State Law.

But now we have different judges. One day abortion is legal, another day it may not be or under such cumbersome regulations to be de facto prohibited.

Authoritarianism at work - denigrate the press, corrupt the judiciary. What lawyer or judge in pre-Hitler Germany would have ever envisioned the acceptance of laws like the 1935 Nuremberg laws by their judiciary? 

STANV said:
BG9,
Are we having fun yet?

BG9 said:
Yes, state bar, but Federal magistrates have the power to bring relief if they find a constitutional violation. 
Using the pardon power to pardon congressional offenses will be decided by the courts. That may take awhile whereas the pardon can be issued within a day.

ps - I realize, normally, federal courts often tell plaintiffs to first go to the state courts for relief against state entities. However, Trump judges are not normal judges.
Besides, Barr being the chief law officer of the U.S., may get preferment to have his case heard quickly by a federal court having submitted that disbarment impedes his job which is detrimental to the functioning of the executive branch.

 I have to disagree on many levels. 

Why do I keep reading thread title as ‘Barr in Contempt of Progress’?