QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:00 PM)
Because you are allowed to argue for change of law.
Part of being a lawyer is advocating for the change of unjust laws.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Rules of Ethics
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/narr/IL_NARR_3.HTM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/code/...DE.HTM#Rule_3.1
IRPC 3.1 is identical to MR 3.1. The rule prohibits a lawyer from bringing or defending a lawsuit unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
So what you meant to say is that I am following ethical guidelines.
Just like Jenks can argue that abortion laws should be changed, I can argue that immigration laws should be changed.
What type of system do you think we live in, where lawyers cant argue that a law is unjust?
Have you never heard of Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade?
Or are you just unfamiliar with the term hypocrite, and think that it means "being consistent".
QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 09:05 PM)