As I understand it, in an "adversarial" legal system, each side is represented by a lawyer who is obliged to put forward the strongest argument they can; then the court decides between the arguments. And so even incredibly guilty people are entitled to have a lawyer on their side, lawyering as effectively as they can.

So to them, there's no shame in representing an asshole and advancing a terrible argument, if that's what their client wants.

What's more, generally you don't become a judge without being a lawyer for a few decades first. And they know what class solidarity is. Why would they be overly harsh with their colleagues and friends, if nothing explicitly demands they do so?

Pretty much every legal case ends involves at least one side ending up unhappy. And pretty much every legal case involves at least one person who's happy to make legal threats. I'd wager many lawyers have someone threaten to get them disbarred a few times a year. It'd be difficult for the legal system to function if getting people disbarred was easy.

I guess I should have been clear that when I said stupid arguments, I meant breaking the rules, not necessarily arguing from a position of weakness.

I’m not asking why there are people representing shaky cases. Even bad people are entitled to a competent defense.

I’m talking about why judges allow lawyers to get away with breaking courtroom procedure and rules.

I don’t think there is as much class solidarity among lawyers. Most lawyers I know are happy to shit talk other lawyers, hell, many of them would jump at the chance to find an idiot in contempt.

After a few decades of dealing with clowns and reaching a federal judgeship, you’d think they would take the opportunity to knock some heads.