Lawfare: It's Awfully Convenient When All Sides Are Playing For The Same Team

So Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against Michigan's 1931 law banning abortions - even though it is not in effect, has not been enforced nor even threatened to be enforced against anyone,  and thus there is no case nor controversy before the court. But that didn't stop Planned Parenthood which has sought an injunction to prevent the law that is not being enforced from possibly being enforced in the future.

"Defending" the law, but not really, is AG Dana Nessel, who is busily acceding to the Defendant;s injunction of the law and hasn't argued that it should be dismissed due to the lack of case or controversy. She has also graciously announced she will not appeal the judge's decision to place an injunction on the law. How convenient.

Considering that AG Nessel has already announced she would not enforce the law under any circumstances, before she even "defended" this case, her lack of basic legal diligence defending on behalf of the People of Michigan it is rather unsurprising.

So that's both sides working together for the same result.

Even better, the judge in the case? She's a donor to Planned Parenthood and had represented Planned Parenthood in a major case in 1997.

Gleicher disclosed early on in the case that she was an annual donor to Planned Parenthood and had represented them in the key 1997 abortion rights case. Gleicher said she could remain unbiased.

Sure, of course she could.  

By the way, that 1997 case, Planned Parenthood lost and the Court of Appeals said there was no state right to an Abortion - but in this case Judge Gelicher is now finding one and trying to ignore and get around the 1997 ruling and claim there is a such a right in the Michigan Constitution.

In short, all three players in this case, Plaintiff, Defendant, and Judge are on the same side here. That's not how this is supposed to work.

Again, this should have been dismissed outright as there is not yet any case or controversy nor any attempt to even enforce the 1931 law yet.  Instead its been heard and all players are busy working to get the same result. This is the Democrats playing with the justice system for purely political ends and

Regardless of your thoughts, feelings, or views on abortion, this is a travesty of the law and not how the court system is supposed to operate. 

Update:  It turns out not only is Nessel importantly and improperly declining to appeal, but Nessel threw the case from the outset and the fix was well and truly in from the get-go:  Michigan conservative activists want Court of Appeals to overturn abortion law injunction:

"The attorney general, who already declined to file a motion to dismiss or file a brief opposing the requested preliminary injunction on the merits, now cheers her own defeat and the Court of Claims’ purported injunction," reads a portion of the center's filing with the court of appeals.

So, she did not file a motion to dismiss for lack of a case or controversy, and she didn't even file a brief opposing the injunction. This would be called malpractice if it was any other attorney and any other client.