The 'Let's Kill All the Lawyers' Error Is Hardly Unique in the Republican Hive Mind
Ruling in the law firm Perkins Coie's suit against the US Justice Department, Judge Beryl Howell granted summary judgment and declaratory and permanent injunctive relief for the plaintiff. The judge's memorandum opinion was a bracing 102-page analysis of everything that is wrong with the executive order in question, which was one of the orders that directly punished lawyers for daring to practice law in a way that displeases Donald Trump and his minions. She wrote: "Settling personal vendettas by targeting a disliked business or individual for punitive government action is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President."
The ruling also received some well deserved attention for setting the record straight about Shakespeare's frequently quoted but completely misunderstood line, "Let’s kill all the lawyers," which is one of the oldest erroneous tropes in American politics and popular culture. We have all heard that line many times, both in our personal lives and in countless TV shows and movies. Some of us know that the conventional understanding of that line is completely wrong, and Judge Howell is certainly among our number. Her opening paragraph gets directly to the point (citations omitted):
No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” When Shakespeare’s character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding “[a]way with him,” referring to an educated clerk, who “can make obligations and write court hand.” Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power. See Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (explaining the import of the same Shakespearean statement to be “that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government”).
Two pages later, Judge Howell adds this: "In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let’s kill all the lawyers,' [Trump's order] takes the approach of 'Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else." Precisely.
Having been reminded again about the misuse of Shakespeare's words, I soon began to think about a few other quotes or ideas that people use in entirely erroneous ways. What follows is not a complete or ordered list, but rather a collection of examples that constitute a similar type of mistake. And as I suggest in the title of this column, all of these examples are either exclusively or overwhelmingly used by Republicans in ways that are knowingly dishonest or willfully ignorant.
In other words, these are a few of many persistent examples of conventional foolishness that carry right-wing valence and that, when properly understood, in fact support liberals' arguments.
Tort Law and Coffee
Amazingly, the false version of the "McDonald's hot coffee case" still shows up even though it has been debunked over and over again. The Republican state judge who presided over that case said that it was in no way a runaway jury, and he did not set the verdict aside. The victim suffered third-degree burns in her groin area. McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints about the overheated coffee, and it treated the plaintiff in the case with evident disdain.
No matter. Just two months ago, CNN's website ran "Starbucks ordered to pay $50 million to delivery driver burned by hot beverage," an article that ended with this: "The lawsuit is reminiscent of a famous 1994 lawsuit against McDonald’s in which a woman spilled hot coffee on her lap and suffered third-degree burns. The plaintiff in that case, Stella Liebeck, was originally awarded nearly $3 million." What the article does not say is that McDonald's stonewalled Ms Liebeck until she agreed to settle the case for an undisclosed (surely much lower) sum, and it oversimplifies the case with "a woman spilled hot coffee in her lap," as if that is the entirety of the story. Kudos for noting the third-degree burns, however.
I start with this example because I only heard about it by watching watching a YouTube video by a medical doctor/influencer, who mentioned the Starbuck's case and then could not resist making a snarky remark about the McDonald's case. Like Shakespeare's misused words, this is another one of those references that people immediately "get," except that they get it exactly wrong.
Teaching and Doing
"Those who can't do, teach." This example is a bit different in that there is not a specific underlying case or text to which one can turn to divine the true story underneath the common, sloppy misunderstanding. I include it here, however, because the quote deliberately misrepresents what the word "can't" means. It is true that some people become teachers or coaches when they can no longer compete at the highest levels. But when, say, Steve Kerr went from being an excellent point guard to an excellent head coach, it would at least be more accurate to say that "some of those who can no longer do, teach."
The difference matters, because the clear message of the "can't do, teach" trope is that teachers are lesser in some way(s), incompetent or worse, and thus have no choice but to be a smartypants and tell everyone else what to do. That is not to say that there are not examples of people who literally could never do what they are teaching others to do. Sticking to the NBA, the van Gundy brothers come to mind, even though they both were decent lower-level college players, because they certainly could not do what their best NBA players could do. See also Bill Belichick, Ohio State football coach Ryan Day, and many others.
Again, however, the issue is not that the words are never literally true but that the message that those words convey is politically freighted. Just as CNN's summary of the McDonald's case is not exactly false, the idea is that teachers are teachers because they are simply not very good, so we can continue to treat them poorly and disrespectfully.
Moreover, for some of us, "can't do" means something very different. We could do what we are teaching, but we cannot convince ourselves to do it, because it would either be uninteresting or would feel like a waste of our talents. That is, we cannot allow ourselves to use our skills to do things that others can do once we teach them, which is the basis of the concept of "comparative advantage," where even a person (or a country) who can do everything better than every other person (or country) still specializes in the things at which they are "more better," if you will.
A few years ago, I was stunned when a colleague on a law faculty came up to me after an entry-level tax professor candidate's job talk. The candidate had mentioned during his presentation that he does not prepare his own taxes. My non-tax colleague said: "Neil, I know you're in favor of hiring this guy, but wasn't that admission disqualifying?!" Of course not. I only do my own taxes because I do not have complicated returns, but when I do, I hire a professional. Similarly, although I have a Ph.D. in economics and have taught finance courses, I hire investment advisors to develop and execute strategies to make me wealthier. When I was engaged to be married, I hired a lawyer to write a prenup, even though I could have written one myself.
Again, however, I included this example on the current list because it is a favorite putdown on the right to justify not listening to experts, to underpay people who teach our children, and so on. A student in one of my seminars once even said that teachers should be unpaid, because anyone can do it. Right.
Cheating on Taxes
Speaking of tax law, this is perhaps a less widely known example, but I become furious when people say that they are taking a tax course to learn how to cheat on their taxes. Students frequently ask questions about how easy it might be to hide evidence, for example, and the general idea is: "Well, come on, it's only taxes."
Once, I hired a real estate attorney to handle the closing on a house, and I told him that I wanted to structure the deal in a way that would allow me to take a legitimate tax deduction. When I explained that this would not be possible unless we changed our offer in a specific way, he said, "Well, that seems complicated. Why don't you just take the deduction anyway?" When I responded that that would be illegal -- and I reminded him that I was moving to his state to teach, you know, tax law -- he said, "So the federal government gets less money! Who cares?"
"Tax law is about cheating the system" thus insults the people who are most devoted to maintaining the integrity of the system, which is ultimately for the benefit of everyone. But again, politicians on the right are constantly pushing the idea that tax laws are at best inconveniences and that people who try to prevent tax evasion are spoilsports or worse.
Government Workers
We have quite unfortunately been exposed since January 20, 2025 to endless debunking of the "lazy government workers" trope, but that repeated slander of civil servants obviously goes back decades if not centuries. Government workers are, in fact, not only our first line of defense against political hacks, but often our last. People flying through Newark's airport are learning that lesson this month, and the underlying problem is only going to get worse.
But why do Republicans in Congress not care that many of their own constituents are being fired without cause by a ketamine-addled billionaire? Because they have been drinking the same Kool-Aid as all of their ideological brethren for their entire lives, gleefully quoting Ronald Reagan's "the nine scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help,'" and generally failing to understand that we have government workers because the public wants its government to do things that can only be done by hiring and paying workers.
During one of the Republicans' manufactured government shutdowns about a decade ago, one Republican congressional backbencher inadvertently made news when he took his family to a national park and was not allowed to enter because there was a government shutdown. But pretending that these workers are doing nothing is politically advantageous, even though they are people who live in communities around the country and provide unseen services that we all count on.
Due Process
Another old-as-the-hills Republican trope that has suddenly become very pertinent is the idea that due process of law is a bunch of criminal-friendly technicalities. But the lack of due process in the Trumpian deportations and arrests is a reminder that due process starts with making sure that "we've got the right guy."
While Trump's worst aides talk openly about suspending habeas corpus, we have the case of still-imprisoned Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who is only the most well known among many examples of people who should have been given the opportunity to say, "I'm not the right guy." Trump's people admitted that Abrego Garcia's transfer to a foreign gulag was an error, but they are undeterred.
One of the worst of Trump's anti-immigrant lieutenants is "border czar" Tom Homan, who responded to a question about due process for the people he has been rounding up by asking rhetorically: "Look, due process? Where was Laken Riley’s due process? Where were all these young women that were killed and raped by members of TDA, where was their due process? ... How about the young lady burned in that subway, where was her due process?"
Homan went on to claim that the people who have been taken were all guilty, which we know because
[w]e got to count on the men and women who do this every day for a living, who -- who -- who designated these people as a members of TDA, through, like I said, various law enforcement methods. This will be litigated. But as of right now, I’ve been assured by the highest levels in ICE that every one of these members -- every one of these Venezuelans are members of TDA."
So at best, Homan is saying that due process means taking as true allegations against a person, sending them to a hellhole, and maybe later letting a judge sort it out. No skepticism, no sense that maybe getting it wrong has irreversible consequences, just bloodthirsty self-righteousness.
But the larger error lies in Homan's rhetorical question about the due process rights of victims. Right-wingers are always talking about victims' rights and avenging the deaths of innocents, but even on its own terms, that only makes sense if the vengeance is wrought on (say it with me) the right guy.
Even accepting Homan's attempt to shift focus from the rights of possibly innocent suspects, he fails to see that the ultimate vindication of victims requires that we get the right guy. Where was Laken Riley’s due process? Due process for victims lies in being certain that we do not punish the wrong person and leave the actual perpetrator still on the street.
This is a depressing list. In each case, there is a right-wing talking point that turns reality and logic upside-down and inside-out. As I noted above, this is unfortunately a very incomplete list. And we are all seeing the consequences when people without consciences turn their bad-faith arguments into government actions.
-- Neil H. Buchanan