Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Actually, We've Already Won (350 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so (2.22)
    so according to you, since he is a corporate lawyer, willing to sell out his own ideals for a paycheck, he is ok?  My god, you lawyers SUCK.
    •  not quite (none)
      That doesn't make him okay at all; it's just not the grounds on which we attack him.  We attack him for what he actually himself believes.

      If I were the nominee of a Democratic president and all of you got to scan every brief my name was ever on, you'd find something that would make me unconfirmable to you, I'm sure.

      "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

      by Adam B on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:10:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  see to me (none)
        What we need is that ACLU lawyer, or that lil guy lawyer who forsakes money and practices laws based on principle and not a paycheck.  Of course law/money/power/manipulation/selling ones soul is all american law is about anyway, so of course we are gonna get supreme justices who knows how to play the game.

         I am just saying, to those of us who have  said no, who have quit jobs on principle, who are not ruled by the oh mighty dollar, the whole idea of being a corporate lawyer in itself is a huge character flaw.


        •  um (none)
          Do you have a mortgage?  Children?  Law school loans?

          ACLU staff attorneys earn around $35-40K a year, IIRC.

          "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

          by Adam B on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:24:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  umm (3.00)
            yes I have a mortage, but instead of buying the biggest house I could, I found one needing some TLC, and I redid it. I started a company that make safety equipment for nursing homes to hopefully save some people from tragic accidents. I try to help and make a few dollars doing it.

             I don't sell my knowledge, my time, my intellect to the highest bidder. Women sell the bodies and they are whores, lawyers sell their minds and times and they are what? future Supreme Court Justices. pfft  count me unimpressed

          •  um (4.00)
            Mortgage?  Check.

            Children?  Check.

            Loans (not law school, but similar)?  Check.

            Am I a corporate shill?  Nope.  I make around 40K a year doing work to further humanity, when I could be making 2x to 3x more as a corporate apologist.

            I'm not saying it's evil to be a corporate lawyer (or a corporate scientist), but it is a morals choice and does say something about the person making the choice.  You can subsist nicely (even with kids and loans) on 40K a year.

            "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw

            by Shygetz on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:51:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You Make Choices, You Live With Them (4.00)
            I have bills, a mortgage, children. My wife and I each earn salaries closer to those ACLU staff attorneys than corporate lawyers.

            But more to the point, a lot of lawyer friends of mine have made similar choices. My sister-in-law and her husband are both lawyers in the Bay Area, with a mortgage and a kid on the way (and hard to find anywhere where those things are more expensive). They've both chosen not to do the corporate lawyer thing.  He's a public defender. She works for a small college (in what is basically a non-lawyer job that pays ACLU-ish salaries).

            Sorry, acbonin. It's perfectly understandable to choose a career to make more money, but you need to own up to the moral consequences of whatever choices you've made.  Nobody has to represent pharmaceutical companies in court. You've chosen to do so.  Perhaps you feel that there simply isn't an ethical or political downside to doing so. If that's the case, you can make your argument to that effect.  But simply saying "I gotta do it, there are bills to pay" doesn't fly.  My guess is that many, many Kossacks pay their bills without having to spend their time defending corporate America, let alone the pharmaceutical industry.

            Support IWT
            Independent World Television
            The Alternative to the Corporate Media

            by GreenSooner on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:15:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thurgood Marshall (none)
              is certainly an example of a lawyer who worked for social change organizations and went on to a distinguished career on the Supreme Court.

              There haven't been many nominees with THAT kind of background lately though.

              More's the pity.

              Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

              by willyr on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:30:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I like this resume (none)
                • Cornell undergrad, Harvard/Columbia Law.
                • Law clerk to a federal district court judge
                • Research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure.
                • Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law and Columbia Law School
                • Instrumental in launching the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU's General Counsel for eight years, successfully arguing several women's rights cases before the Supreme Court
                • DC Circuit Court Judge

                And now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on the Supreme Court.

                "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

                by Adam B on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:41:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  God knows, this is what I want too... (none)
          but to imagine President Bush even could comprehend these notions is delusionary.

          It doesn't surprise me that lawyers are not alarmed by Roberts' CV. They've been schooled that idealism may be the best way to live, but it rarely holds through the slow grind of court, and that often you have your best shot with a truly pragmatic judge.

        •  And what if that ACLU lawyer (none)
          had defended nazis rights to free speech or freedom of assembly?

          My guess is you'd defend his taking the case because the lawyer was defending a different principle. In the law profession, lawyers are sworn to the idea that everyone deserves a decent defense.

          And I'm hardly a fan of Roberts. But as difficult as it is, we need to focus on HIS life and HIS decisions from the bench.

        •  The little guy lawyer... (none)
 likely to not "forsake" the big corporate client as to be shut out by them - they want to hire a Stoel Rives or similar large law firm, not a sole practitioner or small firm.

          If you hang a shingle, you're going to get individuals and small businesses as your clients long before you have the chance to represent a faceless corporation.

      •  Attack him for 'what he actually himself believes' (none)
        without considering "what he actually himself has done"?

        That's just plain-old vanilla cognitive dissonance.

        Threecents and others on this thread are surely within accepted realms of common sense to call you lawyers on this bullshit that what you work on doesn't have anything to do with what you believe.

        There's plenty of people who understand their work to be a fundamental part of who they are---if you want to ignore that to do what you do as a lawyer, fine. But please don't pretend that compromising your beliefs because "it best pays the bills" or there are "many coporate lawyers who write for this site" makes it acceptable to many of us. It doesn't, and it isn't.

    •  My thoughts exactly (none)
      That's the bulls-eye on his chest.

      This is an administration of corporate America, by corporate America and for corporate America.  The majority of Americans believe this, so who the hell would believe they'd put up anything but a business lackey?

      Suggesting we surrender this line of attack counters all possible logic, especially of a party that was once considered champions of the common man.

      This guy will rule against average Americans in favor of big business every time.  That's the line.


      by DWCG on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:41:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site