Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  I think that's my dilemma here. (none)
    I know for a fact there are lawyers on our side who post here regularly - a lot of them. I know they worked hard to get the education, background, jobs, and private practices that they have. I know they probably have a much greater understanding of the law than I ever will. I also know they have bills and families that their work helps to support - and the paycheck has to come from somewhere.

    As with most cases, it comes down to individual choice. If they feel they can handle the work without letting their personal objections to a case get in the way, it only demonstrates their professionalism. You don't necessarily have to like a client to argue their case.

    Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chafee are ON NOTICE - John Orman and Sheldon Whitehouse for Senate 2006!

    by Scoopster on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:39:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Devil's (none)
      Advocate here.

      How do you feel about criminal defense attorneys who represent violent criminals and do their best to get them off even when it is likely that their client is guilty?

      I saw a lot of defense of the great things Johnny Cochran did outside of the OJ trial on this site but that doesn't change the fact that he successfully defended a murderer that everyone knew was guilty...

      Or how about the  antithesis of corporate attorneys?  You know the ones who advertise with billboards "Hurt on the Job?  Ever take this now-pulled-from-the-shelves) drug?  Dying of lung cancer (even though you willingly smoked your whole life)?  Big $$$ can be yours!

      In my experience here at Kos I have seen quite a bit of an anti-corporation bent that sometimes I think it muddies the waters unfairly.

      •  We ought to hang 'em up! (none)
        Actually, I'm still not convinced OJ was guilty.

        But otherwise I think you make a good point.

        Everybody deserves proper legal counsel, even Saddam Hussein or Eichmann.

      •  Apples and Oranges (none)
        I don't think it's a good analogy to compare criminal defense attorneys, to corporate or tort law attorneys.  The reason is this:

        Criminal defense attorneys are not really serving their clients--not in the traditional sense of the word.  They are, first and foremost, officers of the court, serving the Constitution.  They are there as a check on the government.  They are there to keep the constitutional machine well-oiled and functioning.  They're a cog in a larger machine.  The ethics of defending the constitution are clear-cut.  That it benefits the client is really a side-effect.

        Tort lawyers would claim they were having a similar function, protecting the consumer from corporations--and maybe they are.  But it's a different kind of calling when the dispute is between two private entitities. . . and the government and its citizens.

        •  I (none)
          see what you're saying, my example was truly that of a devil's advocate.

          It was put out in response to the kind of comments around here that presuppose that all corporations (and their employees) are somehow inherently evil and immoral, and that the only reasonable lawyer appointee to the SCOTUS would be one with a strictly ACLU/public defendant/pro-bono-type background.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site