Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  my briefs (none)
    If you look at my briefs and listen to the arguments I make in court, you'd think I'm a shylock who thinks charging 25 to 30 percent interest is fair and reasonable.  I make the arguments necessary to effectively represent my clients.  The briefs that we are all worried about simply show that Roberts has done the same.

    We're working with someone who is, for all intents and purposes, a judicial blank slate.

    •  Well Then..... (none)
      "If you look at my briefs and listen to the arguments I make in court, you'd think I'm a shylock who thinks charging 25 to 30 percent interest is fair and reasonable."

      If that's the case, then YOUR briefs are "stained".

      Break out the OxyWhite!  :o)

      </sarcastisnark>

    •  i don't get it (none)
      how do lawyers live with themselves? You come on here joking about how you helped some company fuck people over. Did I miss the punchline? It truly seems as though the legal profession attracts people who are completely willing to trash their values and  morals, as well as other people's lives, for a buck.

      Under the circumstances, I am very wary about taking any lawyer's positions on this guy seriously, since it all revolves around the notion that, "we're all doing it, so he must be ok." Fuck that.

      •  how's this? (none)
        Much of the time, corporations are suing other corporations.

        "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 11:28:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  WTF? (none)
        To the poster who said that lawyers are all out to make a buck, geez, do you think that stereotype you're promoting is actually TRUE?

        I'm a lawyer.  I don't live in a mansion, I don't drive a BMW.  I've represented indigent clients in criminal proceedings.  I've also represented big corporations in litigation. I sometimes represent clients for free. To claim that I have no values is very insulting.

        I'm part of an adversary process.  I'm not the judge.  To state that because I am a lawyer, I'm some charlatan interested only in the size of my retainer is ridiculous.

        We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

        by Mary Julia on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:29:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  uh (none)
          My point really was that for an alleged democrat to defend some corporatist anti-women anti-environment Supreme Court nominee because "all us lawyers do it" is where it gets really ugly to me. Just because some people are willing to defend ANYONE, no matter how corrupt, for a living doesn't mean we should accept this lifetime appointee's history of assaulting democratic values. His history shows that he has actively sought out or otherwise made himself extremely available to the worst companies and advocacy groups imaginable. He owns stocks in all these companies. He has "spent most of his professional and personal career fighting environmental regulation." His wife is the ringleader of an anti-abortion group. That some people here give that a pass simply because he's a lawyer is utter bullshit, and they should be ashamed for whoring their values for such a lowly sum.
    •  But it all depends (none)
      I obviously don't know what type of practice you have or work for, but do you jump from issue to issue to issue, arguing and advocating for conservative viewpoints almost everytime.  If you can't tell where this guy is coming from, you have something wrong with you.  He has chosen his own employers and causes to fight for.  Why would he all of the sudden change "sides" now.  
      •  PS (none)
        I'm not saying you argue for a conservative viewpoint or anything like that.  I'm just stating that Robert's actions explain a lot.  
      •  most legal practice (none)
        Is completely apolitical and has nothing to do with constitutional law.

        "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 12:47:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site