- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I think its pretty clear that's what I was saying. What surprises me is how quickly legal professionals jump in to confront the straw man argument, rather than the one that's being posed to them. If you're asking me if I want the Chiqita counsel in question to be the AG, I would respectfully ask; can I have a look at some other resumes? Given the nature of the discussion, whether or not Holden is a good pick for the job, I can't see how my comments were so misinterpreted.
"I'm asking you if lawyers are tainted when they: (a) make a million dollars defending a serial child rapist and murderer; (b) make a million dollars defending a thuggish union accused of RICO violations?; and/or (c) make a million dollars when they defend Muslim radical terrorists who slaughter hundreds of people?"
In the context of the current judicial system we have, I'd say a) no, b) no, c)no.
If you're asking me if there is a good reason why lawyers should make a million dollars doing anything, then I would say, they shouldn't. Our judicial system is seriously fucked by capitalism. But its the world I live in, there's not a lot I can do to change that. However, when given the chance to publically approve or disapprove of the actions of someone who is about to hold high office, then I think my critique is legitimate, justified and even necessary.
