- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The tenet of equal right to representation for all being grounded in the concept of fair play and justice even for those morally reviled, one's revulsion for the representation of the corrupt but super-wealthy is itself grounds for application of the tenet. The tenet cannot stand or fall depending on the popularity or influence of the represented at any given time.
Marrying the worthiness of representing an "evil" client with the client's paucity of resources or influence, saying that "evil" cients with an abundance of such are not entitled to the same assumption, is an unsustainable paradox. This is because, if such a moral standard actually took hold, the list of people willing to represent the wealthy evil would be reduced to such a degree as to place them, paradoxically, in the camp most needing the right of equal representation.
You cannot say those deemed "evil" are entitled to representation and fair play, while exempting from the class of things deemed "evil" those entitites that you consider MOST evil by dint of their wealth.
To press the point, many lawyers and law professors rush at the opportunity to represent alleged terrorist detainees, due to the professional prestige and opportunity to make histoical precedent that such opportunities allow. Substituting that incentive with the desire to make money, and do we have a difference worthy of inverting the principle of equal representation?
Bye for now.
