- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I never mentioned trolldom. So you're right about this not being easy. I also think that posts here should not be held to the same standards as a doctoral thesis. I do this while I'm working, as a way of engaging intellectually with people whose opinion I value. It seems to me unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the kind of cohesion and organization that one would from other works. Once posts are sent into the ether, you cannot call them back to rewrite a sentence or eliminate a stray idea.
That being said. My original thesis, that it is correct and permissable to evaaluate a lawyer for the cases that they take, does not have much to do with the idea that lawyers should only take the cases of those people they (or society believes) to be good and righteous. If you tell me that you defended chiquita, a company that has historically had a toxic influence on the third world, out of some sense of duty to ideals of justice, then I'llc all that out as bullshit. If you tell me that you did it for money, prestige or career-advancement, that's something I'd believe. It has nothing to do with whether or not they should be defended. It has everything to do with the kind of candidate for a position in government that I think you are.
Unless you think that a lawyer is required to take the case of any person that walks through their door, regardless of their ability to pay (or overpay). The lawyer makes a choice about what cases to take, and it is permissable to evaluate them based on that judgement.
Glenn argued that it was illegitimate for someone to use the work for Chiqita as a factor in evaluating the candidate for AG. I argued that it was legitimate. The right to representation never came into it.
