- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The law can be blind to this, but no lawyer HAS to take any particular case. To use the Kevorkian example, is a lawyer who believes euthanasia is immoral, but legal, _obligated_ to offer to defend Kevorkian?
No way! Especially when there are others willing to do it. It might be an interesting intellectual exercise to contemplate the hypothetical where literally nobody was willing to defend the guy, then maybe it would be the right thing to do, but c'mon. Lawyers are people too, and come with opinions and prejudices of their own, and this absolutely effects which cases they take, which in turn says something about what kind of person they are.
I reiterate - Holder should in no way be criticized for taking the case. That's up to him. But the AG is a POLITICAL appointment, and so symbolism is important. I don't see the problem with judging the guy's record, which includes the cases he decided to take, when deciding whether or not you support the appointment.
