- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"Why else do we big-head monkeys do things for? The basic question is, (as before, with trolls) How do you tell the difference between a typical lawyer and Dick Cheney? Why, you look at the facts, obviously. What was done that was wrong? What might have reflected bad judgment? One data point does not do anything."
We may have to just agree to disagree, because we can sit here and accuse each other of not having made our respctive points indefinitely.
Your statement seems pretty subjective, I see no ground rules, just your opinion. One data point may prove EVERYTHING, given the context. And this is not a job interview at Littler Mendelson. This is the job for the highest justice official, who will be making decisions that affect the right to fair justice for all people. Setting the scale between average lawyer and Dick Cheney is a bit of a strawman. The average lawyer most likely went into law to make money, not out of a strong belief in the rule of law. The AG, I think all would agree, should be someone who is in the biz as a protector of the rule of law, not capitalism. In such an circumstance, if there are other candidates available, the client list should be of concern.
If you'll allow me to expound a bit on the original premise. That client list should reflect a broad segment of the population, since the candidate would be serving the population, not just those who could afford to pay for their services.
Finally, I don't mind being wrong or even arguing with someone who is more knowledgeable than me. Ridiculing someone and reducing their argument to a caricature may be fun, but I can't see much to defend the habit.
