Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Holder is a stellar pick.
His comment in Jan 2002 is more than a little troubling though. At roughly 4 months after the events of 9/11, he should have done better than positing, "If Mohammad Atta had survived..."
It is a similar mindset to that of the Karrs of this world with their ticking time bombs and the 10 seconds you have to decide between cutting the blue wire or the red wire. We don't have time for the constitution!!!
It seems your saying that attorneys are the only beings on earth that needn't take any responsibility for their actions.
Your child molester example is silly. Child molesters should be defended for the simple fact that many lawyers would not take on such clients on moral grounds. It wouldn't matter if they were rich or not. This is the basis of the ethical position that you seek to shelter Holder with.
However, a company with a powerful lobbying arm that has literally deposed foreign governments that were not amenable to it, is not friendless nor is it a pariah. Your attempt to conflate the two shows lack of rigor or any desire to look objectively at your own profession. Taking on such a defense by choice, for seemingly no other reason but the profit motive is not the same as defending a child molester shunned by the majority of other attorneys.
Defend a rich company abusing the rights of workers? Or search out defendants who do not have money or access to defense. These are not equally valid moral decisions simply because everyone deserves equal representation to counsel.
I just do that.
I don't understand what the issue was here. Especially from men that have in their past postings have strongly stated their belief in "father's rights".
I guess that commie fathers shouldn't be allowed to have custody of their own kids.
@thestar, your comment:
As for someone on this list who was happy to hand over his or her right to privacy--is there some way you could surrender without taking me with you?
was really good. I loved it.
Will Bush’s midnight rules be reversible? (see sig)
Whether it’s relaxing pollution control standards for power plants or allowing loaded weapons into national parks, the Bush Administration is scrambling to approve or change as many federal rules as it can before it hands off power to President-elect Barack Obama. This surge of “midnight regulations” presents a thorny question for the next administration: What can it do to void rules it thinks should be undone?
An Obama spokesman told ProPublica that the transition team can’t comment on the new administration’s strategy yet. However, John Podesta, a leading member of the transition team, has said Obama will use his “executive authority without waiting for congressional action” to reverse many of Bush’s policies.
But that authority has its limits.
While executive orders and rules that are not yet in effect can swiftly be reversed or altered by Obama’s appointees or his own executive orders, rules that go into effect before he takes office will be extremely difficult to undo. Rescinding a rule would require the new administration to re-start the rule-making process, which can take years and prompt legal challenges. Another strategy that has been talked about lately – getting Congress to disapprove the rules through the Congressional Review Act — carries political risks and has been used only once before.
“The problem with what the Bush administration is doing is that these rules are extremely cumbersome to adopt, and they are every bit as cumbersome to undo,” said David Vladeck, an administrative law professor at Georgetown University. “It condemns the next administration to spend years fighting on the old administration’s agenda.”
ProPublica is assembling a list of these “midnight regulations” and will track them through the rulemaking process, regularly updating its website and detailing how the proposed changes might affect the public. Some of the rules have lingered on the president’s agenda for years, others are more recent proposals.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081119/pl_politico/15758
But apparently he did. Why's that?
I don't know what you are asking.
I just sent an email to your Salon addie that you might find "interesting".
"Years ago I used to date a lawyer who was embarassed to admit that he worked for a large insurance company when we first met."
Why was he embarrassed to begin with?
spelt is nice
emmer is older and better
:)
Eric Holder will do exactly what Obama tells him to do. If there is anything we have learned from the last 8 years it's that the president is king and no one is allowed to question him. Obama will decide if Bush broke the law. Obama will decide if Cheney broke the law. He will instruct his congess and his AG accordingly. My feeling is that no investigations will be allowed by Obama and no charges will ever be brought against any one in the Bush administration. All in the spirit of 'bipartisanship'. Sickening. Obama is no different than Bush. Just younger.
It seems your saying that attorneys are the only beings on earth that needn't take any responsibility for their actions.
No. There are idiots who also try to blame doctors for treating horrible criminals. Even the worst people deserve medical treatment -- and legal representation.
Your child molester example is silly. Child molesters should be defended for the simple fact that many lawyers would not take on such clients on moral grounds. It wouldn't matter if they were rich or not. This is the basis of the ethical position that you seek to shelter Holder with.
This is false. Ask the ACLU about the hatred which, to this day, is directed at them for having defended NAMBLA -- from people like you who think that lawyers should be judged by the acts of their clients.
However, a company with a powerful lobbying arm that has literally deposed foreign governments that were not amenable to it, is not friendless nor is it a pariah.
I'll try to explain this to you as clearly as I can: even big, bad, rich corporations are entitled to a presumption of innocence before they're convicted. Even ones with lobbying arms!
If people thought the way you did -- it's evil to represent big, rich corporations -- then the Government would have the extraordinarily dangerous power to imprison or ruin whatever companies they wanted, since they wouldn't be able to get legal representation.
What kind of perverse mind would let someone believe that it's OK for a lawyer to represent a TERRORIST or a CHILD MOLESTER or a SERIAL KILLER but not a rich corporation?
Seriously, spend a little time thinking about what that says about your moral calculus.
Defend a rich company abusing the rights of workers? Or search out defendants who do not have money or access to defense. These are not equally valid moral decisions simply because everyone deserves equal representation to counsel.
In your eyes, it's better to defend an impoverished child rapist and murderer than it is to defend a rich company accused of tax evasion. That's truly idiotic.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
