Oh and in case you didn't actually know what my thesis was...here it is

"Arguing that a lawyer should not be criticized for the million dollar cases he takes on at the behest of slimy corporations "

And what about a lawyer who makes a million dollars defending a child molester or serial killer? That's OK with you?

How about a lawyer who makes a million dollars defending a thuggish union? That's OK with you?

How about a lawyer who makes a million dollars defending a Terrorist who has slaughtered hundreds of people? That's OK with you?

Does it matter if its ok with me in the context of what we're discussing?

If you're asking me if I'm happy about a man who chose to defend Chiqita being our AG, I'd say I'm as happy about that as I was Alberto Gonazalez's tenure in the position. If you know someone who defended child molesters, rich or poor, who's up for the job, let me know who they are, and I'll let you know what I think. I certainly don't have any power to pass laws about it.

I also don't think its nice to call people idiots when you're discussing with them. However, that's just my opinion, and I have no power to prevent it, nor would I prevent it if I did.

Attempts to criticize a lawyer for representing unsavory or even evil clients are inherently illegitimate and wrong -- period.

I think there should be a distinction drawn between criticizing an individual lawyer for her or his judgment in taking on a particular case where that judgment is relevant - and a blanket statement that "bad" people don't deserve representation.

I'd like to give Omar a shot at confirming/denying that he agrees with the second premise. Cause that would be "inherently... wrong" in my humble opinion. Otherwise, I think you may be arguing past each other.

Which has never happened in Salon Letters before.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed with Eric Holder. As Glenn wrote, he's a mixed bag. It is a shame, though, that President-elect Obama could not find an AG nominee from the ranks of liberal nonprofit organizations, academia, or public defenders. Holder did in fact work for the uber-corporate law firm Covington & Burling, and though they might have nice liberals there, they are nice liberals who represent some of the worst multinational corporations on the planet (like Chiquita). They do it for the money, of course. One hopes that they take hot showers when they get home from work and then ritually whip themselves to cleanse their souls.

So, it's wait and see. We do know that whatever Holder's drawbacks, he's a welcome change from the Bush years. Compared to Gonzalez, a decomposing opossum would make a better AG.

I don't recall saying that's ok with me

Does it matter if its ok with me in the context of what we're discussing?

I didn't say you said it was OK. I'm asking you if lawyers are tainted when they: (a) make a million dollars defending a serial child rapist and murderer; (b) make a million dollars defending a thuggish union accused of RICO violations?; and/or (c) make a million dollars when they defend Muslim radical terrorists who slaughter hundreds of people?

If there's no principal behind what you're arguing -- if all you're really saying is that you judge these things based on how much you like or don't like the client in question -- then just say so. Even still, you should still be able to answer these questions about whether or not lawyers are tainted when they do these things.

You will read what I just wrote in the post previous to yours and think me a hypocrite for the words I am about to write, but please do not judge me harshly, for not only is it illegitimate, it would hurt my tender feelings.

You're an idiot.

I knew the honeymoon would be short, but I had not idea HOW short. It's worse than my first marriage when it rained the first 22 days straight.

At first, I thought maybe the Hillary tap for Sec'y of State was a bluff - Obama offered knowing there would be too much conflict of interest. He was throwing her supporters a bone, looking conciliatory. That still may be the case.

What the Senate majority did with Lieberman just proves to me again that we need at least 40% of the Senate to be minorities - either women or men of color. This Old White Boyz Club is simply nauseating.

I'm not impressed with Holden. I don't understand why reasonable people, especially those in positions of power and justice, could not have wondered where the heck these detainees came from, why they were being held in secret prisons, and what the hell they were saying?

I just find it hard to believe. I was skeptical from the get-go. So, these post 9/11 statements based on grief or shock? I don't buy it. They make no sense. You don't turn into a barbarian so easily.

Good one! I laughed out loud at that one, bro'. Thanks!

I'm sure that Glenn, or an editor, has very good reasons for deleting your posts. You have a history of bigoted rants.

Seems like there should be some good banana jokes in this appointment, or rumored appointment, or alleged rumored appointment...

But I absolutely agree with Greenwald's point. Those accused of terrorism, and/or aiding and abetting terrorism deserve legal defense and a prompt day in court. Whether they're banana growers or not.

I think its pretty clear that's what I was saying. What surprises me is how quickly legal professionals jump in to confront the straw man argument, rather than the one that's being posed to them. If you're asking me if I want the Chiqita counsel in question to be the AG, I would respectfully ask; can I have a look at some other resumes? Given the nature of the discussion, whether or not Holden is a good pick for the job, I can't see how my comments were so misinterpreted.

"I'm asking you if lawyers are tainted when they: (a) make a million dollars defending a serial child rapist and murderer; (b) make a million dollars defending a thuggish union accused of RICO violations?; and/or (c) make a million dollars when they defend Muslim radical terrorists who slaughter hundreds of people?"

In the context of the current judicial system we have, I'd say a) no, b) no, c)no.

If you're asking me if there is a good reason why lawyers should make a million dollars doing anything, then I would say, they shouldn't. Our judicial system is seriously fucked by capitalism. But its the world I live in, there's not a lot I can do to change that. However, when given the chance to publically approve or disapprove of the actions of someone who is about to hold high office, then I think my critique is legitimate, justified and even necessary.