This is why discourse is good and why I come here, because it makes me have to hone my thinking.

The first argument is that the profit motive creates an ethical problem for lawyers. On one level, is a lawyer who carries out his/her ethical duty of defending someoen no matter who they are or what they've done, really being ethical if they only take on clients who can pay them millions? Legal professionals seem to have an ethical blind spot when it comes to the profit motive that prevents most poor people from receiving adequate defense. How can you argue that there is an ethical mandate to defend anybody, when daily thousands of people go to jail because they cannot afford counsel? The judicial system de facto prevents them from getting the legal defense we are arguing about.

The second point I am arguing is that a corporation (or even an individual) who has long standing ties with government actors and a nearly feudal relationship with its laborers in another country shouldn't necessarily be put in to the same box with alleged child molesters, nazis, terrorists etc. There is reason to believe that the latter grouping is in great danger of being shunned by attorneys if there isn't a greater ethical mechanism involved. But given the history of Chiqita banana, there is very little to suggest it is in the same position.

A last note on that, Chiqita's hiring of Holder would make one wonder if they were not after just legal representation, but if they hoped that the man's relationships and work experience would sway the case beyond the confines of the judicial system.

Before they took Elian, the MP5 wielding jackboots smashed in the door to the home,

Those bastards are everywhere, playing their loud Indy Rock on their MP5 players. Have they no consideration?

"Have they no consideration?"

They would have gotten away with it too, were it not for the ferkin photographer. That photo just killed the whole operation.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/gonzalaz.jpg

You are worried that Holder let himself be a pawn of feudal powers.

Again, if that were all he is known for, I'd agree that it's worth considering as a case of bad judgment. But he's been DAG and even AG. He spent years in DC. He can't be identified simply as a banana lawyer.

I can see omooex's point.

The position of AG is a political appointment. So having an opinion on the cases Holder has taken seems fine. Glenn, you don't have to agree with omooex on the issue, but if omooex is uncomfortable with Holder's choice of taking a particular case, what's wrong with that?

A religious conservative might take issue with a lawyer who was willing to defend Dr. Kevorkian, for example. If you see euthanasia as morally wrong, it's easy to see how someone like that would prefer a different lawyer for AG.

The Chiquita case makes me a bit uncomfortable too. As omooex has pointed out, it isn't like Chiquita has any trouble finding counsel - Holder almost certainly took this case for the money. It's hard for me to fault him for this - everyone needs to make a living, and getting paid well sure is nice.

But someone committed to social justice, or a more just foreign policy, probably would not have taken the case - Chiquita has not been a good corporate citizen, to say the least, in Latin America. I think it does say something about him, about his view of the world.

To recap, I'm making a very mild criticism. I don't see this as a deal breaker, but the Chiquita case is a blemish, in my view, when compared to an ideal AG candidate.

I was wondering where I could get a set of those boots.

The MC5 wielded jackboots?

I didn't think that was their style!

(How do you wield jackboots anyway?)

Maybe they are WELDED jackboots. Very KISS-y.

BTW, omooex, are you aware that there is also a poster here called "oomex"? The names are very similiar and are easily confused. I'll do my best to keep them delineated, but others may not read so closely. If you find very confusing answers to your comments, it may be because the commenter is mixed up between "oomex" and "omooex".

I did not call Jebbie Marcus (Jebbie) Manilus, the monkey who has a silly. Jebbie's will begin swearing at Derbig Moose because you are wearing a "idiotic" yellow Chiquita bandana on your antlers?

You are a D. Mooser who is a devotee of Theogony.

Why drink from the springs at Helikon mountains?

Ya guided by reason? Hesiod mused of the spring.

What if the slimy, evil, rich, lobbyist-laden corporation also happens to be innocent? Is it okay to represent them then? And how is the lawyer supposed to know beforehand if his client is innocent or guilty?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a huge fan of defense attorneys. Several years ago, two men broke into my house and assaulted me and my husband. One man was arrested, but the charges were ultimately dropped because the defense attorney was (as far as I'm concerned) a jerk-off asshole who epitomized every negative stereotype that exists about defense attorneys. BUT, I believe that all of us, even slimy corporations, deserve to be defended in a court of law and that a lawyer should not be judged based on the clients he (or she) chooses to represent. Instead, the lawyer should be judged on how s/he represents those clients. Some lawyers act ethically, others don't. That's my litmus test.

I couldn't disagree more. If one truly believes in our system of justice, this would be a case one would take. I don't care how "evil" the client is. The law is supposed to be blind to this.

I was wondering where I could get a set of those boots.

Doc Martin, and I believe Sketchers is bringing out a pair for Christmas. The heel contains a piezoelectric generator which generates the power with each step. A USB plug at the toes makes it easy to download all your favorite MP5 tracks. I've got all my favorite Boney-M mixes in my right shoe, and I use the left for classical and World Music.