Tragically, you are probably correct on both counts.
I do think it’s disappointing, though, that folks like Chet cannot seem to grasp that they are discussing things with individuals, and not with party automatons who automatically approve of everything done in the name of the GOP. I can support conservative policies while not countenancing every single thing done in the name of conservatism.
Wow, Damien you actually tried to pull off a stuffed shirt version of - “I know you are but what I am.” Classy. You don’t understand, I have seen every single Night Court, so I know how you lawyers behave and i can see through your BS.
Chet
Can’t we all get along, beeyatches? :roll:
Given the number of laywers who become politicians, or work for politicians, and then proceed to pull unethical or downright illegal tricks, you’ll appreciate, I hope, that being a lawyer is no longer a proof of ethics in this day and age.
It’s not tragic on the level of something like sending thousands of American boys to take over a foregn country based on a web of deception, hubris, and lies though, is it?
But it’s pointless to take things here so personally. This is what Mcluhan would call a “cool” medium. Only a little bit of you is really getting through.
If some guy I’ve never met attempts to tell me what I “should” do I’m going to get pissy too…
I’m not sure why you think I’d say either thing. AFAIK, we haven’t discussed this news item before, and I think it’s pretty clear that these guys did what the article says they did, and I think it’s a good thing that they’re going to jail for it.
Let me also say that I am 100% behind Raymond Buckley, vice chairman of the state Democratic Party, when he says “Somebody hired them, somebody paid them to do this crime … I do not believe this investigation should stop until every single person who had knowledge of this and paid for this is prosecuted.” Goddamn right. This should be fully investigated and prosecuted, and anyone who countenanced this stuff should be sent to the pokey.
That includes George W. Bush. I rather seriously doubt that things reach that high, but in the unlikely event that the investigation credibly points to Mr. Bush’s involvement, he should be impeached, removed from office, and face criminal charges. Show me that evidence and I’ll gladly hop aboard the impeachment train.
I suspect that some high muckety-mucks in the New Hampshire GOP will be called to account for this, and rightfully so. Neither the Republican Party, nor the Bush administration, nor the conservative movement generally should have any patience for these sorts of shenanigans. Why you think I would deign to tolerate this sort of thing is quite a mystery.[/quote]
Damien, this entire post is so obviously pro-Bush that I had to quote every GOP right-wing dogpile line of it. Why do you try and hide your true feelings? :P
Pure. Comedy. Gold. Chet calling someone a troll is like Cleve calling someone a racist.
The. Talking. With. Periods. Thing. Has. Been. Overdone. Please. Find. Another. Way. To. Add. Emphasis.
[color=darkred]W[/color]hat, [color=red]l[/color]ike [color=orange]t[/color]his[color=brown]?[/color] O[color=yellow]r[/color] ho[color=green]w[/color] abou[color=olive]t[/color] thi[color=cyan]s[/color][color=blue]?[/color] [color=darkblue]:[/color][color=indigo]-[/color][color=violet])[/color]
[color=darkred]Or[/color] [color=red]maybe[/color] [color=orange]I[/color] [color=brown]should[/color] [color=yellow]do[/color] [color=green]this[/color][color=olive].[/color]
So many unused features[size=6].[/size] [size=1]So little time.[/size]
[color=cyan][/color]What[color=cyan][/color] [color=indigo]-[/color]other[color=indigo]-[/color] [color=red][/color]stupid[color=red][/color] [color=violet]~[/color]internet[color=violet]~[/color] [color=olive]/[/color]cliches[color=olive][/color] [color=darkred]=[/color]can[color=darkred]=[/color] color=orange[/color] [color=yellow]^[/color]hit[color=yellow]^[/color] [color=green]@[/color]on[color=green]@[/color] +next+?
I am 1337, give me WaReZ, DoOdZ!! (That’s all the creativity I have this early in the morning…)
Well, I guess it’s a good thing I wasn’t talking about all lawyers then. Again, I was talking about me. And yes, my training has given me a deeper appreciation for fair processes
And I think that is true of most lawyers. Popular caricatures aside, most lawyers take their ethical duties and the integrity of the system very seriously. Yes, there are rotten apples in my profession, just as there are rotten apples in others. I don’t think there are any more lawyers “pulling unethical or downright illegal tricks” than there are in any other profession. I’ve certainly never seen evidence to that effect – it’s just a slur that “everyone knows is true,” without ever questioning its validity.
And as for lawyers in politics – yes, they are overrepresented in Congress relative to their number in the general population, although you’ll find if you look at the numbers (and my Google-fu is failing me on this, but I have seen the numbers) that there’s actually a lot more businesspeople in Congress than lawyers.
And a lot of that is self-selection: members of Congress tend to be well-educated; you don’t see many high-school dropouts running for Congress. And the study of law, intersecting as it does with public policy, is bound to attract those who wish to become lawmakers. Most of those lawyers in Congress are only nominally so: yes, they have a law degree, but they’ve never practiced, having chosen a political career from the start. Many have never even become members of a state bar. John Edwards is the exception, not the rule.
If that’s your argument it’s pretty weak. Your whole thesis is based on heresay and gut feeling. I’m not saying your wrong, but that entire paragraph is devoid of a single data point.
It’s fair to dispute conventional wisdom, but you can’t just wave it away. There’s plenty of sleazy lawyers both in and out of Politics, and a single “rotten apples” in your profession can do far more lasting damage to our system than a rotten video game producer, for example.
Fair enough, although I think the latter cite splits up some categories that could be labeled “businessperson,” which was the way the chart I recall seeing split things out. That at least narrows the gap considerably.
Well, first of all, it isn’t based on hearsay. I’m not advancing testimony based on the statements of another person, and even in the looser layman’s meaning I’m not passing on information received by word of mouth. Don’t go using terms you don’t understand.
And second, yes, it’s based on my impressions of the profession, which is clearly noted in my introductory sentence (“And I think that is true…”). And no, that’s not hard evidence. But consider this: I probably deal with a lot more lawyers than you do on a daily basis. Which of us is in a better position to judge the overall norms prevalent in the profession?
And thirdly, I’m not sure it’s possible to provide hard evidence on this point. Certainly most lawyers know what they should be doing – most states require passing a test on ethical responsibilities as part of becoming licensed – so it isn’t like you can just ask them.
Of course, your whole paragraph is equally devoid of a single data pont. And frankly, the burden should rest on those seeking to assert that the legal profession is somehow less ethical than other professions to prove their case. The presumption should be that the legal world is no better or worse than other lines of work, and that presumption should hold until evidence to the contrary is produced. Otherwise I’d be forced to prove a negative, which is a nearly impossible thing to do.
A lot of the poor perception of the legal profession stems from people taking a short-term view of what lawyers do. The guy who springs a clearly guilty defendant based on an illegal search is seen as a sleazebag because, well, his client is guilty and the world at large sees the illegal search as a “technicality.” But taking the longer view, that guy is asserting constitutional rights that protect all of us, rights which necessarily must apply to all defendants. The guy isn’t a sleaze, he’s a good lawyer doing an ethical job of defending his client.
Nah, alot of the poor impression people have about lawyers comes from arrogant wordy pricks on message boards who think the style of their debate supersedes the actual point anyone else is making.
Chet
Well, first of all, it isn’t based on hearsay. I’m not advancing testimony based on the statements of another person, and even in the looser layman’s meaning I’m not passing on information received by word of mouth. Don’t go using terms you don’t understand.[/quote]
Hearsay can also mean “rumour”, which fits how he used the word perfectly. Don’t go correcting people’s usage of terms you don’t understand.
But consider this: I probably deal with a lot more lawyers than you do on a daily basis. Which of us is in a better position to judge the overall norms prevalent in the profession?
Give me a break. You share their norms, so it wouldn’t be surprising if your critical analysis isn’t as critical as it should be.
The presumption should be that the legal world is no better or worse than other lines of work, and that presumption should hold until evidence to the contrary is produced.
That’s the position taken in the court, and rightfully so. But there is no particular reason that such a presumption should hold sway outside court. It depends on what your focus is: do you focus on avoiding error, or do you focus on achieving truth. The court system attempts to avoid convicting innocent people, so its emphasis is on avoiding error. It’s less clear what our priorities in the real world should be. (real world here isn’t meant as a slur aginst the judicial world) Personally, I think Andrew is right in taking a position more in favor of “achieving truth” in the real world.
A lot of the poor perception of the legal profession stems from people taking a short-term view of what lawyers do. The guy who springs a clearly guilty defendant based on an illegal search is seen as a sleazebag because, well, his client is guilty and the world at large sees the illegal search as a “technicality.” But taking the longer view, that guy is asserting constitutional rights that protect all of us, rights which necessarily must apply to all defendants. The guy isn’t a sleaze, he’s a good lawyer doing an ethical job of defending his client.
I disagree with this analysis strongly. The poor perception of the legal profession stems from two things: 1) People hate it when someone runs rhetorical circles around them, as lawyers are wont to do. This objection is rather childish: learn some rhetoric & logic yourself. 2) Lawyers are perceived as making the “weaker argument appear the stronger”… which is exactly the accusation levelled against the sophists in ancient Greece, and Socrates spent quite a bit of time successfully (in my opinion) attacking the Sophists. Objection #2 seems much more substantial to me.
Another way of putting #2 is the idea that lawyers focus on the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law. Let’s face it… there’s an inevitable divergence between the two. And make no mistake… it is inevitable. Even if we had an enlightened despot decreeing perfect laws, their letter could always be warped from its original intended purpose. Lawyers get paid to pay attention to the letter… that’s what they’re supposed to do. Rather then necessarily being an indictment of the legal profession, I think it’s more an indictment of the Western system of law. Hmm… indictment isn’t the word I want. I think “weakness” is better. You see, for all the weakness of the Western system, I’m not so sure the other forms of law are better. Thus, “weakness” is prolly a better term than “indictment”.
In any case, when a good lawyer gets his client off on a technicality, he’s isn’t doing an ethical job… he’s just doing a job. And, because most of us intuitively think obeying the letter of the law, while ignoring its spirit, is unethical, devious, and underhanded, most of us would think the lawyer is being a sleazeball. And in a sense, most of us would be right. But then again, such an assessment fails to realize that it’s an inherent weakness of the system. Furthermore, I don’t think most people can deliver a coherent system that avoids this weakness.
Chet, I find your assertions in re afforementioned “Damien” stylistic peccadillos to be well founded in statute 97-34A-55 of the Pompass Ass Code. :P
(I’m not sure what that means, so get a lawyer to look it over…)
Chet, you are the epitome of cast iron cookware.
Maybe in Anaxogoras-land, but out here in the land of ordinary English usage it has no such meaning. Indeed, I defy you to find one example of such usage by any reputable source – a dictionary, a news article, an op-ed piece, a speech by a non-crazy person, anything better than some bloviating message board poster.
Riiiiiiiight. So you, who has next to no regular contact with the legal profession, are in a better position than me to judge how principled the profession is as a whole. What an…interesting…notion.
Actually, there is a perfectly good reason why such a presumption holds sway even in debates taking place outside of the courtroom: because it fairly places the burden of proof on the party most able to meet that burden. The person making the affirmative statement – here, something along the lines of “the legal profession is unethical” – is in a much better position to establish his proposition than his opponent, because to reverse that burden would require the opponent to prove a negative.
So you consider, say, defending the fourth amendment rights of a guilty defendant to be mere sophistry?
So you consider, say, defending the fourth amendment rights of a guilty defendant to be unethical?
Shakespeare was right: if you want to kill all the lawyers, you end up with Jack Cade running the show. Most people remember Dick the Butcher’s famous line while completely missing the underlying point the bard was making.
The person making the affirmative statement – here, something along the lines of “the legal profession is unethical” – is in a much better position to establish his proposition than his opponent, because to reverse that burden would require the opponent to prove a negative.
Not really, you could propose that the legal profession is ethical. That would then be the affirmative, and you could then link to all the articles about the good fight lawyers are doing. Much easier than the confusing, proving that lawyers are not unethical. But see, when you complicate it with all them fancy words, you lose the simplicity of the argument, and instead spend days writing 50,000 word posts about some small inconsequential side point - something you excel at.
Chet
Anax- Your objection #2 is objection #1 restated with an irrelevant historical anecdote. You can’t come up with anything better than “lawyers talk funny”?