A House Divided, Part II: Run For Cover - The Lawyers Are In Control

Oh no, the lawyers are in control. We should all be running for cover, I mean they´re really in control. Morals are out, procedure is in. Instead of standing on ethical grounds, our leaders retreat to the grey, lukewarm area of the courtroom. Swapping blows of the legal sort are as ingrained in our degenerating culture as the words "hot dog". Americans, from the lowest levels of society to the oval office regress to this, the most primal of threat language. Politically, our vote throwers on Capitol Hill know that, rhetorically, the threat of legal action speaks widely across the social and economic strata of our diverse landscape. All Americans, from Joe the Plumber to the Vice President to the Corporate CEO know the value of a good legal threat. Its pervasiveness cuts a broad swath across American society.

The first time I noticed this, was during the 2000 elections. It was pretty amusing to see both sides, including the soon-to-be-leader of the free world taking cover behind a bunch of slick attorneys. After a few days it was clear that the party in control of our nation was neither the Republicans nor the Democrats, but the American Bar Association. For the record, I am very happy with the outcome of the proceedings, but suing over the presidency was something that all Americans could understand. General sediment just before the charade ended dictated that who ever had the best attorney was going to win the Oval Office - despite whoever was right. Sad but true.

We saw this again, in the subpoena for documents relating to Enrongate, as the congressional General Accounting Office was determined to sue Vice President Cheney over the transcripts pertaining to the development of a White House energy policy. The vice president stood on ethical grounds, stating that the authority of the executive branch had been eroded over the years, and he was not going to give in to another congressional tug of war for more power over the executive branch. I agree with the vice president´s stance, but was ashamed that the matter was about to degenerate into a legal battle, and it still could. It looks like a nasty battle in the courtroom was averted, but it was the White House that was the first to throw in the towel - "You´ll have to sue us?"

We see the alarming trend once more as the Campaign Finance Bill goes to court, going almost assuredly straight to the Supreme Court. The case will be in the hands of competent (and trustworthy) Kenneth Starr. We happy to see that Mr. Starr has accepted the case, but we cannot pass on the obvious - that the legal profession has been called to the savior role in American society. For the record, we know that the Campaign Finance Bill is blatantly against the First Amendment, but that doesn´t matter does it? Not as long as you have a sharp legal team, the case and the associated glory and honor of winning in the modern gladiator circle can be yours - if you know how to play hard ball with the big boys.

I´m tired of the legal profession deeming themselves guardians of American society. The have appointed themselves the role models for what the Constitution is supposed to be. Now the great and mighty right to free speech is in the hands of the lawyers. In this, they have appointed themselves the pit bull for American society, again. It seems to me like they have become something of a venus flytrap. The specious nature of legal action envelops those who pursue it, often overtaking them before they know what´s happening. When will the madness stop?

Much has been written about true nature of the United States having come to light since the tragic events of Sept. 11th. We are a nation of victims. Everybody and their uncle is walking around with their hand out, and the legal profession is there to see that each hand being held out for whatever reason gets filled, but only for the right price.

Our country has foregone the direction of righteousness for a greedy and self serving nature. Attack free speech, who cares? For the thrill and rush of power you can be a hired gun and still be distanced from the damage you´re causing. We all have to look in the mirror each morning, but it appears as if some of us have hired a third party to perform the dirty work, making that morning shave a little easier after all.

Vice President Dan Quale was bludgeoned by the left and the media when he tried to put caps on the lawyers. Since that time trial lawyers have pumped millions of $$ into the DNC coffers to keep the lid off what they can ask for in damages. I asked one very well known trial lawyer how he could stomach the lies coming from the left, didn't he care about the nation or where these frivolous lawsuits were taking us? The answer was a resounding NO! They care about their pockets period.

What is boils down to is who has the smartest lawyer and how much money one is willing to spend to retain him or her. Legality and Justice has nothing to do with it most of the time. The liberal judges are a bane to the Constitution of the Country and as we saw in Florida, the bane of some state Supreme Courts not to mention the O.J. fiasco.

This is one good reason Sen. John Edwards would be one gawdawful choice for president of this country. He is greedy and has less than a wide view of the world. As a Clintonite, he would use the Oval Office as his own platform into our already damaged court and justice system. Janet Reno is another zero. McCain's bill has done nothing to stem the tide of trial lawyer money during election years. They are an abomination to the innocent on trial and greedy to a fault.

There are some fine lawyers, but they too are deserving of being boiled in the same oil. When good men stand silent, evil triumphs. The good have been silent while shysters have grown astronomically in numbers and are now in control. Their silence was purchased by referrals, increasing numbers of suits brought by scoundrels and fee escalation made worse by charlatans. The good guys have it coming too. And they will survive it and learn from it. That is assuming the profession gets it just deserts, which is not at all certain to happen.

(sorry about the typo) :-)

In law school, the subject of ethics is taught as distinct.
from morals.

The reason is to give life to the established rules of profesional conduct.

Look at the recent tv ad attempting to tie President Bush
with the chain dragging murder in texas.

If morals replaced political ethics or professional ethics,
the aquisition and consolodation of personal power would not
be sustainable.

I personally do not agree with the absolutist separation.
Judicial nominiees would unlikely be able to be delayed
on the senate judiciary committee under a moral standard vs
the current ethical but morally relative standard.

The advertisement may have been morally reprehensible BUT,
it complied with the letter of the political advertising rules.

This ties in with the fact moral relativism does not work
and therefor the professional bodies use ethics to replace
moral because today's ethics "no-no" is ok by tommorow's
rule change. (see CFR)

Morality may evolve but ethics change at the stroke of a pen.

please forgive typoz (sic)

Politicians and lawyers will not let anyone codify morality
into their ethical codes of conduct.

It would be too limiting.

You would get more milage by identifying someone who is being
ethical but not moral.

Call it a two part conduct test.

Did Dashel's obstruction of a stimulus package pass the two
part test? 1) ethics, yes 2) moral no = bad conduct.

by the way no all lawyers are members of the ABA.
It is a voluntary association with no regulatory power.

there are many upstanding lawyers who do their jobs with dignity and honour.

They are like starving children in America, Elvis, and UFO's. I hear a lot about them, but I don't know of anyone who actually saw one. Well, I know several who have seen UFO's, but no little green men.

There are some bad doctors out there. The good doctors used to be able to control, restrict or disenfranchise the bad doctors. Unfortunately, the government filed an anti-trust suit against the doctors, successfully severely limiting the ability of the profession to police itself. Government assumed that responsibility which they perform with same level of imcompetence that they do everything else.

Lawyers on the other hand are politically connected since most legislators are lawyers. I would have assumed they would have had a more effective voice. If I would have thought more about it, I would have realized the problem.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.