Posted on 09/04/2008 4:09:59 AM PDT by chickadee
It's certainly true that either the next president or next vice president will not be a white male. But does that mean de facto that the country will be run any differently?There is, however, one area where we might have seen real change. The Democrats could have not nominated another lawyer. This may partly explain why former military officer John McCain and working-mom Sarah Palin are polling near even with Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, in a year that otherwise favors the Democrats.
A snowmobiling, fishing and hunting mom of five who was trained as a journalist seems like a breath of fresh air -- and accentuates the nontraditional background of former naval officer John McCain. If the Republicans win, it may well be that, like George Bush and Dick Cheney, or Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, they weren't members of the legal culture.
Looks Like Victor Davis Hanson read my post from over the weekend titled “Lawyers don’t lead”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2070950/posts
No kidding. Letting word weasels carve legislation to favor themselves is just stupid.
Now chickadee, don’t let the crooked 99% of lawyers spoil it for the rest of them. I have often thought that the entire purpose of our COngress’ legislative endeavors has been to pass laws that allow lawyers to become obscenely wealthy.
No mainstream mediot would dane to read FreeRepublic. Come on let's get real.
I love this one...Irish view of our election:
“On one side, you have a woman who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, running against a lawyer who is married to a woman who is a lawyer.
On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman who owns a beer distributorship.”
(This was pre-Biden and Sarahcuda, so I’m sure there’s an even better version now.)
I’m a fan of just passing a law that bans lawyers from holding state or national legislative positions. Then you’d have laws written by PEOPLE in ENGLISH and easily understandable by everyday citizens (there goes 99% of the tax code right there). Also, once you strip away the vast majority of every law that serves as legal padding, it would have the added bonus of exposing all the hidden provisions that get tacked on, leftwing doublespeak, etc.
Especially on the Dem side its nothing but trial lawyers. Even Fred Barons bragged about how the trial lawyers control the Senate.
That’s an amusing sum up of the electorate’s “choices” in most cases. Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers. I think that rich, beautiful beer baroness resonates with a lot of people:)
I liked the suggestion from another poster that lawyers not be allowed to hold public office.
I think it is time.
KLOOG — Keep Lawyers Out Of Government. That’s an idea for a database I had many years ago, pre-internet. It was basically just an alphabetical list of candidates who are lawyers in elections at all levels, from school boards to presidential. The idea was to create the list and distribute it somehow to the populace. The idea was that if a candidate’s name appeared on the list as a lawyer — DON’T VOTE FOR THEM! It was that simple.
Now, with the internet, distributing such a list would be a piece of cake. But now I’m too old to put it together. So... Anybody out there interested in a free, great idea? KLOOG is available.
i SERIOUSLY
believe that the Constitution would be better limiting lawyers in government to 5% of their proportion of the population.
Further, that NO JUDGES AT ANY LEVEL could be lawyers or could have ever been a lawyer.
This is exactly what I told my wife last night.
I agree with this.
By 5% of their proportion of the population . . . say their proportion of the population was 10%
They could only comprise 5% of 10% of the legislatures.
Am not real articulate in math. . . .
WHERE lawyers were 10% of the population at large . . .
IF 100 legislators = 10% of the legislature, there could only be 5 lawyers in that legislature.
INDEED.
Yes, but VDH is far from a mainstream mediot. He is in the Steyn class of journalism and probably rates more of Tolik’s “nailed it” pings than does Mark. You don’t read a Steyn or Hanson article, you savor it.
I agree with VDH all the time. But not this time.
The problem isn’t nominating lawyers. The problem is with the character and ideology of the persons nominated. The problem is nominating socialists.
There is a huge difference between a “lawyer” such as ambulance chasing insurance company blackmailing John Edwards, and “lawyers” like Scalia, Roberts or Thomas.
To the poster who said no lawyers should be judges. Please.
I used to practice in Pennsylvania, a state that permits non-lawyers (read: “Political Donors” of both stripes) to be elected to what are called the “District Court” (lowest court - think traffic court, plus low level street crime)
I appeared for a hearing defending my client who was accused of assaulting his wife (yes this scum nauseated me as well which is why my practice is solely tax and estates now).
I walk into the courtroom - the non-lawyer good-ole-boy District Judge is talking with the DA. He says - “Oh, we’re discussing your case right now, please wait outside”.
That’s what you get with non-lawyer judges.
Thanks for the backup on VDH.
Definitely no MS Midiot
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.