by Eric Martin
…as a lazy* blogger’s way to highlight some topics** and offer a forum for flaming each other in the comments section.
1. Why don’t sex scandals involving Republicans matter to the media/result in resignations? I’d add Mark Sanford to Matt’s list of teflon Republicans. And John Ensign’s misdeeds are worse than any of them.
2. Representative Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” sure looks like a hot mess.
3. I will be attending this conference over the weekend and live tweeting (my first foray into Twitterville) if anyone is interested in following. I’ll try to write about some of the highlights next week as well, with possible outside contributions.
UPDATE: Conor Friedersdorf (via) on the neo-McCarthyite Republican push is very worth the read. He makes the point that is repeatedly obfuscated by Republican defenders of torture, indefinite detention and Gitmo in general: the issues are with the rights of the accused. To smear the Gitmo attorneys as defenders of “al-Qaeda terrorists” is wrong on multiple levels:
1. They participated in legal proceedings related to people accused of being al-Qaeda terrorists. The vast, vast majority of detainees at Gitmo were not, in fact, al-Qaeda terrorists. Most weren’t even Taliban.
2. They participated in legal proceedings that established legal precedents that would impact the nature of our rights and the basis of our adherence to the rule of law, regardless of what the defendants are accused of. The issues were transcendent and the repercussions potentially paradigm-shifting.
3. The right to counsel applies regardless of what the defendants are accused of.
* (lazy in a qualified sense, that is, the day job has its demands)
**(feel free to discuss parsnip recipes)
peel, slice the boil your parsnips. then cover them in a sauce of butter and orange juice & zest.
do the same thing to carrots.
um yum yum
s/the/then
the neo-McCarthyite Republican push
I think alot of people are missing the boat on the points of the whole Liz Cheney/Eugene McCarthy attack. First, it was a web ad that, my guess is, cost them next to nothing to make. Yet it generated this huge outcry and faux controversy that eventually led to segments on CNN with the titles (or chryons) such as “Department of Jihad” and Op-Eds in the WaPo defending the ad. They have gotten gigantic media coverage for, essentially, zero dollars spent.
Second, and more importantly for trolls like Liz Cheney and her fascist father, they now have yet another defense, if not in the law but in the court of public opinion and, ultimately, a jury, should any of former VP Cheney and his fellow torture revelers be charged with their war crimes, to wit: The DOJ is staffed with al Qaeda sympathizers and they are now extracting their revenge on us for keeping the country safe.
It really is that simple, IMHO. So all this “they finally went one step too far because Cully Stimson signed a letter” pats on the back that I’ve been seeing by people like Sully and Greenwald are beside the point. They now have more chaff to throw in the air should any attempt ever be made to call them to account for their crimes (not that that will ever happen, at least here in the U.S.).
So, the thought that they were making some kind of point that had any basis in law, logic, or the American tradition completely misses the boat. They’re playing a different game.
And also, I would note, a disturbing number of people agree with the Liz Cheney view. Americans don’t much like criminals, or even accused criminals. They don’t much like lawyers either, and certainly not lawyers who defend accused criminals. When the person the lawyer is defending is accused of being a terrorist and, even worse, here in the ad the terrorist is being branded as a member of al Qaeda, all-powerful perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, well, fnck those lawyers and the horse they rode in on. AND NOW THESE TRAITORS ARE WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!!!11!!
I guess that’s the third point of the ad, continue to stoke paranoia and fear in the American public.
In the sex scandal thing I’d suggest two possible explanations:
Illegal sexual activity is likely to get rid of you. See for example Mark Foley (R) and sexual harassment. The current Massa junk is also about sexually harassing employees. The Patterson scandal is about protecting potential sexual assault and near certain intimate abuse, so I think that is understandable.
Things with mistresses don’t usually get rid of you except at the presidential level (and maybe gubernatorial level in some states).
And it isn’t as if all politicians retire from political life after sex scandals. See for example Bill Clinton engaging in activity that would get the CEO of a public company fired. (Interesting counterfactual: would Bush II have had any chance at all if Gore had been president for a year? It probably wouldn’t have been close enough to come down to Florida)
Interesting additional counterexample: Bob Livingston, heir to Newt Gingrich for Speaker of the House in 1998?
Yeah Seb, it just seems weird that Vitter and Ensign are still in their jobs. Vitter patronized prostitutes. Ensign is up to his neck in illegal conduct.
Yet?
Eric, do you think John Edwards should not be excoriated and exiled from politics for what he’s done? Which person on either side has been as far out of bounds and as deceptive as Edwards?
Illegal sexual activity is likely to get rid of you.
Vitter only avoided prosecution by virtue of the statute of limitations. He’s running again this year.
McTex: I’m fine with Edwards being out of politics. I would never vote for the guy. He deserves the criticism for doing that to his wife, and his staffers.
But John Ensign is worse. He abused his office, his power, to accommodate an extramarital affair. And then bribed the parties to keep them quiet.
Edwards’ failures were personal, though reprehensible.
Ensign’s failures were somewhat less morally reprehensible on a personal level, but involved his office and public trust.
Don’t you think that’s kind of an important distinction?
@ Ugh:
I guess that’s the third point of the ad, continue to stoke paranoia and fear in the American public.
Funny, I took that to be the MAIN point of it….
Ensign called for Bill Clinton’s resignation because of the Lewinsky affair. He also spoke on the floor of the Senate in favor of the “Defense of Marriage Act,” saying “Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded.”
John Edwards, meanwhile, called for the repeal of DOMA during his run in 2008.
Edwards’ behavior was reprehensible and we’re well rid of him. But the hypocrisy factor in cases like Ensign and Vitter is very hard to overlook. Provided you’re not a Republican, anyway.
@ Mckinney
As usual, the point isn’t really the scandal itself, but the hypocrisy.
Edwards is being correctly excoriated, as you say. His political career, such as it was, is over.
But Goopers who actively sought to remove a president over a bleeping bl*w j*b just keep rolling along, “serving” their constituents and, btw, criticizing and trying to enforce state power against anyone who’s moral or life choices (or even their genes) aren’t the same.
Why a majoority of voters in *ANY* jurisdiction would vote for these turkeys is beyond me.
Prostitute scandals don’t have to kill you except if you have presidential aspirations? (Spitzer). Or Spitzer might also be–publicly prosecuting prostitutes as a huge part of your public life and then having them on the side can cause problems?
I suspect that Vitter and Ensign survive because they are from two of the more corrupt and sexually permissive states in the union: Nevada and Louisiana. Would they survive in such a high profile in either party from Minnesota, California, or Texas? I doubt it.
But sexual harassment of your employees who don’t want it (which is how we ignore Clinton) pretty much gets you booted.
Which brings us all the way back to Clinton, abuse of power, obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.
You knew we’d wind up back here again, didn’t you?
“AND NOW THESE TRAITORS ARE WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE”
Well, no not really. I think, not being a lawyer and leaning a little right on issues like this, I will add what I consider perhaps slightly more nuanced view than Liz or Ugh. (recognizing this one certainly won’t be popular).
Despite the quick attempt to say these things aren’t the same, there are many people who do and will see them being very much like mafia attorneys in this way: If you can aggressively pursue freeing a terrorist then I believe you should not be representing me in trying to prosecute them.
I am smart enough to know that all of the persons accused were not terrorists, but some of them were. So if you aggressively defended someone who WAS a terrorist, I don’t want you representing me and, based on everything we know, how do I decide if you did or not?
Much like I believe that the mafia dons clearly deserve the best representation that they can get, terrorists deserve the best representation they can get, but as an attorney, pick a side.
I also think its great if, as an attorney, you want to be involved in precedent setting defense cases, or working to ensure our justice system is treating the accused appropriately. That is a great career choice that I respect, even if you are doing it to further your career versus a conscientious stance. Stay there and do that, I don’t trust you to have my best interest at heart.
I don’t want to have to wonder just how aggressively you will defend our country versus defending someone who attacks it, not because you are a traitor, thats silly, but because you have an affinity for the defense that may make you less aggressive.
Anyone who doesn’t think that liberals follow some of the same thought processes in reverse should simply do a self assessment of how you evaluate a Supreme Court nominee. It is great to say a lawyer is a lawyer doing lawyer things. Not so much in real practice though.
“But John Ensign is worse. He abused his office, his power, to accommodate an extramarital affair. And then bribed the parties to keep them quiet.”
Clinton, Ensign, Edwards, Sanford all at miniscule less varying degrees should not be qualified to hold office. However that would have applied to Ted Kennedy and he was an outstanding Senator in later years.
I most resent Clinton as there is something I have just never been able to come to grips with that he did stuff in the White House. It is really silly but that is like cheating on your wife in the bed you share, in this case it was the house we gave him (plus down the hall from his wife). Blecch.
Despite the quick attempt to say these things aren’t the same, there are many people who do and will see them being very much like mafia attorneys in this way: If you can aggressively pursue freeing a terrorist then I believe you should not be representing me in trying to prosecute them.
Where do we draw the line? Which group of suspects would you accept a lawyer defending while subsequently taking a government job?
I am smart enough to know that all of the persons accused were not terrorists, but some of them were. So if you aggressively defended someone who WAS a terrorist, I don’t want you representing me and, based on everything we know, how do I decide if you did or not?
So, in a sense, it’s a matter of luck? You could defend 9 innocent suspects, but if you lose 1 case, sorry buddy?
I also think its great if, as an attorney, you want to be involved in precedent setting defense cases, or working to ensure our justice system is treating the accused appropriately. That is a great career choice that I respect, even if you are doing it to further your career versus a conscientious stance. Stay there and do that, I don’t trust you to have my best interest at heart.
So, the lawyer who places a high value on Constitutional rights, and the rule of law, and the ability of individuals to avoid unjust punishment/imprisonment are the ones that…you don’t trust to have your best interest at hear?
Huh.
I don’t want to have to wonder just how aggressively you will defend our country versus defending someone who attacks it, not because you are a traitor, thats silly, but because you have an affinity for the defense that may make you less aggressive.
This is, actually, absurd. These lawyers were from white shoe law firms, and worked for any number of clients – on both sides of the divide (plaintiffs and defendants). Lawyers do that all the time. “Affinity for the defense” is not actually real.
Anyone who doesn’t think that liberals follow some of the same thought processes in reverse should simply do a self assessment of how you evaluate a Supreme Court nominee. It is great to say a lawyer is a lawyer doing lawyer things. Not so much in real practice though.
Liberals want to rule out Supreme Court nominees that were District Attorneys or US Attorneys because they prosecuted criminals, developed affinities for the prosecution and, thus, can’t be trusted to have our best interests at heart?
So if you aggressively defended someone who WAS a terrorist, I don’t want you representing me
If someone successfully defended someone who was an actual terrorist, I want him on a lifetime retainer as my attorney, because that dude must be a frigging shark in the courtroom.
I should add that few of these lawyers were actually “defending” the accused.
They were making Constitutional arguments/filing motions demanding that the accused get to have trials to adjudicate guilt or innocence.
And yet, for this, you couldn’t trust their capacity to later prosecute?
Marty:
I also think its great if, as an attorney, you want to be involved in precedent setting defense cases, or working to ensure our justice system is treating the accused appropriately. … Stay there and do that, I don’t trust you to have my best interest at heart.
To me, you seem to be saying that ensuring appropriate treatment of the accused is, by definition, *not* in your best interests. Is that what you mean to say?
I can see where the aura of “mafia lawyers” comes from, which also applies to e.g. tobacco company lawyers, RIAA lawyers, etc. To me, the lawyers for accused terrorists are profoundly different, because defending accused terrorists is not an ongoing, very lucrative career choice. Or do you trust them less because they’re not in it for the money?
“So, in a sense, it’s a matter of luck? You could defend 9 innocent suspects, but if you lose 1 case, sorry buddy?”
Eric,
I will not engage in a petty back and forth. You know as well as I do that these lawyers knew which of their clients were terorists and which weren’t. It has nothing to do with winning or losing the case.
White shoe law firms worked for both sides? The prosecution and the defense? Both?
And your response on the Supreme Court is also pretty disingenuous, you evaluate what judges have done and written to see if their views qualify them for the Court in your eyes. So do conservatives.
You know as well as I do that these lawyers knew which of their clients were terorists and which weren’t.
How are you possibly in a position to know this, let alone to know whether Eric knows this?
I am smart enough to know that all of the persons accused were not terrorists, but some of them were. So if you aggressively defended someone who WAS a terrorist, I don’t want you representing me and, based on everything we know, how do I decide if you did or not?
Guilt by association with people who possibly might have been guilty themselves: that’s M[cC]art[h]yism in a nutshell.
“To me, you seem to be saying that ensuring appropriate treatment of the accused is, by definition, *not* in your best interests. Is that what you mean to say?”
We have an adversarial justice system. I believe that if you take the role of defending a terrorist then we need people who have chosen to be aggressive prosecutors to have an effective adversarial system. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether I believe that the accused have rights, which I do and believe they should be aggressively defended. I just want someone at the DOJ who is going to just as aggressively prosecute them within the boundaries of the law.
White shoe law firms worked for both sides? The prosecution and the defense? Both?
They worked for both sides in their career. Plaintiffs, and defendants. And yet you claim that work on motions to compel trials makes them irredeemably sympathetic to the defense.
I will not engage in a petty back and forth. You know as well as I do that these lawyers knew which of their clients were terorists and which weren’t. It has nothing to do with winning or losing the case.
But do you know? Care to share?
And your response on the Supreme Court is also pretty disingenuous, you evaluate what judges have done and written to see if their views qualify them for the Court in your eyes. So do conservatives.
Not disingenuous at all. You don’t look to which types of suspects they defended. Or whether they were prosecutors. Which you suggested by saying that liberals apply the same analysis to Sup Court nominees.
Rather, you look at which Constitutional principles they defend/embrace, and how they interpret Constitutional rights.
There is no analogy here, and yet you tried to shoehorn one in. It just doesn’t make sense to say the same standard is being applied here.
I believe that if you take the role of defending a terrorist
I believe that if you consistently use “terrorist” to describe people accused of terrorism (who in some cases had already been exonerated) you forfeit the right to be taken seriously and can be accurately dismissed as a troll.
I believe that if you take the role of defending a terrorist then we need people who have chosen to be aggressive prosecutors to have an effective adversarial system.
I will repeat this:
I should add that few of these lawyers were actually “defending” the accused.
They were making Constitutional arguments/filing motions demanding that the accused should have trials to adjudicate guilt or innocence.
Do you not see the difference?
“But do you know? Care to share?”
Exactly, how would you know? How would you evaluate their resume? You have to assume one or the other.
You assume they are all just really lawyer geeks who decided to do this because it is a cool lawyer thing to do to work on setting precedent, or even perhaps they had a conscientious view of supporting the constitutional rights of these detainees (or prisoners, not sure why we have to use that euphemism). i won’t give you the second motivation for the white shoes.
However, some people assume they were defending terrorists.
White shoe law firms worked for both sides? The prosecution and the defense? Both?
Actually, and this is a gas, military lawyers actually did work both sides at various points. Military officials that worked as prosecutors at Gitmo, later worked for defendants.
Out of curiosity, Marty, would you disqualify military attorneys that filed motions demanding trials on behalf of accused terrorists?
“Out of curiosity, Marty, would you disqualify military attorneys that filed motions demanding trials on behalf of accused terrorists?”
Nope, the military justice system requiress lawyers to work both sides. It is an assignment not a choice.
all of the persons accused were not terrorists
I’m going to assume you meant not all of the persons accused were terrorists. Big difference.
You assume they are all just really lawyer geeks who decided to do this because it is a cool lawyer thing to do to work on setting precedent, or even perhaps they had a conscientious view of supporting the constitutional rights of these detainees (or prisoners, not sure why we have to use that euphemism). i won’t give you the second motivation for the white shoes.
You know, Marty, lawyers are SUPPOSED to take the principles of the Constitution seriously. I doubt, very much, that Gitmo cases were seen as a means of career advancement. I mean, why would you think that? However, many very good attorneys took the issues seriously enough to stake their reputations (and incur the likely Liz Cheney smears) to do the right thing.
Just like many military lawyers did. Unless you question their motives too?
detainees (or prisoners, not sure why we have to use that euphemism
Because the Bush administration sought to create a new class of people held againt their will. Prisoners are normally entitled to a bunch of rights that the Bush team wanted to deny this group.
Exactly, how would you know? How would you evaluate their resume? You have to assume one or the other.
I would suggest that there were some obvious cases of innocence (the Bush admin itself released something like 500 based on this), as well as some areas of gray and some obvious guilty. But did Liz Cheney seek to differentiate?
However, some people assume they were defending terrorists.
Oh absolutely. Liz Cheney did what she did because it is effective. Fearmongering gets results.
As was cautioned way back when, “A republic, if you can keep it.” And “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
Those admonitions were based on the realization that people will act out of fear, and support policies that undermine freedom and republican rule.
But pointing out this human tendency should not be a justification for the blinkered view itself.
“I’m going to assume you meant not all of the persons accused were terrorists. Big difference”
Yes thanks 🙂
Nope, the military justice system requiress lawyers to work both sides. It is an assignment not a choice.
But some of the lawyers volunteered. Like Col. Morris Davis.
Regardless, shouldn’t the fact that the military believes lawyers are capable of doing both effectively provide some illumination?
That’s how lawyers operate.
“I would suggest that there were some obvious cases of innocence (the Bush admin itself released something like 500 based on this), as well as some areas of gray and some obvious guilty. But did Liz Cheney seek to differentiate?”
I seem to recall that my point was to strike somewhere between Liz and Ugh. I think that there is much more information that would be helpful. It is not absurd or McCarthyesque to ask the questions.
“That’s how lawyers operate. ”
That is too much of a generalization for you to believe, even if it is supposed to be true.
I’d like to make a stronger argument than Eric.
We know that we actually tortured innocent non-terrorists.
It is very likely that some of the accused really aren’t terrorists.
They should be defended by good lawyers.
Threatening their lawyers with treason charges isn’t good for that.
“Affinity for the defense” is not actually real.
I think this is real: I have an affinity for the defense, both civil and criminal. I could not be a prosecutor because I generally see that job as requiring arguments that reduce and detract from Constitutional rights (ie, that warrantless search was legal because…) whereas the defense is always looking to expand those rights (the warrant was bad because…).
When I worked at a public defenders office, there were two types of attorneys: the “social justice attorney” who were actually concerned about the accused, and conservative ones who were concerned about erosion of constitutional rights(and they sometimes overlapped). Both were very effective. What I did not see there were attorneys who were not passionate about one or the other.
The prosecutor’s office, on the otherhand, seemed like a stepping stone for people interested in doing other things and simply wanted trial experience.
Anecdotal at best, but I think there is a defense mindset.
That is too much of a generalization for you to believe, even if it is supposed to be true.
Marty, from someone who defends their right to make such broad generalizations, I taks this with a chuckle.
Yes, that is a generalization. So it isn’t always true. But lawyers of this caliber generally operate this way. And to suggest otherwise without evidence is a smear.
I seem to recall that my point was to strike somewhere between Liz and Ugh. I think that there is much more information that would be helpful. It is not absurd or McCarthyesque to ask the questions.
Depends on how the questions are asked, and in what context. But generally, filing Consitutional motions on behalf of detainees seeking to get trials for detainees should not be the subject of inquiries on the fitness of such lawyers to serve.
Marty seems to think lawyers are a lot more ideologically driven than I do. Don’t many lawyers start as defense then move to prosecution, and vice versa? And one of the best ways to move into being a politician is to be a prosecutor. I don’t think these people are ideologically driven at all. And I DO think most lawyers are impressed more by the ‘law’ games than justice in any case, on either side. But that’s just my impression.
any of you CPA/tax types want to go and set Yglesias straight about the ins and outs of corporate dividends ?
i tried, but his blog is not letting me comment today.
Threatening their lawyers with treason charges isn’t good for that.
But Marty’s not doing that, Seb! He’s just…asking questions. Which is totally different.
“Threatening their lawyers with treason charges isn’t good for that.
But Marty’s not doing that, Seb! He’s just…asking questions. Which is totally different.”
I am actually doing neither. I am stating that I believe that lawyers who choosee to defend actual terrorists are suspect as potential prosecutors for the DOJ. I am, and did, specifically state that saying they are traitors is nonsense.
He’s just…asking questions.
In fact, it would be irresponsible not to speculate.
any of you CPA/tax types want to go and set Yglesias straight about the ins and outs of corporate dividends ?
IANACPA, but I don’t see where he’s wrong. The scenario he describes seems to work under Ryan’s proposal – no corporate income tax, no dividend tax. Maybe the VAT would make it infeasible.
“Yes, that is a generalization. So it isn’t always true. But lawyers of this caliber generally operate this way. And to suggest otherwise without evidence is a smear.”
I am curious what you mean by this Eric. What does “lawyers of this caliber” mean? Maybe I missed something but I haven’t seen anything that suggests that these were “great” lawyers or “well respected” lawyers or “esteemed” attorneys.
Hmmm, that sentence sounds snide. It is not meant to be.
I am really asking if there is a commonality that these were top notch lawyers who somehow got involved here.
I am stating that I believe that lawyers who choosee to defend actual terrorists are suspect as potential prosecutors for the DOJ
If any such exist, which we don’t know, and if “defend” meant “try to get released” as opposed to “ensure due process for”, you might have a point. As it is, all you’ve got is a smear.
“If any such exist, which we don’t know, and if “defend” meant “try to get released” as opposed to “ensure due process for”, you might have a point. As it is, all you’ve got is a smear.”
Thanks, so I might have a point.
I am really asking if there is a commonality that these were top notch lawyers who somehow got involved here.
They were either high ranking military officers, law professors at schools like Georgetown, attorneys with very good reputations from top law firms in the country and/or otherwise professionally accomplished. These lawyers donated time pro bono, most of them because their billable rates put them out of the reach of all but the most affluent clients.
Generally speaking, only the best students from the best law schools are hired to those firms, teaching positions or other organization. This is no guarantee of getting the best attorneys, but those institutions also tend to weed out the weak links early on.
I am stating that I believe that lawyers who choosee to defend actual terrorists are suspect as potential prosecutors for the DOJ
Should I point out, again, that they weren’t actually “defending” the accused, but rather filing motions regarding the quality of their detention (torture, ie) and their right to a trial – at which SOMEONE ELSE would do the actual “defending.”
Doesn’t that matter even a little?
Thanks Eric,
I just don’t equate law professors and attorneys at that level of accomplishment with the typical political appointees I think get hired at the DOJ. So I will follow up with, are these people really taking jobs at the DOJ?
I suppose it’s worth noting that the Bush/Cheney administration itself hired 3 attorneys that had previously worked on detainee cases in pursuit of rights to trial and detention free of torture.
So, yeah.
Thanks, so I might have a point.
Not familiar with counterfactuals, I see.
“Doesn’t that matter even a little?”
Sure, if ALL of them were doing that. I was pretty explicit, I think, at what I thought was the legitimate issue. You keep asking this question, so yes, I think that it matters what they did, and why.
“I suppose it’s worth noting that the Bush/Cheney administration itself hired 3 attorneys that had previously worked on detainee cases in pursuit of rights to trial and detention free of torture.”
That were law professors at Georgetown or doing probono work because there typical firm rates were so exorbitant?
I mean, John Yoo is a law professor somewhere (or Berkeley) but I think most people wouldn’t consider him a great example.
And despite the default assumption, I don’t really agree with a lot of things the Bush\Cheney administration did.
So I will follow up with, are these people really taking jobs at the DOJ?
Yes. Which might be take as evidence that they put a value on service to their country, and defense of its ideals, above material gain alone.
Incidentally, they are:
Jonathan Cedarbaum, Eric Columbus, Karl Thompson, Joseph Guerra, Tali Farhadian, Beth Brinkmann, and Tony West.
As well as Neal Katyal (Georgetown University law professor) and Jennifer Daskal (worked for Human Rights Watch).
brief bios to follow…
Tali Farhandian clerked for Justice O’Connor and worked at Skadden Arps and Debevoise & Plimpton (two of the best firms in the country).
Tony West graduated from Harvard with honors, then Stanford law. He had previous DOJ experience, and was a litigator at Morrison & Foerster
Beth Brinkman: Graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1980 with a bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and earned her law degree from Yale Law School in 1985. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in 1986 and also clerked for appeals-court judge Phyllis A. Kravitch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jonathan Cederbaum: Harvard undergrad, Yale Law, solid prior DOJ experience and PARTNER at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
Eric Columbus: Harvard undergrad, Harvard law, associate at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
Joseph Guerra: PARTNER at Sidley Austin – in charge of their appellate division. The most active dept in recent years arguing before the Supreme Court.
Karl Thompson: worked at O’Melveny & Meyers, and was asked by his boss to help out a military lawyer with one case.
Heckuva job Cheney, Kristol and Grassley!
Edwards is probably the most hated left-wing politician among liberals. Since the affair I have never heard anyone say anything about him that didn’t express a scorn and contempt verging on hatred. Of course, most of the reason we hate him is because we like the Democratic Party and think he came within inches of destroying it, so I don’t know why Republicans should really care.
Ensign is a slightly different flavor of scum. He made a career in large part out of preaching virtue in public, while engaging in vice in private. Spitzer, Sanford, Vitter, Craig, are all of the same ilk.
I don’t much care about the personal lives of politicians (or really anyone). I don’t think affairs or airport bathroom handjobs are per se disqualifications for public office, although I think party loyalty demands that if you seek a very scrutinized high office you should make damn sure you don’t get caught (or just admit it ahead of time and tell people to mind their own business).
Using the services of prostitutes is different because it’s illegal, and I think that people in law-enforcement roles should refrain from committing crimes (radical idea, I know).
But basically I don’t care. Just don’t make a career out of condemning other people for being human and then go around doing the same stuff yourself. Unfortunately what I think the survival of sex-scandal tainted Republicans tells us is that a large section of the Republication electorate doesn’t think that way. Hypocrisy is a minor offense to them; what matters is that the public condemnation continues. What that’s all about, I can’t imagine.
That were law professors at Georgetown or doing probono work because there typical firm rates were so exorbitant?
That had solid credentials.
And yes, Yoo proves that this is not an exact science. But still, I mentioned a “caliber” of attorney, and I generalized, and I’m pretty confident in those assertions as a “general” rule.
Marty, yes, the people in question at DOJ have stellar resumes. Superstars by any measure. And no, none of them were acting as trial counsel for someone accused of a crime. None are employed as prosecutors.
Several of the DOJ lawyers represented (or filed amicus briefs) in support of Lakhdar Boumediene, arguing that the law that would deny him a trial was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed. Boumediene had his trial, and he won: not an enemy, not a member of Al Qaeda, not a terrorist. He’s living in France.
One fellow was the appellate lawyer for Salim Hamdan, arguing that the system set up to try him was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed, and said that only if Congress created a new system could the trial go forward. It did, the trial went forward, and Hamdan was acquitted of some things, and convicted of others. He was sentenced and served his sentence. He’s since been released, and went home.
Others represented John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla, American citizens never sent to Guantanamo. Another filed an amicus in the case of al Marri — these were all about how the system should deal with American citizens or legal residents accused of involvement with terrorism.
These lawyers weren’t arguing guilt or innocence, but about what system is appropriate, under our Constitution, for finding out the truth of the various allegations.
I just don’t equate law professors and attorneys at that level of accomplishment with the typical political appointees I think get hired at the DOJ.
As is so often the case, the question must be asked: do you have any evidence whatsoever to base this “thinking” on, Marty, or are we just floating in the ether of your preconceptions and hunches and gut feelings?
Time and again on this blog, you attempt to construct an argument based not on facts, but on the way things seem to you. And then you get defensive when you’re called on it.
Why you’re digging in your heels on this is a mystery. It’s almost as if you’re terrified to come out in total agreement with Eric on something (or in total disagreement with Liz Cheney, same thing), so we go round and round with your endless yes-buttery. And it’s really tiresome.
I should add that the Georgetown professor, and the stellar OMM associate both came into the thing at the request of military defense lawyers, because of the limits of their appointments (someone who could act in another court was necessary to vindicate their constitutional claims) and because, in the OMM case, it was already in the Supreme Court, and they needed some major league talent.
UK: In Marty’s defense, the Bush administration had an absolutely atrocious record of hiring unqualified, politically simpatico attorneys to the DOJ.
Many were graduates of Regent University – a Tier 4 law school started by…Pat Robertson. Not kidding. Pat Robertson.
Bush hired 150 Regents grads to federal positions.
Tier 4. That’s reeeeaaaly bad.
There were several embarrassing lowlights, including Monica Goodling.
After 8 years of such debasement, it’s easy to forget that most administrations actually hire qualified attorneys, and not political hacks.
After 8 years of such debasement, it’s easy to forget that most administrations actually hire qualified attorneys, and not political hacks.
Point taken.
Eric and Charley,
Thanks for thte info. Obviously all of these details make me more sure that there was no reason for the original aggressive attack by Liz, et al.
I appreciate knowing that what they were saying was happening isn’t.
I appreciate knowing that what they were saying was happening isn’t.
You thought the lawyers were members of al Qaeda?
Ugh, you could be more charitable.
Much like I believe that the mafia dons clearly deserve the best representation that they can get, terrorists deserve the best representation they can get, but as an attorney, pick a side.
I think this just isn’t realistic. Consider child molesters; some percentage of accused child molesters are guilty. Yet I still want them all to get the full benefit of representation *precisely* because it weeds out those provably guilty of their crimes from those not so.
Putting a moral onus on lawyers to not defend that entire class of cases unless they “pick the side” of child molesters in general- in practice this means denying them the effective means to prove their innocence.
I also think its great if, as an attorney, you want to be involved in precedent setting defense cases, or working to ensure our justice system is treating the accused appropriately…. Stay there and do that, I don’t trust you to have my best interest at heart.
You’re assuming that “treating the accused appropriately” isn’t acting in your best interest. It is, on two counts: 1)you may someday find yourself in need of fair treatment at the hands of the judicial system, accused of a heinous crime and 2)if you never do, living in a country with such a system is still far preferable to the alternative.
And your response on the Supreme Court is also pretty disingenuous, you evaluate what judges have done and written to see if their views qualify them for the Court in your eyes. So do conservatives.
There’s a big difference between analyzing the decisions made from the bench (supposedly impartial interpretations of the law etc) and positions supported as legal counsel. I totally expect legal counsel to do their best for their clients. My objections to various USSC nominees have iirc all been based on their time as judges.
But I suppose it’s true that if someone eg did lots of pro bono work for the Aryan Nation, I might be suspicious of their character- it would depend on the type of work. But there’s a very large precedent for eg groups like the ACLU to defend the legal rights of people even when they disagree with their politics (eg they defended Limbaugh during his drug issue). In those sorts of circumstances, I totally respect the rule of law and those who attempt to preserve it, even in the cases where they find the defendant to be repugnant.
So if an ACLU lawyer defended the Aryan Nation on a specific charge, I would find no support for the idea that they would be less supportive of legal action against that group or other racist groups.
Don’t need the tax deductions.
More seriously, isn’t Marty saying that you have ever represented a criminal defendant that was in fact guilty you can’t serve in DOJ, period? Or is there a special exception for terrorists?
And just what is the label “al Qaeda 7” supposed to mean in any event?
I would also note that a prosecutors job is to “do justice”, not zealously pursue a conviction
I was going to pile on, but it seems unnecessary now. The problem is – and not your fault Marty – is that criminal defense work is generally misunderstood if you don’t actually work in the area (thank you very much Law and Order).
As jrudkis said above there are a lot of different motivations that draw people to it. If the one of the defense attorneys were given overwhelming proof of guilt for their client, it wouldn’t that hard to get a conviction in a a court or military comission or what have you. But most of the time the government wasn’t saying even to anyone why they were holding them.
Defense attorneys are actually bound by a whole bunch of rules regrading criminal representation. I know the lay perspective is that they break all these rules all the time and the poor judge is helpless before our mind control machines. But that really isn’t the case. White shoe lawyers for S&C aren’t going to risk debarment or worse to unethically help one of the detainees, even if wholly innocent.
Their roles in this were more focus on the nature of the proceedings – not necessarily a jury trial but a fair and impartial hearing, which is trickier than it sounds. You do need input from everyone including someone to represent the defense.
On the Clinton/Massa/Foley/etc front: I find unwanted sexual advances to be much more reprehensible than affairs. So Sanford strikes me a foolish person, where Massa seems genuinely creepy and wrong. And honestly, excessive condemnation of “family values” politicians for sexual missteps is a little too convenient for Dems anyway- it strikes me as silly as the criticisms of Al Gore flying in airplanes rather than walking and swimming around the world.
I dont find anything more reprehensible about opposing gay rights as a closeted gay than as a heterosexual.
The biggest surprise to me out of all of this has been Vitter- I have no idea how he still has a political career.
And honestly, excessive condemnation of “family values” politicians for sexual missteps is a little too convenient for Dems anyway- it strikes me as silly as the criticisms of Al Gore flying in airplanes rather than walking and swimming around the world.
er, not so much. criticizing gore for using modern tech & transportation instead of unrealistic travel plans is silly. particularly when one can try to offset some of the effects. those concerned about climate change aren’t luddites (well, most aren’t). the goal is to figure out how to keep our effect on climate in check while still hanging on to all the neato stuff we’ve made. emissions controls, alternate fuels, etc.. we don’t want to give up our advances, we want to enjoy them without potentially fucking the place up for ourselves.
whereas some jack-hole who parades around claiming that marriage is the most sacred thing in the world, so that’s why evil scary gays shouldn’t be able to marry; some ass who enacts or tries to enact laws that deny rights to groups of people on the basis of morals and then cheats on his wife or fucks random guys in bathrooms? fuck that hypocrisy.
I dont find anything more reprehensible about opposing gay rights as a closeted gay than as a heterosexual. i find both reprehensible, but i’ll admit i find it more so from someone closeted. legislature is not the place to work on your personal issues with your sexuality, so again, fuck these people.
I have nothing of value to add, so I’ll add something devoid of value. This:
And yet, for this, you couldn’t trust their capacity to later prosecute?
Is actually quite funny if you imagine it being said in a stereotypical “Jewish mother” voice.
[/got nuthin]
1. Why don’t sex scandals involving Republicans matter to the media/result in resignations?
Because the media is owned by Republicans.
I dont find anything more reprehensible about opposing gay rights as a closeted gay than as a heterosexual.
It’s not more reprehensible.
In a weird kind of way it’s even understandable: when you have been reared in a homophobic atmosphere of hatred and condemnation, taught to believe that your natural and normal capacity for love, passion, and sex ought to be stifled, twisted, and destroyed, told over and over again that there is something wrong with you – it is weirdly comprehensible that someone who has been regularly abused like this by their family and their pastor and their friends, will turn into a self-hating persecutor of the people who managed to triumph over their abusers to live normally as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
Unlike the simple bigotry that motivates heterosexual opponents of LGBT equality, which is not comprehensible except to another bigot.
There are people who argue that anyone who passionately opposes LGBT equality is probably a closet-queer themselves, but I think the people who argue like this are missing the fact that bigots can be passionate about their bigotry quite purely: passion in itself isn’t a reliable indicator of that cocktail of messed-up emotions fuelling a closety gay politician who’s made a career out of being publicly homophobic.
And honestly, excessive condemnation of “family values” politicians for sexual missteps is a little too convenient for Dems anyway
I think it’s a different level of “convenient”. Anyone who argues that committing adultery or making unwanted sexual advances or being gay automatically disqualifies you from being fit to hold public office, as so many Republicans have argued about so many of their political opponents, is straightforwardly laying themselves open to being required to live up to their own standard. To put it briefly: if it’s claimed Bill Clinton should have been impeached because he lied about getting a blowjob, either this is a partisan attack on Clinton which can be dismissed with the contempt it deserves – or every politician who ever lied about getting a blowjob needs to be impeached, too.
i find both reprehensible, but i’ll admit i find it more so from someone closeted.
I have to agree with this. It may just be that as a gay man I can’t be dispassionate about the issue, but the hypocrisy aspect in a case like Larry Craig’s is very real to me.
And I have to say I find the Al Gore comparison downright silly. If you take the accusations against him at face value (and that’s a stretch), Al Gore could maybe be accused of failing to lead by example. But to compare the legally enshrined homophobia that many LGBT people have to contend with on a daily basis to the…what, persecution? vilification?…of people who drive Hummers is frankly offensive. Not even apples and oranges…apples and orangutans, maybe.
I don’t criticize Gore for flying instead of walking. I criticize him for flying instead of teleconferencing. Really, you want people to take global warming seriously, don’t use it as an excuse to vacation in Bali, while making millions on carbon indulgences.
@ Ugh:
” Or is there a special exception for terrorists?
How quickly we forget… you remember that the Bush Adminstration made a great deal of effort to set up a parallel system of “justice” founded on just that fundamental distinction?
I can’t really grasp the apparent conservative view of the Judicial process.
You’d think, given the tin-foil hysteria of the 90s and the current crop of tin-foil nutcases on the right with their survival seeds and their bulk ammo purchases for when Obama “takes all the guns” and invites the UN in to turn all the Christian women into sex slaves for Nigerians or whatever the current paranoia is about….
You’d think, given their unwavering fear of the excesses of the government in Democratic hands, they’d be falling over backwards to make sure that anyone accused of anything got due process. They should be TERRIFIED at the thought that Obama could, with a stroke of a pen, claim they’re a dangerous terrorist and ship them to Gitmo or into a military brig, and refuse to grant them access to a lawyer, or courts.
I just don’t get how on the one hand, they’re happy with stripping out all the defenses against an abusive Executive, yet on the other hand they’re telling each other ghost stories about how many laws the Executive is going to break.
Don’t they get that the whole Judicial system — with the lawyers, and due process, and the fact that no matter how horrible the crime is a vigorous defense of the accused is the first and best step against totalitarian governments…..acts as a check to their very fears?
How do you get to the point where you’re dealthy afraid of both the problem, and it’s counter?
I dont find anything more reprehensible about opposing gay rights as a closeted gay than as a heterosexual.
I do. A closeted gay, it seems to me, should have a better understanding of the issues, and the impact of anti-gay prejudice, and the inaccuracy of bigoted views of gays, than a straight person. Having more information makes the bigotry worse.
The biggest surprise to me out of all of this has been Vitter- I have no idea how he still has a political career.
Louisiana.
I’m with Bernard. You don’t have the excuse of ignorance as a closeted gay.
Maybe someone else pointed this out, but I didn’t see it: McCarthyism has nothing to do with Eugene McCarty. Eugene McCarthy was the Democratic anti-Vietnam war Senator from Minnesota (or Wisconsin,I forget).
McCarthism refers to Joe, the Republican, also a Senator from the North Woods, but a very different type of person and politician.
In re cooking:
1) Roast parsnips are one of the bestest things ever.
2) Someone in a previous thread talked about cooking cabbage with cream and bacon, and that’s certainly good. But the best ever? I beg to differ! I just did a schweinebraten-esque dish a few nights ago that was to die for. 1 lb of red cabbage sauteed in bacon fat and doused with wine and vinegar (aka “fast sauerkraut”), 1 lb of ordinary shredded red cabbage, a couple of onions sliced thick, garlic and caraway, enough wine and water to cover, and a browned pork shoulder roast. Braise until the pork is tender, then extract the pork and cabbage, reduce the cooking liquid, and serve with parsley’d egg noodles and grainy mustard. Hot damn was that good.
Also, any Floridians here in Orlando? I’m going there for a conference in a week or two and it’s going to be deathly dull, I could certainly use a touch of liveliness…
Anarch,
Welcome back. You’ve been gone a while.
McCarthyism refers to Joe, the Republican, also a Senator from the North Woods, but a very different type of person and politician.
Though Andrew is building a strong case for partial ownership.
Welcome back. You’ve been gone a while.
Wotcha! Nice to be back. Made the mistake of graduating, getting a real job and (most recently) getting a promotion — all of which cuts into what’s really important, i.e. blog-commenting.
Made the mistake of graduating, getting a real job and (most recently) getting a promotion
A promotion? Who are you working for? Time to sell short.
parsnips: julienne, then sautee in butter and garlic.
[of course, anything sauteed in butter and garlic is good, well, maybe not snails, but parsnips are great.]
Isn’t it interesting that the attempt to demonize lawyers due to who their clients were (or may have been, to be precise) occurs on both sides of the fence?
The nonsense over these lawyers is essentially identical to the regular cries here in California to keep those who represented any major corporation out of state offices having anything to do with either labor relations or the general field (e.g. medicine, chemistry, etc.) that the company was involved in. Opposite sides of the political divide. Same insistence on guilt by association. Same assumption that ever working for or with one side means you can never again be fair to anyone else.
P.S. Only way to make parsnips (or turnips, for that matter) edible: feed them to pigs and make pork out of them.
I’m with Bernard. You don’t have the excuse of ignorance as a closeted gay.
There’s that, but on the other side there’s the reprehensibility of bigotry where it harms others’ freedoms without affecting one’s own. The “defenders of marriage” on their third try, who have no real objections to no-fault divorces and consequence-free adultery, but find it easy & profitable to demonize the other in society.
I figure, between the two I don’t really have a scale.
On roasted parsnips, we generally mix them with carrots, rutabaga, and turnips, toss in olive oil, and sprinkle liberally with Lawry’s seasoned salt. (You may want to wrap in foil for the first part of the cooking, then open, or else the carrots will get a bit shriveled.) Then roast at 400 degrees until everything is soft and caramelized. That way there’s something in there for every taste. Victor loves them, no pre-made baby food for him!
As for the lawyers, I agree on principle that doing pro-bono work for people accused of something reprehensible should be no bar to government service. I do, however, share Jonah Goldberg’s doubt that, if the Bush administration had appointed 7 lawyers with a record of doing pro bono work for white supremacists to the Civil Rights division, Democrats would have refrained from similar histrionics. Though the principle would be precisely the same.
The need for people accused of terrorism to have access to legal counsel isn’t to protect terrorists, it’s to protect everyone the government might accuse of terrorism, if that accusation were converted into a guarantee the accused wouldn’t have access to counsel. You really can’t assume good faith on the government’s part, when analyzing these things. You always have to look at the way the rule you’re proposing will be abused.
I would also note that a prosecutors job is to “do justice”, not zealously pursue a conviction
In theory yes but the reality looks quite different unfortunately. The famous saying that getting convictions for the guilty is easy while it is the mark of the really good prosecutor that he can get convictions of innocents as well does not come from nowhere. If prosecutors are considered failures, if they ‘only’ achieve imprisonment for life instead of an execution and this negatively affects their (often political*) careers, then it will not come as a surprise that the system tends to suck.
—
Morat20, I think GOPsters know that the opposition will never sink to their level, abusing the judicial system to take out rivals. Therefore they see no problem in dismantling the safety procedures because they can’t really expect to one day become the victims. It would look different, if e.g. Obama, immediately after taking the oath of office, had ordered Chain-Eye/Bush&Accomplices to be arrested and flown to Bagram for enhanced interrogation.
Imo he should have had them** arrested and delivered to the Hague the day after the inauguration or, if the Hague had not taken them, extradited them to Iraq/Iran/Chile/San Salvador/etc. to be charged for their crimes
*cf. campaigns where candidates boast that they got more people on Old Sparky than their opponents and are therefore more derving of winning.
**plus a few Democrats for good measure, e.g. Bill Clinton and M.Albright but most importantly Henry Kissinger
I do, however, share Jonah Goldberg’s doubt that, if the Bush administration had appointed 7 lawyers with a record of doing pro bono work for white supremacists to the Civil Rights division, Democrats would have refrained from similar histrionics. Though the principle would be precisely the same.
Jonah Goldberg? Is that who libertarians are hitching their wagons to these days?
I do, however, share Jonah Goldberg’s doubt that, if the Bush administration had appointed 7 lawyers with a record of doing pro bono work for white supremacists to the Civil Rights division, Democrats would have refrained from similar histrionics.
The trouble with that argument is that it is largely irrefutable – not because it’s true, but because it’s not based on any facts or logic. It’s just a general charge of hypocrisy.
One slightly relevant fact, though, is that ACLU lawyers, whether Democrats or not I don’t know, have defended the rights of some pretty odious characters without bringing down much wrath on their own heads. Make of that what you will.
And stop reading Goldberg. It only hurts your understanding of the world.
sprinkle liberally with Lawry’s seasoned salt
There was a deli near my house growing up that used to make homemade french fries smothered with the stuff. An after school snack that I partook in far too often – but would pay handsomely for a batch at this very moment.
When, Anarch? If it’s after the 20th, I could probably break free and partake of some necessary quantity of beer, etc. if you’re willing.
The 20th is tournament, and I’m busy working on my crane technique.
The 20th is tournament, and I’m busy working on my crane technique.
You’re in the heavy machinery tournament, too? I’m into downhill bulldozing.
😉
I do, however, share Jonah Goldberg’s doubt that, if the Bush administration had appointed 7 lawyers with a record of doing pro bono work for white supremacists to the Civil Rights division, Democrats would have refrained from similar histrionics.
Yeah, like if the ACLU defended the KKK on a particular situation because of the Constitutional principle, obviously liberals would never have anything to do with them again. Fortunately for civilization, there is the Republican party, where an organization fighting for everyone’s rights is never demonized at all.
Of course, if there was a lawyer with a long track record of doing pro bono work *just* for white supremacists (or terrorists, or child molesters), I don’t think either party would appoint them to a position of responsibility.
There’s also an asymmetry to your argument- being a white supremacist isn’t a crime, and many white supremacists openly admit their stance on race. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be Constitutional principles in play, but it does IMO differentiate the situation from people who are only *accused* of belonging to bad organizations. So someone who serially defended people accused of terrorism isn’t the same as someone who serially defends admitted white supremacists accused of crimes.
semi-relevant lawyer quote of the day:
I suspect Marty’s assumption that prosecutors are on the side of The Law and The Public, while defenders are on the side of The Miscreants, is widespread.
And I think fledermaus is correct to imply that TV is involved. When non-lawyers think about what lawyers do, TV lawyer shows are apt to be salient — to be what first comes to mind.
Now, I don’t watch lawyer shows, so I’m asking. Do the shows tend to be either “the defenders are the Good Guys” or “the prosecutors are the Good Guys”? Do they make it seem as though Defense and Prosecution are different kinds of people, with different goals?
jrudkis said:
Is this what you see on lawyer/cop TV? In some shows but not others? Opine, plz.
The applicable position would not be the Civil Rights division but a prosecutorial position where they would have the responsibility of prosecuting crimes by white supremacists. And I wouldn’t have a problem with that if the kind of work they had engaged in was of a similar kind to the lawyers in question here. White supremacists have constitutional rights, and expressing a particular kind of opinion – even a reprehensible one – is not a crime, and I would not want innocent white supremacists in jail. Those accused of actual crimes must always have effective legal counsel to prevent that from happening. As noted by others, the ACLU does exactly that kind of work and I support them in doing so – which is not the same as saying I agree with every aspect of every position they end up arguing for, as happened with Citizens United.
Wow, it’s almost as if Jonah Goldberg came up with a poorly reasoned, inapplicable analogy that doesn’t withstand the slightest scrutiny and analysis.
Imagine that?
Bernard Yomtov: A promotion? Who are you working for? Time to sell short.
I work in healthcare now. The jokes write themselves, don’t they>
Slarti: When, Anarch? If it’s after the 20th, I could probably break free and partake of some necessary quantity of beer, etc. if you’re willing.
I get to Orlando on the 20th, actually, and leave on the afternoon of the 24th. Any evening in there seems like it could work, I don’t know that there’s anything formal or interesting going on after 6pm or so.
Doctor Science,
I don’t watch a lot of tv, but I think the big disparity between reality and tv defense counsel is that on tv, the defense has resources, and the prosecution looks like it is the one that is under resourced. Also, I have never seen a prosecutor on tv overcharge in order to force a plea on a case that has limited actual evidence.
Plus the whole general concept that the Constitution is a “technicality.”
Cool! Interested in meeting up? Take it to email?
What are you here for, and where are you staying?
“Yeah, like if the ACLU defended the KKK on a particular situation because of the Constitutional principle, obviously liberals would never have anything to do with them again.”
And, indeed, The ACLU lost a quarter of it’s membership, and a third of it’s funding, in the wake of it’s defense of the Skokie marchers. The mere threat of this happening again caused them to cut their definition of ‘civil liberties’ entirely loose from the text of the Bill of Rights, so they could avoid angering more ‘liberals’ by defending the 2nd amendment. They’re so afraid of it happening again that they’re seriously considering reversing their position on campaign ‘reform’ in light of ‘liberal’ anger over their victory in the Citizens United case.
The ACLU board lives in terror of doing anything to anger ‘liberals’ again, the way they did defending the marchers at Skokie.
The ACLU board lives in terror of doing anything to anger ‘liberals’ again, the way they did defending the marchers at Skokie.
Yeah, that’s why they later refused to defend Rush Limbaugh. Wait. What’s that? They did defend Limbaugh? And continued to defend other white supremacist groups?…Oh, nevermind.
Brett: again caused them to cut their definition of ‘civil liberties’ entirely loose from the text of the Bill of Rights, so they could avoid angering more ‘liberals’ by defending the 2nd amendment.
Meh. I think their defense of affirmative action is more inconsistent with the ACLU’s core mission, which I think they describe here, than whatever they’re doing with respect to the 2nd amendment (which, it appears from the most cursory glance at their web page, is nothing either way).
Other causes the ACLU was too afraid to take up out of fear of alienating liberal supporters:
The ACLU also defended Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North,[57] whose conviction was tainted by coerced testimony — a violation of his fifth amendment rights.[62]
The ACLU fought for the Westboro Baptist Church and Shirley Phelps-Roper after legislation prevented the group from picketing outside of veterans’ funerals.[63] The Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for their picket signs that contain messages such as, “God Hates Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “Thank God for 9/11.” The ACLU issued a statement calling the legislation a “law that infringes on Shirley Phelps-Roper’s rights to religious liberty and free speech.”[64] The suit was successful.[65]
The mere threat of this happening again caused them to cut their definition of ‘civil liberties’ entirely loose from the text of the Bill of Rights, so they could avoid angering more ‘liberals’ by defending the 2nd amendment. They’re so afraid of it happening again that they’re seriously considering reversing their position on campaign ‘reform’ in light of ‘liberal’ anger over their victory in the Citizens United case.
The ACLU board lives in terror of doing anything to anger ‘liberals’ again, the way they did defending the marchers at Skokie.
First, you seem very comfortable with this sort of fact-free mindreading. Or, rather, this sort of fact-free mindreading must be very comforting to you, since it allows you to maintain otherwise difficult positions.
Second, the ACLU is still a respected and frequently admired institution on the left- your theory was that supporting the civil rights of unpopular groups would make one persona non grata, but that is so clearly not the case that you’ve been forced into this sort of obfuscation rather than admitting that your original argument had no merit.
I suppose you’re forced into these sorts of gymnastics rather than admitting to yourself that the left has institutions that value civil liberties regardless of whether they’re politically convenient or whether the subject is popular. Something lacking on the right side of the spectrum these days.
“First, you seem very comfortable with this sort of fact-free mindreading.”
Actually, I had this straight from Ira Glasser’s lips, at a supper club where he was the invited speaker: The ACLU didn’t defend the 2nd amendment because it was afraid of ‘liberals’ deserting it again the way they did after Skokie.
The ACLU can get away with angering the left in small ways, but they trim their sales when the outrage reaches a fever pitch.
But Brett, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t rank very high on lists of important issues for liberals or the left.
Doesn’t make sense.
It not being enforced ranks quite high for a substantial fraction of both.
If only there was some kind of large, powerful, well-funded organization with a mission to protect (their interpretation of) the 2nd Amendment.
If only.
The ACLU board lives in terror of doing anything to anger ‘liberals’ again, the way they did defending the marchers at Skokie.
Like, defending the KKK, as the ACLU did in 1999 (which I pointed out earlier). You never let those pesky facts get in the way of a good story, huh?
Actually, I had this straight from Ira Glasser’s lips, at a supper club where he was the invited speaker
Yeah, well later we were hangin at Twin Peeks down by the highway, and he told me he was just yanking your chain.
I mean, has the ACLU *ever* supported the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as defending an individual right? Is the ACLU ever shy about defending unpopular positions that it believes in (as opposed to you claiming that they’re cowards for not supporting a position *you* believe in)?
And since you’ve managed to bounce from your original false statement without bothering to retract it, Ill give you another chance:
the ACLU is still a respected and frequently admired institution on the left- your theory was that supporting the civil rights of unpopular groups would make one persona non grata
Congrats, Carlton: You’ve just established that the ACLU had already lost that fraction of the left that couldn’t stomach defending the KKK, at Skokie. Sunk cost. Doesn’t mean they want to keep shedding similarly large fractions of their base.
Congrats, Carlton: You’ve just established that the ACLU had already lost that fraction of the left that couldn’t stomach defending the KKK, at Skokie. Sunk cost. Doesn’t mean they want to keep shedding similarly large fractions of their base.
The logic factory in your brain is broken- given any one of a number of possible explanations (eg that the liberal understanding of civil liberties has evolved since *1977*), you pick the one most pleasing to you and anoint it a fact.
And, in this case, one that doesn’t even support your original assertion that liberals would object to defenders of fringe civil liberties being given a position in government. You’re stuck on this track because you’ve apparently forgotten your original point (despite me trying to remind you) in your lathered-up frenzy to disclose the secret conspiracy which keeps the ACLU from supporting a position on the 2nd amendment that it has afaict never supported.
I mean, Im open to evidence that the ACLU would support the NRA’s view of the 2nd amendment. Im open to evidence that liberals find the support of civil rights for white supremacists and other undesirables unacceptable.
But you aren’t providing any. So far, you’ve tried to use the ACLU’s serial stance in favor of rights for fringe groups as proof that the ACLU is afraid to take stances in favor of rights for fringe groups. You’ve tried to use the relatively favorable reputation that the ACLU enjoys among liberals as proof that liberals would object to them continuing to act as they’ve done for decades.
I know it’s sort of eating your cake when the premier group defending civil liberties in the US is liberal, and is constantly vilified for defending those rights by conservatives. But disputing that is 1)foolish and 2)not helping you demonstrate that liberals would object to ACLU-like behavior.
Actually, some of the branches have, it’s the national ACLU that decided not to, and came up with BS rationalizations as to why.
And I don’t vilify the ACLU for defending civil liberties. I vilify them for pretending they defend them all, while going out of their way to come up with excuses for NOT defending the ones they don’t like. They could have just admitted to being selective as to which civil liberties they were going to defend, you know; There wouldn’t have been any shame in saying, “The 2nd amendment is adequately defended by the NRA and other single subject civil rights organizations, we chose to concentrate on other amendments.”
But they didn’t, they had to come out and insist that it WASN’T a civil liberty, and stick to that position even after Heller, because they want to maintain the false reputation for being your one stop defender of ALL civil liberties, even if it means they have to deny the existence of any they can’t stomach defending. That doesn’t make them a neutral, that puts them on the other side.
Anyway, you telling me you haven’t noticed liberals getting all pissy about which side the ACLU took on Citizens United? Haven’t noticed that, far from bragging about their victory, as they normally would have, they’ve clammed up on the subject while trying to figure out if they’re going to repudiate their position right after winning at the Supreme court, specifically because liberals got so pissy, and they don’t know if they want another “Skokie moment”? You’re telling me you can’t see this going on right in front of your face?
I have a hard time believing that.
Brett: That doesn’t make them a neutral, that puts them on the other side.
No, that’s exactly what makes them a neutral party on the subject. Being on the other side would involve backing gun control measures. I do not think this is very complicated.
while trying to figure out if they’re going to repudiate their position right after winning at the Supreme court, specifically because liberals got so pissy…You’re telling me you can’t see this going on right in front of your face?
The chances of them repudiating the Citizens United decisions are zero. They are not going to crow about it in fundraising communications (which also means everything they put on the front page of their website) because the purpose of fundraising is to raise funds, and the people who give money to the ACLU are not going to get too excited over Citizens United. The distance between that and repudiation is quite large, your tea-leaf reading notwithstanding.
Not having a strong opinion on this one way or the other, this seems a little bit of a sidestep that supports Brett’s position.
Not really. Brett’s position that the ACLU is terrified of angering liberals has already been demolished by about a half-dozen solid examples.
Also, according to Wikipedia the stats he’s quoting about membership and funding loss apply only to the Chicago chapter, not the ACLU as a whole.
Actually, some of the branches have, it’s the national ACLU that decided not to, and came up with BS rationalizations as to why.
It boggles my mind that you cannot understand honest disgreements over interpretation. You believe that there is one way to interpret the Constitution and that any disagreement is a mark of dishonesty.
Anyway, you telling me you haven’t noticed liberals getting all pissy about which side the ACLU took on Citizens United?
Sure (some liberals, anyway). And after they defended the kkk. After they defended Rush Limbaugh. They often irritate people across the spectrum with their unabashed support of civil liberties for all. And yet, they are a beloved liberal icon- the idea that their sort of behavior would be unacceptable to liberals and cause protests if they were appointed to a government position is a good belly laugh.
they’ve clammed up on the subject while trying to figure out if they’re going to repudiate their position right after winning at the Supreme court, specifically because liberals got so pissy, and they don’t know if they want another “Skokie moment”? You’re telling me you can’t see this going on right in front of your face?
I am telling you that I don’t pretend to be a mindreader to justify otherwise unjustifiable opinions.
I am also telling you that you’ve avoided like 5 times now defending your original position that defending white supremacists’ civil liberties wouldn’t sit well with liberals.
I can only conclude that you find the position indefensible but have trouble owning up, and therefore throw up an incomprehensible smokescreen of mindreading and accusations of dishonesty.
In any case, Im done debating whether everyone who has a different opinion on the second amendment than you do is a liar, since that’s possibly the least interesting spiral of BS currently available on the entire internet.
this seems a little bit of a sidestep that supports Brett’s position
Brett’s position isn’t that the ACLU sometimes does things that irritates some liberals, I think we all agree with that. It’s that the ACLU is frightened of taking positions that might alienate liberals- even the case being cited here, Citizens United, is an example of the ACLU doing the exact opposite, doing something they think is correct despite it being unpopular with liberals.
He’s also arguing that liberals would find it objectionable if someone who defended the civil liberties of unpopular groups was appointed to the DOJ. The ACLU was originally an example of how liberals mostly value that sort of behavior, and how the ACLU is recognized by many (most, I think) liberals as a fine institution even when they disagree with specific cases.
I mean, *I* don’t agree with their position on Citizens United. But I respect what they do, and (again, unlike Brett) think that it’s perfectly reasonable for people to differ on those sorts of points.
[…]
Perhaps the ACLU’s current drift away from defending civil liberties in favor of antidiscrimination and other concerns could be arrested if the ACLU adhered to a formal constitution-an immutable statement of civil libertarian principles to which the organization could refer any time its mandate became cloudy. Instead, the ACLU makes its policy democratically, by majority vote of the 83 members of the board of directors, which includes all chairs of state affiliates. Immediate political considerations inevitably weigh against timeless principles, and, as Dershowitz notes, political expediency wins out far too often.
Current ACLU president Nadine Strossen is by all accounts a strong, consistent civil libertarian-she even wrote a book defending the legality of pornography from its feminist critics. But Strossen cannot single-handedly reinvent the organization as one devoted solely to civil liberties, given the strong foothold other constituencies have achieved within the ACLU. Strossen concedes that when antidiscrimination laws and civil liberties conflict, the ACLU uses an ad hoc balancing test, choosing ”between them in the context of particular facts, weighing the potency and applicability in each instance of the general values of liberty and equality.” As the left has generally turned its back on civil liberties in favor of antidiscrimination concerns, the ACLU has become increasingly reluctant to defend civil liberties at the expense of antidiscrimination laws.
You Can’t Say That!
I can only conclude that you find the position indefensible but have trouble owning up, and therefore throw up an incomprehensible smokescreen of mindreading and accusations of dishonesty.
This is actually the definition in the OED under the entry “Brett Bellmore.” Next, he’ll get all butthurt about it, claim he has better things to do with his time and talk about playing with his kid.
Does anyone besides jrudkis have any opinions about “prosecutors and defenders, as seen on TeeVee”? Because *I* think that would be an interesting and useful topic of conversation, especially by comparison.
I’m surprised, jrudkis, that there aren’t any poor-struggling-defender shows. I grew up on “Perry Mason”; aren’t there shows like that any more? Why *aren’t* there shows where the prosecutor overcharges — I would have expected it to happen on “The Wire”, at least.
Despite the quick attempt to say these things aren’t the same, there are many people who do and will see them being very much like mafia attorneys
OK.
First, do *you* see them being very much like mafia attorneys? “Many people” believe all kinds of things. I’m not really interested in discussing what “many people” believe, it’s kind of a waste of time.
Or, maybe not a waste of time, but there just aren’t enough hours in the day. There are people who believe almost anything you can imagine.
If it’s something *you* believe, please just put it out there. If not, I’m not sure what the value is of discussing it.
Second, a historical anecdote:
Kenneth Claiborne Royall, US brigadier general, Secretary of War under Truman, then Secretary of the Army.
Royall was a Colonel in the Army when he was appointed to represent 8 of the 9 Nazi saboteurs who had entered the US secretly during WWII. “8 of the 9” is significant because the one guy he didn’t represent was the guy who surrendered. So, at least some of the 8 he did represent were guys who were here to do damage, and who were captured against their will.
Royall didn’t believe Roosevelt had the authority to try them in a military tribunal. He thought they should go to civilian court. Against the wishes of Roosevelt, he took the question to the Supreme Court.
Had he prevailed, they would likely have gotten fairly light sentences, because they hadn’t actually *done* anything. Instead, six of them hung.
Kenneth Royall — good guy? Attention-grabbing careerist? Crypto Nazi?
I’m curious to know your opinion.
I’m surprised, jrudkis, that there aren’t any poor-struggling-defender shows.
I had this idea for a poor-struggling-defender show involving an airliner splitting apart and landing on a strange island with mysterious and hostile inhabitants. There would be all this weird time-travel and supernatural stuff, dead people showing up to give advice to the living, lots of crazy coincidences and unanswered questions and what would seem to be an epic battle between good and evil. I think it would really take off and provide an excellent opportunity to portray poor, struggling defenders sympathetically and to give fans the chance to come up with all sorts of wild theories about what was really going on in the show. More Twilight Zone than Perry Mason, but still … there’d be a poor, struggling defender, maybe in, like, parallel universes or something.
As the left has generally turned its back on civil liberties in favor of antidiscrimination concerns, the ACLU has become increasingly reluctant to defend civil liberties at the expense of antidiscrimination laws.
This is a lie. Not a stretching or massaging or distortion of the truth, but a bald-faced lie. I invite you to go to the ACLU website and see what they’re focusing on. You’ll find stuff about torture, indefinite detention, police misconduct, and all those other civil liberties issues that “the left” no longer cares about.
Don’t spread lies, Charles. It’s not cool.
Uncle Kvetch, did you actually bother reading what Charles said? He didn’t say that the ACLU doesn’t defend civil liberties. He said that they are increasingly reluctant to defend civil liberties where defending them comes at the expense of anti discrimination laws.
Do any of those nice things you listed conflict with anti-discrimination laws? Maybe occasionally anti-discrimination laws will produce some strange definitions of police misconduct, (Failing to arrest the right racial distribution of criminals, instead of the distribution you’re actually confronted with, for instance.) but that’s about the only point of conflict.
The ACLU is an interesting case of an organization that seems sort of adrift about its mission. Some people on both sides seem to see it as a general liberal-of-all-trades organization which it clearly wasn’t. It definitely has had more of a libertarian bent than most formal liberal organizations since the 1950s or so.
Its focus on free speech has from time to time brought it into conflict with other liberal groups, but it has also abandoned it in instances which can only be explained as giving up on free speech in favor of other politics: see especially abortion protests (sit-ins being a classic example of things they think are fine for all other protests).
But if you look on its website, it professes to be interested in practically everything liberal (which I suspect is why it hedges on abortion speech in ways that it doesn’t on Nazis or Communists or Al Qaeda members.)
To me it illustrates a common failing of large organizations with a targeted mission. Eventually they become just another general interest group allied with one side or the other generally. The ACLU has done this less than other groups (say for example BAR associations which tend to just become one dimensional cheerleaders for one party or another depending on which state you’re in) but definitely shows the tendency.
The Citizens United case is an interesting example of the ACLU remaining true to the principles of free speech, while gaining much scorn from liberals in the process.
I don’t see how anyone can argue against the proposition that the ACLU has a very muddled position on affirmative action. But that isn’t surprising, as affirmative action in practice in the US is a very muddled thing so if you support it, you are going to get weird on it.
“The Citizens United case is an interesting example of the ACLU remaining true to the principles of free speech, while gaining much scorn from liberals in the process.”
For the moment, at any rate. They did hold that meeting to discuss reversing course, and have had practically nothing to say about the case since. It will be interesting to see if they stick with principle, at the cost of another “Skokie moment”, (It’s not my imagination that they lost a quarter of their membership by sticking by their principles that time.) or trim their sails in the face of liberal rage.
trim their sails in the face of liberal rage.
Liberals never disagree calmly, mind you, they are capable only of rage.
Perhaps a more appropriate nom de bloggue would be Brett BellAndHowell.
But that isn’t surprising, as affirmative action in practice in the US is a very muddled thing so if you support it, you are going to get weird on it.
As opposed to the principled meritocratic opposition of Liz Cheney, John Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, and George W Bush? (Not to mention Clarence “I got mine, Jack” Thomas).
Brett,
So, you’re going to keep commenting, but ignore that your original statement was demonstrably wrong.
And, apparently, Im going to keep pointing that out. Why bother contesting any of your later statements when apparently you’ll just run away when they become difficult to defend, go to another thread, and make more baseless assertions and bad arguments?
it has also abandoned it in instances which can only be explained as giving up on free speech in favor of other politics: see especially abortion protests (sit-ins being a classic example of things they think are fine for all other protests).
The ACLU recognizes that this is really a special case of protest insofar as it involves a group of people trying to exercise a different civil right who have been subject to numerous cases of harassment and violence from those protesters.
That is, they are balancing free speech against other civil rights (and they explicitly support the reproductive civil rights of women, so it’s not like this is a one-off), not against other “politics”.
Googling, I see that the ACLU has supported pro-life protesters as well in certain cases. They have a position on the correct balancing between the exercise of these rights, and clearly weigh on on either side depending on the specific case.
You may not agree with their balance point. But that does not mean that their position “can only be explained” via liberal politics rather than principles.
Slarti: Sounds good, but I lack an email for you. I just re-created mine at anarch + 98 + at sign + hotmail (I don’t know why I’m being so chary, I never use the damn thing) and we can move to “real” email accounts from there 🙂
It’s not my imagination that they lost a quarter of their membership by sticking by their principles that time.
Cite, please.
From the ACLU’s own web page,
1978 – Taking a Stand for Free Speech in Skokie
The ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie — where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case cost the ACLU dearly as members left in droves, but to many it was our finest hour and has come to represent our unwavering commitment to principle.
The 25% figure is from someplace else, but it’s not particularly controversial.
I recall that case well. It’s hard to picture that in only 30 years this country went from recognizing that even scum like that have rights to herding protesters into “free speech zones”, arresting people for wearing anti-war T-shirts, and creating a system of indefinite detention and torture. It gos to show what happens when we let liberals like Bush, Cheney and the Roberts court run the show.
[…]
In contrast, the ACLU Chicago office, which chose to provide legal counsel to neo-Nazis who have been planning to march in Skokie, has lost about 25% of its membership and nearly one-third of its budget, according to David Hamlin, ACLU executive director.
[…]
Membership woes hurt ACLU while others gain (.pdf)
[…]
Glasser attributed their decline from a peak of perhaps 230,00 in 1973 to a low of 170,000 by 1978, when the Skokie furor raged, to more than the ACLU’s defense of the right of the Nazis to march in suburban Chicago.
Membership had already started to lag, Glasser said, because a period of social activism was on the wane. Also, there was more competition for the same potential members from the rise in single-interest groups. And Finally, people found it harder in an inflationary period to join.
[…]
It even defended Nazis in the first year of its existence, but its defense of the Skokie group’s right of assembly and free speech cost the ACLU a large proportion of the 60,000[other sources attribute about 30,000, about 18% of 170,000] members lost, Glasser said.
[…]
ACLU membership has taken a plunge
Aryeh Neier was the ACLU’s executive director from 1970 to 1979. According to his web page on Wikipedia, “during his time as executive director, he helped grow the organization’s membership from 140,000 to 200,000.” The numerical figure given for the number of people who left the ACLU over the defense of the neoNazi’s right to march in Skokie is, fairly consistently, 30,000. Example.
I don’t know if that 200,000 figure excludes the 30,000 who left. I don’t even know for sure if 30,000 is the right number, but let that pass.
Even supposing that 200,000 includes 30,000 people who left, that would still be only a 15% membership loss. I think the “not particularly controversial” 25% figure is another of those “common knowledge” things, which Darrell Huff would probably explain as “you take the lower of two membership figures, assume this includes the 30,000 who left, work out a percentage on that basis, and then round up to the nearest round number… 25%!”
The ACLU’s membership is now, 30 years later, over half a million.
So, of course , the queestion is: In th overall discussion is it really pertinent whether the number is 15%, 20% or 25%. Liberals abandoned the ACLU in noticeable numbers after Skokie, feel free to now return to the point.
I like verifiable facts, Marty. It may seem a strange and possibly liberal characteristic to you, but, hey.
“I like verifiable facts, Marty. It may seem a strange and possibly liberal characteristic to you, but, hey. ”
No, you like to quibble over minutiae to obfuscate a good point by someone else.
It appears that 170,000 was the low point in membership after Skokie. So 30,000 of 200,000, 15% would be more accurate.
Liberals abandoned the ACLU in noticeable numbers after Skokie
I’m 100% with Marty: none of the conservative members would have had any objection to Nazis.
So, of course , the queestion is: In th overall discussion is it really pertinent whether the number is 15%, 20% or 25%.
Yes, there is certainly a significant difference between 15% and 25%. And the fact that Brett tried to pass off stats for the Chicago branch as those for the ACLU as a whole, and when called it couldn’t come up with a cite (unless you count “someplace else” and “not particularly controversial”) indicates he’s not exactly arguing in good faith.
But this from the article he did link tends to undercut the whole “terrified of another Skokie moment” argument:
The notoriety of the case cost the ACLU dearly as members left in droves, but to many it was our finest hour and has come to represent our unwavering commitment to principle.
Im not even sure what’s being disputed at this point, the entirely of the conversation appears to be Brett salivating at the prospect of the ACLU folding. Because he’s such a big supporter of civil rights donchanow.
One last try Brett: Do you want to defend or repudiate your position that liberals would find someone objectionable if they defended the rights of white supremacists?
Only if the white supremacists are rich and head up large corporations that don’t pay taxes. 🙂
“One last try Brett: Do you want to defend or repudiate your position that liberals would find someone objectionable if they defended the rights of white supremacists?”
I definitely want to defend my position that liberals would, regardless of their private opinions, raise a political stink over a Republican President hiring lawyers who’d done pro bono work for white supremacists.
And you simply can’t erase the fact that the ACLU board actually did, in light of the liberal outrage over the Citizens United ruling, convene a meeting to discuss reversing their position on the 1st amendment and campaign finance. The legal and philosophical issues certainly didn’t change with that victory, only the political fallout.
I definitely want to defend my position that liberals would, regardless of their private opinions, raise a political stink over a Republican President hiring lawyers who’d done pro bono work for white supremacists.
That is, despite the evidence that they support this position in general, they would. For political points. And not caring that this would make them look like hypocrites, since they’ve supported the same when done by liberal lawyers.
But I suppose since it’s a hypothetical, everyone’s permitted their opinion. No matter how ill-informed and bile-laden. And at least you’ve owned up to it as such, although it only took about half-a-dozen tries before you managed to do it.
And I think Ive already covered the second part of your response, from earlier:
Im not even sure what’s being disputed at this point, the entirety of the conversation appears to be Brett salivating at the prospect of the ACLU folding. Because he’s such a big supporter of civil rights donchanow.
The legal and philosophical issues certainly didn’t change with that victory
Sure they did. Instead of the minimalist ruling that was largely expected, the Roberts gang extended corporations full First Amendment rights, the sort that money greatly magnifies the power of. Given the state of corporate governance (i.e. to a first approximation there isn’t any), this effectively gives corporate managers a slush fund for influencing elections to their own benefit. Gosh, and just when Republicans were at an unusual disadvantage in fund-raising. What’s the odds?
But it’s not quite as blatant as handing a Republican the presidency in complete violation of Article II Section I, so we can pretend it wasn’t a political decision.
“No, you like to quibble over minutiae to obfuscate a good point by someone else.”
This.
So much.
So often.
This.
“Im not even sure what’s being disputed at this point, the entirety of the conversation appears to be Brett salivating at the prospect of the ACLU folding. Because he’s such a big supporter of civil rights donchanow.”
And you’re complaining that my opinions are ill informed and bile laden? I don’t want the ACLU to fold, they do good, needed work. I want them to be more principled.
They’ve crippled themselves by taking the wrong side on the biggest civil rights fight of the last few decades. (No, they’re not neutrals, they say the other side is RIGHT.) You think the NRA would be ANYTHING like it’s current size and power, if way back when the ACLU had told it’s donors, “Screw you, we’re not going to make an exception for THIS part of the Bill of Rights, just because you don’t like it!”? The NRA was just a shooting club back then, it became this huge political force because it had to, not because it wanted to.
The ACLU could have been, should have become, that huge force. And what a different country this would be…
They’ve crippled themselves by deciding that they’d rather be comfortable as a small organization on the left, than a larger organization that included people on the right, too. So you get this “No threat to the left” recruiting literature that drives away anybody they wouldn’t feel comfortable being around. And they downplay their victories, like CU, that the left doesn’t like, but the right does.
I look at the ACLU, and I see what could have been a principled civil liberties organization, and still could be. But apparently doesn’t want to be.
As for Citizens United, any chance of a limited decision went out the window, when the SG argued before the Court that he could, under McCain/Feingold, ban books, so long as they even tangentially mentioned a candidate for public office, and were being published by a corporation. (As all but a vanishingly small fraction of books are.) At that point, it was time for anybody who cared about freedom of speech, and of the press, to toss moderation aside, don the hob nailed boots, and stomp the government’s position into the ground.
Opponents of the CU decision just don’t take seriously the implications of the government’s position. It had every newspaper in the country operating at the government’s sufferance.
“this effectively gives corporate managers a slush fund for influencing elections to their own benefit.”
You mean, corporations like the NYT? That openly spend a fortune in in kind contributions every election cycle, not even pretending they’re not trying to influence elections?
I definitely want to defend my position that liberals would, regardless of their private opinions, raise a political stink over a Republican President hiring lawyers who’d done pro bono work for white supremacists.
Yes, they would. I almost certainly would. Whether that was a hypocritical position or not would depend on the *basis of the defense*.
If the US government was grabbing white supremacists off the street based on hearsay, holding them in offshore or secret prisons without resort to the judicial system, beating the crap out them, and resisting any attempt to hold them (the government) accountable for what they were doing, then we would have a reasonably analogous situation.
If attorneys challenged the government’s authority to do those things, regardless of their personal positions on white supremacy and/or the inherent goodness of the white supremacist position, were later hired by a Republican president, and liberals objected, they would in fact be hypocrites.
As the situation stands now, I don’t think the two things are really comparable.
They’ve crippled themselves by taking the wrong side on the biggest civil rights fight of the last few decades.
The ACLU took the “con” side on gay marriage? Or were you talking about warrantless detention? Or the PATRIOT Act?
As for Citizens United, any chance of a limited decision went out the window, when the SG argued before the Court that he could, under McCain/Feingold, ban books, so long as they even tangentially mentioned a candidate for public office, and were being published by a corporation.
And you certainly can’t be opposed to book bans while simultaneously opposing unlimited corporate spending on broadcast-TV commercials. If I recall, most of the commenters here who were upset by the CU ruling weren’t even particularly bothered, at least legally, by CU’s PPV infomercial. I know with certainty that I wasn’t. You have to seek out books and PPV offerings. They don’t just show up in your house while you’re watching a basketball game. The SCOTUS could have ruled that those things were fair game without the broader ruling on plain,old TV commercials.
It’s like I don’t want to buy a house because it has a crappy kitchen, and you keep telling me I shouldn’t hate the really awesome basement, which I’ve never complained about, Brett. Over and over and over again.
They’ve crippled themselves by taking the wrong side on the biggest civil rights fight of the last few decades.
Biggest civil rights fights in the US over the past forty years:
The right to decide whether or not to have an abortion; an end to the ban on same-sex marriage (and to the unConstitutional claim that states don’t have to recognise marriages legal in the state where they were made); the right to demonstrate peaceably in the presence of the President or of the Republican National Convention; the right to habeas corpus; the right not to be tortured; the right not to have the government tap your phonecalls or read your mail without getting a warrant; the right to have your vote counted…
It’s interesting in a weird sort of way to know that some people have such a singleminded and exclusive focus on civil rights that they dismiss everything except the Second Amendment from their consideration, and claim that as the “biggest”. Because, in their minds, all that matters is the right to own a gun.
Of course, I don’t think it’s coincidental that the kind of people who think like that have never had their civil rights in any other area denied them – they don’t care about the legal ban on same-sex marriage because it doesn’t affect them and they don’t give a damn about anyone it does affect; likewise the right to vote, habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, torture, demonstrating against a Republican President or the Republican Party… why should Brett and straight white men like him care that queers, women, and Muslims have had major civil rights fights over the past few decades?
Brett? Why should you care that people who aren’t white like you or straight like you have had far bigger civil rights battles to fight? Do you have any belief in civil rights for all? Is this ignorance or active ill-will speaking?
the biggest civil rights fight of the last few decades
My gob is officially smacked. It shouldn’t be at this point, but it is.
The ACLU could never be sufficiently servile to the gun industry to displace the NRA.
The ACLU took the “con” side on gay marriage? Or were you talking about warrantless detention? Or the PATRIOT Act?
Don’t be silly: none of those affect straight white Republican men.
Because, in their minds, all that matters is the right to own a gun.
It makes perfect sense. If anyone tries to make you do something you don’t want to do (pay taxes, maybe) or prevents you from doing something you do want to do (bribe a politician, perhaps), you can just shoot that person, thus preserving your rights as you see fit. All other rights flow from the ability to shoot people, thus the right to own a gun is logically the most important. See?
I definitely want to defend my position that liberals would, regardless of their private opinions, raise a political stink over a Republican President hiring lawyers who’d done pro bono work for white supremacists.
I think, much as Russell say, that it would depend on the nature of the pro bono work. If the lawyers were defending the supremacists’ various constitutional rights, whether in the area of free expression or detention, then I don’t think there would be a problem. Certainly I wouldn’t have one.
OTOH, it’s fair to say that if the lawyers had advanced the KKK’s political objectives by, say, helping to file a lawsuit claiming civil rights legislation was unconstitutional, then I and, I think, many other liberals would object.
IOW, I see a vast difference between defending someone’s rights and advancing their views.
Unk, your gob is only officially smacked because liberals reason thus:
1. I am always in favor of civil liberties.
2. I am not in favor of a right to own guns.
Therefore, not withstanding anything the Constitution might say, there is no civil liberty to own a gun.
Therefore, no matter how big a fight we might have seen concerning this right over the last few decades, it can’t have been a fight over civil liberties.
Brett, in actual fact, you have no idea what my opinion is on the subject, because I haven’t expressed any. You just extrapolate from what you imagine to be liberal groupthink and proclaim yourself a mind-reader. It’s fundamentally dishonest but hardly surprising.
It is, in fact, perfectly possible to believe simultaneously (1) that there is, in fact, an individual right to own guns and (2) that calling the debate over gun ownership “the biggest civil rights fight of the last few decades” is profoundly silly.
And to think that you accuse other people of being blinkered by their beliefs.
“It is, in fact, perfectly possible to believe simultaneously (1) that there is, in fact, an individual right to own guns and (2) that calling the debate over gun ownership “the biggest civil rights fight of the last few decades” is profoundly silly.”
Indeed, you can believe that, but it does raise the question of how the NRA wound up with ten times the membership of the ACLU. Of why the Democratic party went from championing gun control, to hiding it’s interests in that cause. Of how we fought our way back from essentially every circuit agreeing that there wasn’t any individual right under the 2nd amendment, to Heller, and soon McDonald.
The conviction that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” isn’t really a civil liberty, or if it is, it’s some kind of second or third class civil liberty of no particular importance, is central to the belief that the fight over gun control wasn’t a huge civil rights battle. Because it sure as hell was a huge SOMETHING. And that something could only not have been a civil rights battle, if it wasn’t really a civil right.
Unk, your gob is only officially smacked because liberals reason thus:
1. I am always in favor of civil liberties.
2. I am not in favor of a right to own guns.
Really? They do? Cite, please. Because, in my case, you’re completely wrong. So you’re gonna need to do better.
ndeed, you can believe that, but it does raise the question of how the NRA wound up with ten times the membership of the ACLU.
Easy: Because they cater to the paranoia of idiots. (QED.)
But, seriously, is this how we determine what “the biggest civil rights fight” has been? By the size of an advocacy organization? REALLY? Is this how grownups do things?
But honestly, where were all you big bad defenders of Personal Liberty during the Bush years, when the government came as close as it’s ever been to the nightmare visions of jackbooted thugs spiriting people away in the night that Wayne Lapierre has been touting for the last two decades? If people treat gun ownership as a lower-tier civil right, YOU HAVE NOBODY TO BLAME BUT YOURSELVES. Because when the rubber hit the road, you all disappeared like the cowards you are.
Brett, you oscillate between claiming that folks are lying and then saying ‘well, if you believe that, you are delusional’. Neither approach is really helpful. Regardless of how convinced you are that your view is the correct one.
Brett: but it does raise the question of how the NRA wound up with ten times the membership of the ACLU.
Because the NRA offers fun prizes, gun rallies, and other goodies to its membership.
The ACLU offers nothing but the worthy satisfaction of supporting civil rights for all.
Er, I think it also sells t-shirts calculated to annoy conservatives.
Fun is always more popular than worthiness.
Because it sure as hell was a huge SOMETHING.
There there Brett. Size doesn’t matter.
If you think it was HUGE, I’m sure it was… somewhat.
Since I have the hall monitor outfit on, I’ll note that if I’m posting two or more comments consecutively to address one person, it probably means that I’m getting too involved in the atmospherics of the conversation. YMMV