Volume I
Item
Proving with absolute certainty that the medical condition known as asshat-itis is hereditary, Liz Cheney has embarked on a crusade worthy of her sneering, skulking old man. Liz sits on the Board of Directors of a vanity organization called Keep America Safe. She shares this dubious distinction with Debra Burlingame, noisiest of the 9-11 survivors (Ask yourself if the government ever asked the families of Pearl Harbor victims to participate in plans for post war Asia.) and William Kristol, spoilsport editor of The Weekly Standard and the only quasi-serious journalist-supporter of Sarah Palin's Presidential aspirations.
Apparently the goal of KAS is to rid the country of all those pesky Constitutional nuances that get in the way of American exceptionalism like: prohibition against torture, the rule of law and, most recently, the right to an attorney. Liz & Co. are in a snit over the U.S. Justice Dept. hiring lawyers who had, at one time, been advocates for Guantanamo inmates or other terror suspects. According to Ms. Cheney, if you defend a person accused of terrorism, you're a terrorist or at least a suspicious character. This novel theory came as troubling news to attorneys who were called upon to advocate for a pedophile or a serial killer.
It's possible that Lizzie was out sick the day they taught "Law" at the University of Chicago Law School. She also no doubt missed the miniseries about John Adams and his defense of the British soldiers accused of murder after the Boston Massacre. Not content to merely throw dirt on the reputations of attorneys doing their jobs, the Keep America Safe crowd has coined the name "Al qaeda Seven" to ensure that every lawyer attached to any terrorist trial will be tarred with the traitor's brush.
Andrew McCarthy in today's Wall Street Journal makes the case that the sort of client a lawyer choses speaks to his opinions and political leaning. This information must be made public if an attorney is to be involved in public policy. William Kunstler, defender of the Chicago Seven, was a longtime advocate for liberal causes. Nevertheless, if we assume that attorneys, journalists or judges cannot separate their professional obligations from their personal opinions or their prejudices, we are left in Limbaughland where any notion of impartiality is demeaned and ridiculed. It would be impossible for an educated person, having been exposed to a lifetime of media, not to have formed opinions on the issues of the day. (This hypothesis speaks to Sarah Palin as a possible choice for either Chief Justice or managing editor of the New York Times.)
No one reading this column needs a lesson from me on Constitutional law or the need for zealous representation of defendants. You may however, reflect upon what you thought of the Duke lacrosse team in 2006 when the scandal broke and, what you thought after the team's lawyers sorted through the facts. Presumably Liz Cheney also missed the class on "innocent until proven guilty" and how that applies to lawyers as well as defendants.
____________________________________________________________________
Item
Our Band of Brothers on the Supreme Court has been busy these last few years ensuring that any wingnut who can afford the cost, be allowed to own and carry a firearm. Their decision in Heller vs District of Columbia affirmed the right of every citizen to arm himself to the teeth on federal land including high-crime DC. Now they appear ready to extend that right to the population at large. In McDonald vs The City of Chicago the Supremes will affirm that no gun restriction is lawful and the Founding Fathers apparently would have endorsed the 30,000 or so gun deaths that occur in America each year. They certainly provided no redress short of a Constitutional Amendment. (Fat chance.)
The Scalia Court (if you think Justice Roberts is in charge you don't read much) believes that 283 million guns in private hands in America is just fine with them. So, how about we all pack up our Berettas and our Glocks; our Sigs and our S&Ws and parade them over to the Supreme Court building? Last time I looked, the Court was on federal property. If the boys in black are so fond of gun-toting Americans, let's show them a few. Guns are not permitted in the Court building (I can't imagine why) but we should be able to walk around outside.
You are not safe from gun owners in a bar, a church or a national park. Why should the people who decide these insane "rights" be excluded from sharing in the joy of armed neighbors? Why wouldn't the Supremes feel any less safe knowing that the lawyers, clerks and spectators in the High Court are all packing? How are you liking that Second Amendment now, Antonin?
____________________________________________________________________
Item
What are we to do with Dennis Kucinich? There was a time (mostly in romance novels of the nineteenth century) when families were permitted, nay encouraged, to lock such embarrassing relatives in the attic. They would be fed and cared for but never allowed out when guests were entertained because of their strange behavior. Alas, Dennis is everyone's Crazy Uncle Festus.
Congressman Kucinich is prepared to sink the healthcare bill because he feels it is insufficient. This a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Although I cannot speak for the good people of Ohio's tenth Congressional district, I suspect they did not send Dennis to Washington to play the obstructionist...Michigan's first district sent Bart Stupak to do that.
Mr. Kucinich should command the floor of the House as often as possible and rail at the weak, insufficient, watered-down legislation being presented to the American people as healthcare reform. He should then sit down and vote yay.
No comments:
Post a Comment