For those who understand what terribly went wrong with Gonzalez,

[The Backlash Cometh]

what do we do to stop another partisan lawyer from interpreting law in the same manner? What were the warnings? What are the safeguards?

And be careful how you answer, because it's happening all over this nation where lawyers interpret laws in a way that don't make sense, but they know they can get away with it because the people they victimized are powerless to stop them.

[burythehatchet]

1. Here's one: Don't let criminals steal elections. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Well, funny you should say that since...

George Bush has lots of lawyers help him get elected. Think about the Supreme Court decision, and think about what happened in Seminole County in Florida over those Republican ballots which were allowed to be changed in the Election office.

I don't know why anybody hasn't figured out that those Seminole lawyers, through their law practice or through their relatives, were heavily connected to the GOP. So you can just imagine how topsy-turvy the whole county is from their constant "interpretations" of the law.

[burythehatchet]

7. The most painful revelation for me is that none of what's happened

since 1999 was an accident. They have known all along what the plan was, and for that you needs plenty of Pat Robertson lawyers.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. And it wasn't difficult for them to move their army.

They've been controlling local areas for decades in this heavy-handed way. Nobody stopped them. And then they just naturally took it one level up.

[burythehatchet]

15. was that not the influence of the religious right or the past 3

decades?

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. Religious right and local business organizations that were very good

at getting their way by going around the government process.

Hey, they cut corners even when they constructed church buildings. No one was immune to the seductive manner that good ole boys have to get around the process.

[AndyA]

2. It's not just the lawyers, it's the judges as well.

I lost a case a few years back where a judge relied on hearsay evidence that was FOUR levels deep! (Someone told me that someone told them that someone else told so and so...) This hearsay was interpreted as undisputed evidence by the judge.

Furthermore, the persons in this chain did not testify, nor were they deposed.

That shows how screwed up our legal system is in this country.

I think the law profession and bar associations should get rid of lawyers who operate unethically, and there should be some sort of oversight on decisions judges make to ensure they uphold the law. Filing appeals is expensive, and I think all decisions should be checked by a legal body that has the authority to go back to a judge and say, "This is wrong. You depended on hearsay evidence several layers deep that was not verified by testimony or documented in any way. In America, hearsay is not acceptable. The person(s) attributed to this need to appear before court and verify this."

Until that happens, we will be stuck with poor/bad decisions from judges who allow their law clerks to interpret the law for them, and then the judges just sign their name.

We had a judge in Oklahoma who was using a penis pump while court was in session. Do we really believe under those circumstances that the decisions made by that judge were good ones?

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. I've given up on the bar associations.

[phaseolus]

3. get the word out on the Federalist Society

People don't like Bush-style Republicans any more, and if we get the word out that the Fed Soc is a good ol' boys-and-girls club for packing the courts with ideologues, membership would be seen as a black mark among more and more people. There won't be as much political support, and more political opposition, for bad nominees...

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Maybe it's time to start an organization that can counter the Federalist

Society? One that's composed of retired activists with legal backgrounds, and one that can answer the pleas from ordinary citizens who have been wronged.

If a partisan group takes too much power in one area, they'll start by abusing their power at a local level. So it's the ordinary citizen who will be the canary.

[KittyWampus]

16. Backlas, I think this idea is the best way to counter an organized movement.

There has to be another organized movement.

And I thank Howard Dean for starting the Left in the right direction.

[On the Road]

17. Seems Like the ACLU Might Qualify

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. I've said it before, but I think they'll hamstring themselves.

They seems to specialize on a few constitutional rights. However, property rights laws which, pretty much claim that might makes right, would prove too complex an issue for them to take sides. However, it's in the property rights laws where we find the origins of our mean-spirited society.

[TahitiNut]

20. "Property rights" vs. "human rights" ... I'll accept the latter.

When certain folks cite "property rights" they seem to mean the "rights OF property" (e.g. corporations) instead of the rights of human beings to enjoy the use of their possessions. All too often the focus is upon DEPRIVING people of access to the abundance of this world instead of equitable sharing in that abundance for the benefit of all. What possible sense does it make to elevate the EXCLUSIONARY 'rights' of one person to the point that 'owned' food will rot while human beings starve? When such artifices of 'ownership' far beyond mere personal possession and use are effected merely to enforce deprivation, we've gone far beyond equity and justice and created a malignancy. We saw a hint of this in the aftermath of Katrina - effectively condemning those who 'stole' bread, bread that would rot otherwise.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. This is indeed the source of great cognitive dissonance.

Property rights is an individual right, yet the public doesn't seem to appreciate that point, as well as other fine points. Such as the fact that our courts have defined corporations as "individuals." They also don't understand that they're supporting an individual right versus the public interest when they support property rights. So, what is a city government to do when the public converges on them for infringing on their property rights? What choice does it really have when the confused masses are basically strangling themselves, without even understanding that they're opening up Pandora's Box?

[MADem]

8. Well, they make lawyers pass an ethics exam before they can take the bar

Dunno if that was the case when Gonzo passed his.

I don't know if I really do know what went wrong with Gonzo. I do see a fellow who to me, does not seem like the brightest bulb on the tree, with his wagon hitched to a malleable Texas Cowboy who is a tool of corporate interests. I see...mediocrity. At best.

A couple of things about Gonzo amaze me:

First, that he went to Harvard Law.

Second, that he went to Harvard Law and he is STUPID. It's obvious that he's stupid. Only a stupid person would flout the law like he does, and rely completely on political connections to save his sorry ass.

That makes me wonder about one's Education Dollars At Work. Parents work, save, slave, to send their kid to the "Best Possible School." But way too many of these graduates of these "Best Possible Schools" are, in the South Boston vernacular, "A buncha fuckin' reee-taaahds." (No offense intended to people who are mentally retarded, mind you--most of whom demonstrate better ethics than Gonzo, in my experience).

It's certainly not the school, then. Hell, if you can graduate from Harvard Law and be a moron, it isn't the school. If you can graduate from Faith Based Law School and become the number 3 lawyer in the country, it certainly isn't the school.

Maybe we need an ethics exam not just for lawyers, but for JUDGES, too...one they have to take every few years, with new questions, new choices.

It's sad that judges are as lousy as lawyers. But hell--look at the Supremes--they're like the fucking Guardian Council of America...all they need are black turbans! Now there's some 'faith-based' judiciary for ya....

I don't know how, or if, it can be fixed. People don't give a shit about integrity anymore, it seems.

I gotta say, my opinion of John Ashcroft has soared (like the eagle, actually) with all this stuff coming out. He's the guy who didn't contest losing a senate race to a dead man (and had he done so, BushCo likely would have found a way to hand it to him), and he's the guy who refused to be bullied by Gonzo and Card. I don't agree with him politically, but I like his sense of ethics. Maybe he and Jimmy Carter oughta get together and come up with a curriculum....

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. I don't think he's dumb.

I think that we live in a schizophrenic society. One where we have to be different people and play different roles depending on our choice of occupation. That's why you have people taking their kids to church every Sunday and terrorizing them into following rules, that everyone learns to ignore once they take their first job, or soon after they pledge their first fraternity.

The worker bees are the ones that try to hold onto those ethics. The good guys, the boy scouts, and too often they get derailed in the process. Suddenly, one day after a career of huge successes, they find themselves on someone's political hit list.

We're living in a schizophrenic society. You have to play two different roles, and sometimes three. In that regard, I've never learned to multi-task.

[Atman]

11. I don't really agree...but I don't know what it is he is.

He can't really have been "dumb" to have made it through Harvard Law School. Maybe he's socially "dumb" and star-struck by power, to the point where he turns into a fawning schoolgirl just being around people like Bush. I, too, don't think he's too bright, though. He has completely sold himself out -- forever -- with his totally transparent protection of George Bush. Bush has paid him a shitload, obviously, both in cash and in promises of "protection," but at what cost to Gonzo? He's sold his so-called soul to the devil, and the short-term benefit will never balance out what he's done to his country and his own reputation. His place in history will forever be cemented as nothing but a goon for a criminal family.

To me, that's pretty dumb.

.

[MADem]

13. Well, maybe that's it. I just think for someone to go into a job that requires

such a close association with one's own ethical sense in the course of their daily business, and to just toss that away, is pretty fucking hideous--and, well, dumb. Especially with that so-called "good" education.

Sure, I know the sleazy TV-ad lawyers do it all the time, but there's a difference, we like to think, between private lawyers and "public service" lawyers...Watergate notwithstanding.

He's lacking the integrity gene.

Maybe that's it--force applicants to take a DNA test, and if the "integrity gene" is missing, they can't go to law school! Now all we have to do is develop that test!

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Did the Congress have to approve of his selection? n/t

.

[MADem]

14. Yep, advise and consent, with all the cabinet... nt