http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us...-touch-it.html
Pretty disturbing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us...-touch-it.html
Pretty disturbing.
Hope is the denial of reality
And it is disturbing why?Originally Posted by Loki
I would agree with you if you'd mean it's disturbing that an opinion piece on legal representation makes a mess of differentiating between pubic, civil and criminal law I could agree with you. If the anti-gay side in the cases looses, nobody gets a lethal injection, nobody goes to prison and nobody has to pay even a fine. After a ruling has come down, everybody goes home, sleeps in his or her own bed and goes on with life the next morning.
Congratulations America
We need Nelson & Murdock on the case *ships*
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think he means that its disturbing because the adversarial nature of our legal system means that both sides are always supposed to have good representation. To ever have a situation where one side doesn't isn't good.
Though I find it quite derogatory to the opposing counsel to insinuate that they aren't good lawyers. I'm sure they'll be qualified professionals.
Why have a legal system if certain kinds of opinions can't get proper legal representation? Would you be ok with murderers or terrorists not being able to find good attorneys? Or with attorneys for murders being forced out of their law firms?
Hope is the denial of reality
If it's true it is disturbing, however I doubt the premise is true.
The article mentions several lawyers who were forced to leave their major law firm after taking on an anti-gay marriage case.
Hope is the denial of reality
I find it only disturbing in relation to what lawyers will actually take. There are plenty of law firms who have no problem fighting for the child molesters, rapists and murderers. If most lawyers don't want to defend a certain stance on gay marriage more power to them - that's their right. However they have no moral ground to stand on if they turn around and think its OK to defend child molesters. (And yes I'm aware many of these firms are in a different legal line of work than criminal cases - I'm just saying in general.)
Take anything an Op Ed claims with a pinch of salt. Turnover rates in firms isn't 0% is it.
It's not an op-ed.
Hope is the denial of reality
Haha, you even read what you quote?
As for bad ideas not being defended; that comes with the territory, the indefensible can't be defended good or bad.
Congratulations America
I have to say, if it was just individual lawyers refusing to defend something like this, it'd be one thing. But if the article is right about lawyers being forced to leave (though I'd like to see proof rather than anecdotes, especially if those are based on what fired people claim was the reason for their firing), that is troubling.
Considering the beef is that they can't get top lawyers to represent them, not that they can't get any representation, and it's not exactly unheard of that poor defendants get a court appointed lawyer (of varying skill) instead of a top lawyer, I'd say that yes, people are perfectly okay with suspected murderers or terrorists not being able to find good attorneys. And it's not like nobody has ever been convicted due to shitty legal representation, because they couldn't get a better lawyer.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It sure reads like one.
The 'disturbing' part of that NYT article was "The current climate, Professor McConnell of Stanford said, means that important distinctions are being lost. One is that it is possible to favor same-sex marriage as a policy matter without believing that the Constitution requires it."
Our legal system is designed to be adversarial, with opposing lawyers using courts and judges, right? But if process & procedure can be shunted away from courtrooms because the issues are too politically volatile, is it any wonder we have disjointed and possibly unconstitutional "policies"? Gitmo comes to mind....
My earlier comment about constitutional amendments was worded poorly -- I just wanted Lewk to explain how he thinks the 1st Amendment can protect religious freedoms, if it doesn't also protect other individual freedoms?
Very poorly worded then. The First Amendment is quite specific, it protects freedom of religion, speech, assembly and to petition the government.
It is not a coverall to protect every freedom you can imagine.
And not even those freedoms are absolute.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Liberals have long campaigned against the freedom of political speech in this country - of all the types of speech that exist that is clearly one of the ones we really need to take down a notch!
Sure, only liberals - we all know it was also liberals who actively persecuted people for even suspected communist sympathies (which is definitely political)? And that damn liberal bastion the FBI, and those lefties at the CIA, not only investigating but infiltrating and subverting any group critical of the government, even journalists and senators. Yes, you are right, it's all the liberals' fault, with their solo assault on freedom of (political) speech.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Y'mean like flag-burning?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No and I'll admit that flag burning laws are just as stupid. That being said one is something that impacts millions and millions of people and the other is something that might impact a few thousand? I agree that in in principal both are bad. However in practicality a law that discriminates against people from Tuvalu isn't nearly as big of a deal as a law that discriminates against blacks.
You act like there weren't Soviet spies operating in America... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
Were we overzealous? Absolutely not going to defend it but when a group of people sympathize with the enemy surely you would agree they are more likely to assist those same people at a greater rate than the general population.
Lewk, you said marriage should be a contractual, secular, civil law agreement, right? Since Equality is an important national value....how can religious groups claim a higher moral ground by making certain people second class citizens?
How are they doing that?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Actually since I'm not a communist I don't believe in equality of outcomes. Oh was that kind of random and not germane to the subject? Sorry for taking your shtick.
Well, SCOTUS heard oral arguments today. It's always hard to predict how the swing votes will go based on those (and the others you know ahead of time in cases like this, which come before the Court multiple times in different variations) but it looks like Kennedy might have reached his limit and wants to leave the rest of the movement in the hands of the legislatures. At this point I'd predict they're going to go ahead and say equal protection does not require allowing gay marriage. I've still got no clue on how they might rule for the second question of recognizing marriages performed in other states but the questioning on that seems rather less sharp, so it may be they've already made their minds up there for requiring recognition
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If SCOTUS say that equal protection does not require allowing gay marriage then doesn't that overturn (or permit the overturning) the rulings of all the Circuit (?) courts that have said that it does require it? Plus any State courts that have made the decision based on the Federal Constitution as opposed to a State constitution? Almost all court-decided legalisations could be overturned I'd have thought, if the Supreme Court rules that they were made in error.
I imagine some of the states would keep allowing them one way or another since the public mood seems to have changed, but I'd imagine many would want to reverse court decisions if SCOTUS says they can.
If that those happen, does that change anything for couples who got married in the meantime?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
In such an outcome it would overturn the rulings in the cases before the Court. Earlier addressed rulings like the District Court one prompting this thread several years ago would not be directly overturned and legislation would have to be redone in those situations. So state courts who made rulings based on no-longer-current jurisprudence would likewise still be in effect though again only until new legislation could be passed. And then there are some state courts which overturned bans on the basis of state constitutions and those rulings would be completely unaffected.
People who have been legally married in the interim would remain legally married for that period, as per the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws and policies. It's not clear whether the marriages would have to continue to be recognized in the future. If SCOTUS rules affirmatively on states having to recognize same-sex marriages even if they're not legally performable within the state itself, then I'd give odds that marriages in the interim would remain in effect.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
While prior decisions (of which there have been a number) won't automatically be overturned, a SCOTUS ruling that they were made in error would open the door to them being overturned wouldn't it?
Which in turn would create a messy quagmire it would seem to me. To overturn the equalisation of the laws and open the door to potentially dozens of states closing the door on marriages that have already taken effect. Then creating the mess as to what happens federally, in those states and across state lines for people who got married when it's no longer permitted.
Seems incredibly messy to me. For pragmatic reasons as much as legal reasons I'd have thought the cleanest solution by far is not to reverse this jurisprudence.
While prior decisions (of which there have been a number) won't automatically be overturned, a SCOTUS ruling that they were made in error would open the door to them being overturned wouldn't it?
Which in turn would create a messy quagmire it would seem to me. To overturn the equalisation of the laws and open the door to potentially dozens of states closing the door on marriages that have already taken effect. Then creating the mess as to what happens federally, in those states and across state lines for people who got married when it's no longer permitted.
Seems incredibly messy to me. For pragmatic reasons as much as legal reasons I'd have thought the cleanest solution by far is not to reverse this jurisprudence.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote