"Nevertheless, lawsuits are an extremely inefficient backstop against abuse, whether in medicine or any other area of our national life. Which brings us to the political context of this debate. For years, the GOP strategy has been to get people coming and going -- on the one hand, Republicans fight against the regulations that can prevent abuses from happening; on the other hand, they work to strip courts of their ability to punish those abuses when they occur."
And shame on the Republican Neo-cons who are trying to play Red Scare v. 2.0 with lawyers who represented Gitmo detainees. Great quote from someone who prosecuted under Cheney:
“It is absolutely outrageous for the Cheney-Grassley crowd to try to tar and feather Neal and Jennifer and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters. You don’t hear anyone refer to John Adams as a turncoat for representing the Brits in the Boston Massacre trial.”
6 comments:
Great post. I was going to put something up on the Obama justice appointees and you beat me to it. Without any specific information, it is unfair to accuse those lawyers of having terrorist sympathy just for representing terrorists. Even in my relatively short career, I have had clients that were not all that decent.
I can honestly say I wouldn't have a problem representing one of the Gitmo detainees. I certainly don't support al-Qaeda, but I think our justice system depends on having both a vigorous prosecution and a vigorous defense.
My problem with tort reform is that it is smoke and mirrors. The biggest beneficiaries of damage caps and other limits are the insurance companies. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with this, but the public is told that tort reform benefits the doctors and their patients and this is just not true.
I honestly think that Liz Cheney is the most intellectually dishonest person in the public discourse today. And that is saying something with the Jim Bunnings and Karl Roves. By her logic, any lawyer who represents an actual criminal is "pro-criminal" and evidently no one who is accused of a crime (unless it is for outing Valerie Plame) deserves representation. I guess in Liz Cheney's world, lawyers are only for innocent people and rich Republicans.
As this quote from the story put it, my big problem with tort reform is that I have no good faith sense that the Republicans pushing this have any concern for the patients or consumers. You can't deregulate AND then make lawsuits go away--unless your only goal is corporate profits.
It infuriated me that Liz Cheney, among others, are trying to vilify the Gitmo detainee lawyers, calling for investigations about their somehow being in collusion with terrorists.
Problem is, many of the people they represent weren't even taken to Gitmo specifically for being Al Qaida. And these lawyers were asked to represent these folks. That some of them got released means the government didn't have the evidence to keep them! The justice system worked the way it is supposed to!
Without any specific information, it is unfair to accuse those lawyers of having terrorist sympathy just for representing terrorists
Without any specific evidence? Dude...it's simply not fair at all to accuse them of that. It's not about Cheney saying something half-cocked. It's that Cheney is LYING. MAKING SHIT UP. Your statement suggests that maybe, via investigation, it could be found these lawyers were sympathizers. No such investigation will ever happen, because it's bullshit. Pure unadulterated bullshit.
What makes Cheney's assertion even worse is that it assumes our justice system is flawed because we "let these guys go" or that we coddled them, as your 2nd statement says "vigorous prosecution AND defense).
More rants on tort reform later...
Your statement suggests that maybe, via investigation, it could be found these lawyers were sympathizers.
No, it doesn't, or at least that wasn't my intent at all. What I was saying was that unless there is some actual evidence of terrorist ties or sympathy, it is unfair to accuse them. I don't know anything about them. Therefore, if anyone has anything on them, make a case...or shut up.
By the way...Mrs. Smitty is actually Smitty. I was signed-in on my wife's gmail account.
I don't crossdress. Yet.
No, it doesn't, or at least that wasn't my intent at all.
I hear you....I was all hot under the collar. I think in a contest in furiousness between Mr. Furious and I, I may actually win.
"By the way...Mrs. Smitty is actually Smitty. I was signed-in on my wife's gmail account."
I was impressed by her forcefullness. It was unexpected.
My word verification is: "concity"
Post a Comment