Articles

Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Rule of Lawyers

What do the two most successful Republican Presidents of the last few decades have in common? None of them were lawyers.

It might seem like a trite observation but Reagan and George W. Bush were both noted for their pragmatism, their ability to connect to voters and grand visions. While both men were certainly flawed, they also had an ability to transcend the trite legalisms of process and procedure in order to strive for something bigger.

As I wrote on Friday, the 2008 election beyond party comes to a choice between a ticket with 2 lawyers and a ticket with no lawyers on it. It is any wonder that the liberal political elite has fervently embraced the lawyer ticket while lashing out venomously at the non-lawyer ticket?

The legal profession today, more than any other profession, embodies the moral equivalence and the distortions of language that turns right and wrong upside down, at the heart of modern liberalism. While conservatives often attack academia and Hollywood, the worst of the problem is inherent in the modern understanding of American law, an understanding that requires creating a moral vacuum and advocating not for justice, but for the criminal. And yet America's leaders repeatedly come out of the legal profession, almost in inverse proportion to the amount of public hatred for lawyers.

In the hands of liberalism the law has become a tool for undoing the body of work of America's Founders, replacing it with hypocritical interpretations and distortions, shelving the second amendment while interpreting the death penalty and denial of citizenship as cruel and unusual punishment.

When it came to crippling the War on Terror, while journalists did their part, it was the lawyers who hounded and harangued and undermined until they got their way. It was the lawyers who time and time again stepped forward to fight for, sympathize and even aid and abet terrorists. And now it is two lawyers who are running on the Messiah ticket for the White House on empty rhetoric and a hollow spectacle and a great deal of dirty tricks.

Even as liberalism has demonized the soldier, smeared the patriot and the religious man, it has put forward three heroes, the reporter, the lawyer and the teacher. These are the three pillars of American liberalism. The reporter smears and brings down the reactionary power structures and the political opposition, the lawyer provides legal cover, overturns "unjust" laws and rules from above and the teacher propagandizes in the classroom.

Of these the lawyer is the most flexible, especially as the lawyer rises to power, ruling from above. The reporter and teacher are primarily indoctrinators, the lawyer is actually a ruler and wields real political power.

The character of the lawyer as the apex of the liberal power pyramid also reveals much about liberalism. The lawyer is morally selective, excels at rhetoric and at putting forward the image he wants others to see, he is capable of bending men and women to his will and of exploiting the letter of the law to suit his own morally ambiguous purposes. The lawyer may posture as a moral crusader, but in the end no matter how noble his goals are supposed to be, his means are rarely noble.

The lawyer may wear many hats, most of them political, because as a liberal footsoldier, his goals are generally political. He is the perfect weapon for an ideology that views everything as political since in the end politics comes down to rhetoric and law, and he has mastered both. He can convince the crowds or individuals and make the legal case for his agenda and this makes him into the King piece of the modern political struggle's game of chess.

The greatest trick of the lawyerocracy is to insist that obedience to the strictest of the letter of the law is all that preserves our morality, when it benefits the criminal or the terrorist, even as they shape and reshape the law as they see fit.

This cynical legalistic morality has crippled our ability to fight everything from crime to terrorism to foreign enemies, required us to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone hates us, while denying it to our own people.

The one thing that most Americans can agree on is that we do not need another lawyer President. We need a clear vision and common sense solutions, not more cynical legalisms and manipulative class warfare politics. We already know what the definition of "is", it's a lawyer who speaks out of two sides of his mouth and we've had enough of that.

16 comments:

Lemon said...

Slip and fall lawyers

No Apology said...

I believe the whole point of the Leftists, by toying with the law and debasing it, is to bring ridicule to the Constitution and it's framers, so that the public (however that's defined today) will lose all understanding and respect for Constitutional law. And we need to just as strenuously fight back.

I distrust all lawyers, except my sister, who always swam in shark-infested waters with her dignity and personal sense of justice intact. Thank goodness for that.

Keli Ata said...

Slip and fall lawyers are the worst of the worst.


Just like liberals in virtually all relgions chip away at the commandments until they're little more than 'thou shalt do...whatever you want' liberal lawyers chip away at the constitution.


I'll take the presidential candidate from the Hanoi Hilton over the lawyer from Harvard any day!

Lemon said...

All lawyers are slip and fall lawyers.
I don't want to take any of them. They are all bad. There is no real choice today.
You have Democrat One: Obama the man with not a single friend who doenst appear on the Post office wanted board.

Democrat Two: McCain who signed McCain Feingold and McCain Kennedy and will not protect borders.

McCain is the lesser of two evils.
Sad state of affairs.

steve klein said...

"Respectable" Jews support Obama:

Bernhard: "Call the ---- in; call the ---- in....!"

Video. Not for the faint of heart:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/anorak-in-new-york/190554.html

Sandra Bernhard, The Old Testament And Woody Allen Against Sarah Palin
MORE CELEBRITIES againt Sarah Plain:

Woody Allen: “It would be a disgrace and a humiliation if Barack Obama does not win. It would be a very, very terrible thing for the United States in many, many ways.”

Sandra Bernhard (NSFW):


Now you got Uncle Women, like Sarah Palin, who jumps on the s–t and points her fingers at other women. Turncoat b—h!

Don’t you f–kin’ reference Old Testament, bitch! You stay with your new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bulls–t! Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you b—h! Because we have left it open for interpre-ta-tion! It is no longer taken literally! You whore in your f–kin’ cheap New Vision cheap-ass plastic glasses and your [sneering voice] hair up. A Tina Fey-Megan Mullally brokedown bulls–t moment.

Stop laughing…

When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting.

Sultan Knish said...

woody allen is a french loving pedophile and behrnard is mentally ill, so that works out well

steve klein said...

It sure looks like Woody Allen and Sandra Bernhard have a lot more influence in the Jewish community than either you or I.

Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations disinvited Sarah Palin from the Jewish-sponsored anti-Iran rally.

Just as left-leaning Jews undermined the Bergson group during the second world war, so it is today. Bergsonites saved Jews from the grip of the Nazis. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Conference, etc; fought Hillel Kook every step of the way.

Nothing has changed.

Anonymous said...

I thank God everyday for our soldiers, USA and my faith.
Works better this way...
from a Chgo native and resident who knows the big O is just part of the local combine...shallow and teflon and a soul of Dorian Gray.

Sultan Knish said...

sure nothing has changed

same tactics too, with the dems threatening the tax exempt status of any jewish group at the rally if they let palin speak

Keli Ata said...

And of course Obama eventually got off scott free after speaking at his home church as a candidate.

Sultan Knish said...

sure, or all the churches Al Sharpton is campaigning at for obama

Anonymous said...

You all forgot our own great lawyer-Olmert who singlehandedly destroyed Israel from inside. True he had some good help from generals like Barak and Sharon.

Keli Ata said...

I'm still trying to figure out what Olmert's angle was aside from corruption. What did he have to gain?

His whole "give up greater Israel" and calling Judea and Samaria "little hills here and there" was one hell of a surrender speech.

What did he get in exchange? I can't believe it was only those stupid antique pens.

Yobeeone said...

That speaks out of both sides of his mouth and speaks with forked tongue. :]

Sultan Knish said...

the angle was corruption, a state of corruption, the post-zionist agenda i wrote about before in the war on zionism

Anonymous said...

Its easy to see why lawyers catch the blame for pushing the liberal agenda, because so many of them are so successful at it. However, a more complete picture is possible when you get the rest of the story. Starting with the radical movements of the post WWII era, in the beginnings of the ideological struggle between Soviet backed socialism and traditional values, the law schools were infiltrated along with the rest of academia. The legal theory of "Legal Realism" (which held that all legal decision are really political decisions, and reflect the ideology of the time) was split into two competing groups. The leftist, socialist, group can be called the "critical legals studies" group, and the opposing group were the "law and economics" group. Critical legal studies followers basically believe that Americans were too stupid and bigoted to do the right thing and vote for socialism in the Executive Branch, or the Legislative Branch, so they would try to use the Courts (the third leg government)to wedge in socialism. This took the form of product liability and tort cases to redistribute wealth, and an ever expanding definition of "civil rights" and "prejudice" to both muzzle enemies, and redistribute power. The opposing side, "law and economics" held that legal decisions should be made taking into account how those decisions would impact the economic vitality of the country. For those "in the know", this is what the real battle over Robert Bork was about. It had nothing to do with abortion, it had to do with the fact that he was a luminary of the "law and economics" movement. Much of the leadership of the left, in America today, are lawyers from the Critical Legal Studies movement, or their students. On the other side are lawyers from such groups as the Federalist Society, Richard Posner, Robert Bork, Samuel Alito, and others from University of Chicago School of law. As "Sultan" has noted in other articles, the government, and indeed the lawyers, reflect their society. There was a concerted effort by the left to take over all of academia, including the law schools, because that is part of the Bolshevik playbook. They have largely succeeded, but before you condemn all lawyers, a closer look has to paid to the valiant rebel alliance, fighting behind enemy lines. If you don't like what's happening in the courts and law schools in the country, sign up, and tip the numbers back.

Post a Comment