Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

The Lawyers' Party »

Posted by: CactusAnnie 3 months ago

8.4

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 57

Propped: 57

Comments: 81

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer and so is his wife Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate.)

Read Full Story at americanthinker.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 81

birddog54Comment removed: User banned.25 Replies
- 0%
  CactusAnnie3 months ago
  
  Adjectives like cunning, sly, unscrupulous, are often applied to the legal profession.
  Go figure...
  Reply
  24 Replies
  - 0%
    Beau78903 months ago
    
    Ya know, government consists of three branches that all have significant effects on the law.
    The Legislative branch MAKES laws.
    The Executive branch ENFORCES laws.
    The Juicial branch INTERPRETS laws.
    The missions of these three branches encompass the entire PURPOSE of government.
    It seems to me a good idea for anyone running the government to understand the law. Don't you agree?
    Reply
    23 Replies
    - birddog54Comment removed: User banned.22 Replies
      - 0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        Jeez, you people are reactionary. Being a lawyer does not necessarily mean that you manipulate, pervert and exploit.
        No doubt, some lawyers do that. Some Republican lawyers do that as well...(cough, cough, Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby, Theodore Olson).
        Reply
        21 Replies
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.3 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        Is that meant to refute my statement?
        Are you saying all lawyers are bad?
        Are you saying only Democratic lawyers are bad?
        Do you even have a point, other than that because I sometimes support liberal views, my statement that not all lawyers abuse their knowledge of the law and that some lawyers who do are Republican must be incorrect?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        Did you read the frigging Constitution?
        The writer of the article appears to think the framers of the Constitution didn't believe the Supreme Court should be able to interpret laws, and that only the president can do that.
        The writer of the article is dead wrong.
        See my longer posts to CactusAnnie below.
        Reply
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.
        
        0%
        Rinty3 months ago
        
        B7890: I pay lawyers $400 an hour to pull a contract together...they are all the same...poison
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        0%
        Rinty3 months ago
        
        Right or Left
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        Lawyers can charge a lot of money. No one likes to deal with them.
        But without them, we'd be screwed.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        Rinty3 months ago
        
        Can't disagree with that...The one with the most money wins.
        Reply
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.5 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        Wrong?
        We wouldn't be screwed without lawyers?
        How would disputes be settled? Who would try criminal suspects? Should we just shoot 'em and be done with it?
        Who would settle disagreements between the other branches of government?
        The courts do this because the Constitution gives them the authority--not even in later amendments, but as part of the original setup of the U.S. government.
        If you want to start a movement to amend the Constitution to abolish the Judicial system, feel free. But I'd call changing our system of checks and balances from a three-part system to two a huge mistake. And anti-American.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.2 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        Then I guess you're not qualified to do it.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.
        
        0%
        Rinty3 months ago
        
        Point taken.
        Reply
        
        0%
        CactusAnnie3 months ago
        
        Beau, let's play a game, when I say "shyster", what professions come to your mind?
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        cowboygrandpa3 months ago
        
        CA:
        Politician and lawyer equally. LOL
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        That's what Merriam-Webster says.
        Reply
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.2 Replies
        
        0%
        tanglang3 months ago
        
        Propeller scout.
        j/k. sort of.
        Reply
        
        0%
        cowboygrandpa3 months ago
        
        birddog54:
        LMAO
        Don't forget the term lying scumbags, useless carrion who prey upon the the lower income buyers.
        Reply
0%
Endoscopy3 months ago

This partly explains all the hatred that the Democrats have for Republicans. Why do they want to put up all of these people who really don't know what work really is. While Lawyers do work they are usually defending one side or the other in some mess. A good lawyer is supposed to be able to take either side of a case. That fact makes them seem sleazy.
Reply
0%
CactusAnnie3 months ago

"...Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
'There are two things to aim at in life: first, to get what you want; and after that, to enjoy it. Only the wisest of mankind achieve the second.'..."

Reply
11 Replies
- 0%
  Beau78903 months ago
  
  Anyone who doesn't want laws to set business and societal standards is living in the wrong country. Making, interpreting, and enforcing laws is what government does.
  If you want to change a law, you either have a Constitutional amendment drafted, written, passed by lawmakers and signed by the enforcer of laws, and ratified by the lawmakers of the various states.
  If you want to challenge a law, you go to a lawyer to prepare a case, bring your case in front of another lawyer (the judge) to examine the LEGAL merits of your case, then have the decision enforced by agencies run according to the LAW.
  It seems to me that a certain amount of expertise in the law is necessary. Should there be no courts? No contracts? No property rights? No remedy if you are wronged?
  These all exist because of the law.
  Reply
  10 Replies
  - 0%
    CactusAnnie3 months ago
    
    Are you by chance a forth grade civics teacher? If so, bet you're a pretty good one...
    You might enjoy reading the article!
    Reply
    9 Replies
    - 0%
      Beau78903 months ago
      
      I did read the article. It appears to imply that because some leaders of the Democratic party are lawyers, they cannot effect change in government.
      That is patently false. Lawyers are necessary, and since government is about law, it's a good idea for those IN government to understand it.
      Reply
      8 Replies
      - 0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        As for the article's assertion that "Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789," that is also an absurd assertion.
        From Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which sets up the Judicial system:
        "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        From Article III, Section 2:
        "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        (continued)
        "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
        Reply
      - birddog54Comment removed: User banned.4 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        That "gibberish" is the U.S. Constitution. Its purpose was to set up the structure of the U.S. government. You should really try reading it some time.
        CA asked if I was a fourth-grade civics teacher. Apparently, you never had one. ha ha.
        http://www.usconstitution.net
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.2 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        Not sure why I bother...I guess I just want to drive the point home for anyone else reading this.
        I read the Constitution.
        I QUOTED the Constitution for your benefit (though you called those quotes gibberish, and most likely didn't read them).
        I gave you a LINK to the text of the Constitution.
        And that's your best response?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.
0%
ind063 months ago

John Adams, the founding father who pushed the revolution and was instrumental in the formation of the guiding principles of our country was one of these sleazy lawyers you guys are on about.
James Madison, called "The Father of the Constitution" (and at least one of its principle architects) was a lawyer. He's also known as The Father of the Bill of Rights. Yeah. Sleazy.
Abraham Lincoln, who stewarded our country through its worst six years and paid the ultimate price, was a lawyer.
My mother is a lawyer, neither sleazy, nor cunning, nor sly nor unscrupulous. If you think that being a lawyer isn't work I suggest you mount a case. Start by visiting your local law library.
I truly did not ever think I would see the day when graduating from law school, essentially earning a DOCTORATE, would be a reason to disqualify someone from public service.
But, I understand, election year and all that. If the Democratic party was composed of librarians they'd be no good too.
Reply
6 Replies
- 0%
  CactusAnnie3 months ago
  
  The ones you mention from days of yore, had some scruples.
  Your mom has you to her credit, and you are a good 'en...
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 0%
    ind063 months ago
    
    Nixon was a lawyer...
    Perhaps that wasn't such a good example...
    Reply
    2 Replies
    - 0%
      CactusAnnie3 months ago
      
      He wasn't the last one the article mentioned. No Republican lawyers since Gerald Ford, and he LOST being actually elected to Jimmy baby. ;)
      Reply
    - 0%
      Rinty3 months ago
      
      nope :))))))
      Reply
- 0%
  cowboygrandpa3 months ago
  
  ind06:
  Yes it's only good if you are a Republican Lawyer. Because everyone knows they have scruples right? LMAO
  One of my nephews' is a lawyer, of course he is in business law so that should make him lovable to the Republican party right?
  
  Reply
- 0%
  CactusAnnie3 months ago
  
  Yes, I kind of like businesses, they have always been one of my main sources of income.
  Reply
0%
Bkumm3 months ago

There are enough lawyers in both Parties. It isn't just the Democrats. The current Minority Leader of the Senate is a lawyer. Mitt Romney is a lawyer. Rudy Giuliani is a lawyer. There are a LOT of lawyers in politics.
As ind06 mentions, there have been many lawyers throughout the history of our Republic who have made honorable and indispensable contributions.
This article is obviously written as just another part of the politics as usual that is poisoning our country.
By the way, don't blame the lawyers. Blame the People. We are in charge, not them. So, until we stand up and fight for what is right, regardless of the costs, then we'll just keep shuffeling the blame off on someone else.
Everybody hates lawyers...until they need one.
Reply
4 Replies
- birddog54Comment removed: User banned.2 Replies
  - 0%
    icono13 months ago
    
    I've found that honesty in a lawyer is directly related to the amt of money you have or the amt of money you stand to win in a settlement.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      Rinty3 months ago
      
      Yep...
      Reply
- 0%
  NoWayMan3 months ago
  
  and when talking about the GOP..
  don't forget, Fred Thompson played a lawyer on TV.
  Reply
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months ago

CA:
Tom Delay was an exterminator. LMAO. That explains his behavior. hahahahahaaaahaahaa
Reply
8 Replies
- 0%
  CactusAnnie3 months ago
  
  I got a chuckle from that reference too. I didn't know that before. Exterminators come in mighty handy when you need one, also.
  Reply
- birddog54Comment removed: User banned.6 Replies
  - 0%
    CactusAnnie3 months ago
    
    I take it you are not referring to Arnold, The Exterminator, or was that Terminator? Ex-Terminator...
    Reply
    5 Replies
    - birddog54Comment removed: User banned.4 Replies
      - 0%
        CactusAnnie3 months ago
        
        Trouble is, we would have to hire lawyers to do that...
        Would self ex-termination work?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.
      - 0%
        cowboygrandpa3 months ago
        
        birddog54:
        LMAO
        I don't think of conservatives as evil, some are just as some liberals are.
        I just think the rhetoric has gone so far that warning flags fly up at the mention of either political position.
        People just assume that if you are a conservative you must be against helping the less fortunate, want war, and hate gays. Just as if people think you are a liberal you must favor abortion, welfare and same gender marriage.
        I don't think those fit most people. But the great divide continues to grow.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        birddog54Comment removed: User banned.
0%
simonsez3 months ago

We need tort reform and I don't care which party gets it done ...
Reply
ranchhandComment removed: User banned.8 Replies
- 0%
  CactusAnnie3 months ago
  
  Rancher, there is still a lot to be said for keeping one's word as a matter of maintaining personal integrity. Your statement was very well said and an excellent reminder.
  I still think most people are honorable, but you are right. It is a shame that particular quality is not quite as highly esteemed as it once was.
  
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    icono13 months ago
    
    Ranch, the concept of 'individual honor' is something a lawyer will advise you to leave at home. There is no place for honor and personal pride in the courtroom.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - birddog54Comment removed: User banned.
- 0%
  cowboygrandpa3 months ago
  
  ranchhand:
  I grew up being taught to honor ones word.
  I also grew up being taught that wrong is wrong and right is right no matter who does it.
  Now I have admitted in court my guilt to fighting and and being drunk while operating a vehicle. While my friends said get a lawyer you'll get off easier. I did a little time in the county jail and learned my lesson.
  The things that sicken me is when people retain lawyers and get off for technicalities even though they are guilty.
  We have become a country of shades of morality and truth.
  Thats just wrong.
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 0%
    CactusAnnie3 months ago
    
    Cowboy, you and Ranchie are both mighty fine men. The word of either one of you would be of more value than a thousand lawyers.
    Those technicalities you refer to do tend to make a mockery of the law, and that's the rub.
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 0%
      Rinty3 months ago
      
      Geez...well said!
      Reply
    - 0%
      cowboygrandpa3 months ago
      
      CA:
      Thanks.
      Here is the thing. We have polticians, business men, actors, athletes, "religious leaders", and all sorts of everyday people.
      Who break and twist the laws daily and get away with it.
      I mean if you are going to set a standard of behavior, enforce it. If not remove it from the books as a law so that there is no mockery of the law.
      For once we start down the slippery slope of bending the laws, they become more of a hindrance than a help.
      At least in my humble opinion.
      Reply
    - ranchhandComment removed: User banned.
0%
canadianrancher573 months ago

Interesting artical but I think I'm going to pass on commenting against just the Democrats on this although this is sort of where my more conservative side does come out. Most lawyers are smart enough people but when it comes to running business or a country they scare me even corporate lawyers. To me it seems that lawyers and bureaucrats get along far to nice and that relationship between the two I feel has caused the government bureaucracy to continue to grow even if ther are no jobs for the people and then the lawyers pass new laws that need to be enforced.
ranchhand-I sure agree with the idea of having a bit of honor, to me there are two main things that you can judge a person by and one is the deeds that they do and the other is whether they keep their word.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  CactusAnnie3 months ago
  
  Canadian Rancher, "...there are two main things that you can judge a person by and one is the deeds that they do and the other is whether they keep their word."
  Wise words, they bring to mind the old maxim, "It takes one to know one." Someone who is honorable is usually fairly easy to spot by someone else who knows what truth is.
  One might be tricked once, but rarely twice.
  Enjoyed your comment!
  Reply
0%
Rinty3 months ago

Ranchhand: I shake your hand...My word is worth more than I could ever pay a lawyer in a lifetime...
Reply
0%
Rinty3 months ago

I'm done...
Tired of these games...Obama is the next president.
Reply
0%
NoWayMan3 months ago

pretty stupid point being made here since there are plenty of lawyers on both sides of the aisle.
and funny thing is...
Before going to Harvard for his MBA, Bush tried to get into law school at the Univ. of Texas. but he was rejected.
doh!
Reply
brothermichaelComment removed: User banned.
0%
Commodore13 months ago

How about that? And everybody hates lawyers!
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  BronxBomber3 months ago
  
  Even Shakespeare..
  Reply
0%
BronxBomber3 months ago

Btw, How do you get a lawyer out of a tree?
Cut the rope.
Reply
brothermichaelComment removed: User banned.
brothermichaelComment removed: User banned.