You are hereBlogs / Suzi LeVeaux's blog / Lawyers vs.....Corporatism???

Lawyers vs.....Corporatism???


By Suzi LeVeaux - Posted on 15 October 2010

I received another of those fwd fwd emails this morning, most of which I'm copying here. 

Once I got past the bizarre idea of Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey et al as "real people" doing "real work", I noticed the piece is attributed to Bruce Walker of "American Thinker" infamy, a huge part of the right wing echo chamber.   But I digress....

 The Lawyers' Party ~  By Bruce Walker *

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers Party .
Barack Obama is a lawyer.   Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer. Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer.  Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school
(although Gore did  not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except
for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:
Harry Reid is a lawyer.  Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different.
President Bush is a businessman.
Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution: Newt Gingrich was
a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator. Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill First is a heart
surgeon. Who was the last Republican president who was a
lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who
barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president,
running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.

The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real
work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers.

Democrats mock and scorn men  who create wealth, like Bush
and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like First, or who immerse
themselves in history, like Gingrich.

The Lawyers Party sees these sorts of people, who provide
goods and services that people want, as the enemies of
America .

And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in
the eyes of the Lawyers Party, grow.

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical
companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast
food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers,
and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything
through the eyes of lawyers.  Lawyers solve problems by
successfully representing their clients, in this case the
American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they
seek to win lawsuits, they  press appellate courts to
overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to
favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it
is an awful way to govern a great nation. 

When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as
clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the
role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming.

Some Americans become adverse parties of our very
government. We are not all litigants in some vast social
class-action suit.

We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great  deal
of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial
decisions;  we are driven to distraction by omnipresent
lawyers in all parts of our  once private lives.

America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is
modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.

When the most important decision for our next president is
whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of
lawyers and the law in America is too big.

When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our
efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us,
then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers Party to provide real change,
real reform or real hope in America 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. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight
a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders.

Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not
restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of
enterprise in our economy.

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
.

My reply to this was relatively simple, and hopefully pointed out to the sender what his real choices are:

This one would be fun to pick apart, line by line, but I'll limit myself to two salient points, showing that corporate interests, not the good of middle class Americans, are at the heart of this campaign. 

One is that the "creating wealth" meme is being used to cause average Americans to vote against their own self interests.  The concentration of wealth has shifted dramatically in the last 10 years, with more and more going to the super rich at the expense of the middle class.  The last time the gap was this wide was in 1928.....Think about that.   Yet the Republicans in Congress are fuming over allowing the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.  They rant and rave about "tax increases, convincing many people this is about them, the middle class.  So they follow blindly, voting against their own interests, putting or keeping in office those who will continue to widen that gap.

Second, the importance of Supreme Court Justices cannot be overstated.  The current court, of which 5 are conservative appointed, is the very one that gave "personhood" to corporations with a 5-4 vote..giving the mammoth companies the same rights as you and I.  This laid the groundwork for another 5-4 vote giving corporations unlimited spending power in elections.....this means corporations can spend freely on political ads leading up to elections.  

These two ruling alone are victories for, and give ever more power to, big oil, Wall Street banks, pharma, health insurance companies and other powerful interests. 

This week, the GOP blocked a bill that would stop tax incentives from being given to companies who outsource jobs to foreign countries. Yet, the sheeple allow themselves to whipped into a frenzy by red herring emotional non-issues, convincing themselves that these people are really on their side, and once again, they vote against their own self interests, while declaring themselves "Patriots" for doing so

Gah! You're KILLING me! The Supreme Court NEVER gave "personhood" to corporations!

 That's as big a lie as anything the GOP has ever said. Ever.

 Otherwise I have a certain sympathy with this email.

Yeah, more stupidity.

First of all, as I have pointed out before, the First Amendment does not distinguish between individuals and collectives with regards to free speech. Point out where it does.

Second of all, "voting is a form of free speech"? Really? Since when?

Also, did Citizens United even reference the 14th Amendment? I downloaded the decision but I confess that I haven't read it word for word. If they did, and said that somehow the 14th applied to corporations, then you might have a point.

The money quote is this: “Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster.”

Is there anything controversial in that statement? I certainly don't believe so.

And if it isn't so then I want government RIGHT NOW to shut down all media companies which are not solely an individual writing his own ideas down without collaboration with others. 'Cause otherwise those are not "individuals".

Heh, bloggers over "journalists".

If people want to change the meaning of the First Amendment, then the Constitution prescribes an amendment process. Use it. But Gods help us if we ever do.

Heh as to the "bloggers vs journalists"" comment.  via (for some reason, my "insert link" feature isn't working tonight) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_Denniston

Lyle Denniston is an American legal journalist, professor, and author, who has reported on the Supreme Court of the United States for 51 years. He currently writes for SCOTUSblog, an online blog featuring news and analysis of the Supreme Court

 

I'm glad you are still around Suzi.
Thanks lep....It's good to "see" you.  I've been popping in a bit more often lately. 

Well, there's at least SOMETHING I can agree on!

I'm always happy to see Suzi on Facebook and Twitter, too. 

Thank you Suzi.  Like you said, you could go line by line dissecting the broad strokes being used to paint a picture so abstract it would confuse Dali.

The point that I know the average person who got that email will confuse is this idea of "businessmen".  They want these people to think since they "work" for a living they are like their rightwing heroes.

 

I don't know about you, but I never got a $38 million dollar severance package that I paid back by getting billions of dollarss in no bid contracts.   I never bankrupted several companies and used my father's connections to be bailed out and repay them by letting them steal $2 a gallon for 5 years.  These people are businessmen?  They're like small business people?  Ya.  I guess if you think so, you should vote Republican.

Lincoln was a lawyer.  Enough said.

You get the point I was making lep.  It is a broad brush  painting an abstract and very misleading picture.  The point I was trying to make was how very misleading that picture is, as opposed to the reality. 
Oh yes, I guess it just upsets me that I know so many will be so easily deceived by such, because they want to believe the things they focus on.
Shakespeare got it exactly right, without lawyers there would be anarchy.

An interesting article in The Economist on the businessman as politician, IMO.

Basically, it is stating that being a good business manager doesn't mean you will be a good politician.  Essentially, being a good politician requires a different skill set than being a good business manager.  An individual may possess both skill sets, but it is not a given that they will do so.

http://www.economist.com/node/17147638

 

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.