• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Lawyers' Party

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,264
Reaction score
61
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
From The American Thinker, November 17, 2009

The Lawyers' Party
By Bruce Walker

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.) Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office thirty-one 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. The Democratic Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, 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 which 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 lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to use, 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.
 
Good article that displaces blame on a profession rather than people themselves... :roll: The study of law is just that -- a study. It doesn't make a person into something they are not already inclined to be....

Kinda like saying that white collar criminals were created when they went to school and got their business degree in economics. They were fine folks before that....

People and their inherent values (or lack thereof) are the root of the problem, not a profession. If you want change, you will not accomplish it by pointing fingers and laying blame. The blame for no change starts with those who sit idiol and do nothing while blaming all sects of this nation for its downfall. Change starts with one person -- just ask Rosa Parks. Funny how a profession wasn't able to oppress her when she decided enough was enough. And let's not forget the very people who helped that cause as well.

Always, never, ever -- very oppressive words and used quite frequently through out this article. FWIW, I am not Democrat and I am not Republican. I am American. I vehemently disagree with the current administration and what it stands for and how it operates. Like minded individuals who have too much power right now. Blinded individuals as well.

It's up to me and every American who feels that way to do whatever they can to change it. Believe in the Constitution? Exercise your rights and tell anyone who will listen (Congressmen, Senators.......). Let them know their future is on the line. Don't like what is happening? Go ahead and cast the first stone if you are actively taking steps to change it. Writing your Senators? Calling your Congressmen? Applying pressure in groups?Going to the Tea Parties?

I've never posted in this forum and likely will not again after posting this...however, reading the posted article sounds more like this auther whining, instead of working to change it and get back to where the founding fathers wanted this country to be.... Something all too frequent these days...whining.
 
mtn_90 said:
Good article that displaces blame on a profession rather than people themselves... :roll: The study of law is just that -- a study. It doesn't make a person into something they are not already inclined to be....

Kinda like saying that white collar criminals were created when they went to school and got their business degree in economics. They were fine folks before that....

People and their inherent values (or lack thereof) are the root of the problem, not a profession. If you want change, you will not accomplish it by pointing fingers and laying blame. The blame for no change starts with those who sit idiol and do nothing while blaming all sects of this nation for its downfall. Change starts with one person -- just ask Rosa Parks. Funny how a profession wasn't able to oppress her when she decided enough was enough. And let's not forget the very people who helped that cause as well.

Always, never, ever -- very oppressive words and used quite frequently through out this article. FWIW, I am not Democrat and I am not Republican. I am American. I vehemently disagree with the current administration and what it stands for and how it operates. Like minded individuals who have too much power right now. Blinded individuals as well.

It's up to me and every American who feels that way to do whatever they can to change it. Believe in the Constitution? Exercise your rights and tell anyone who will listen (Congressmen, Senators.......). Let them know their future is on the line. Don't like what is happening? Go ahead and cast the first stone if you are actively taking steps to change it. Writing your Senators? Calling your Congressmen? Applying pressure in groups?Going to the Tea Parties?

I've never posted in this forum and likely will not again after posting this...however, reading the posted article sounds more like this auther whining, instead of working to change it and get back to where the founding fathers wanted this country to be.... Something all too frequent these days...whining.

Are we talking about the same article? I first heard it read on our local radio station KSDZ a couple days ago. It resounded with truth to me, so I googled it to share with the rest of you. You say that the words "always," "never," and "ever" are used quite frequently throughout the article. Having read it twice again this morning, I have yet to find a single time that any of these three words were used at all. Maybe I have missed them, in which case if you can find those words please point them out.

As far as the truth of the article, what is there to be refuted?
 
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party.

Could this possibably be why the Obama Administration will not include tort reform in the Health care bill? :?

I would think if you are a lawyer the last thing you are going to do is cut into your ability to sue for a outragous settlement in the future. Or limit your friends ability to take someone to court.
 
Obviously you are dealing with a lawyer. :shock:

Tell me, mtn_90, why is it not a conflict of interest to have lawyers writing laws that will make them and their profession wealthy?
 
nice post.

one can very easily verify the logic by realizing there is no tort reform in the most recent health care draft.

there is a reason why the liberals don't want to allow competing across state lines.
 
Tell me guys, any Republican Congressmen lawyers???
 
TSR said:
Tell me guys, any Republican Congressmen lawyers???
Sure there are...they all think the "right" way...until...they question...and find out that the "right" way and the "left" way do nothing but follow the money and the power...I'm sick of all of 'em.

Alice
 
alice said:
TSR said:
Tell me guys, any Republican Congressmen lawyers???
Sure there are...they all think the "right" way...until...they question...and find out that the "right" way and the "left" way do nothing but follow the money and the power...I'm sick of all of 'em.

Alice


I tend to agree with you Alice. I might go one farther and say that lawyers, teachers and preachers shouldn't be in government . :?
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
alice said:
TSR said:
Tell me guys, any Republican Congressmen lawyers???
Sure there are...they all think the "right" way...until...they question...and find out that the "right" way and the "left" way do nothing but follow the money and the power...I'm sick of all of 'em.

Alice


I tend to agree with you Alice. I might go one farther and say that lawyers, teachers and preachers shouldn't be in government . :?

I think I might be interested in why you think teachers should not be in government? We tend to understand the difference between words like 'could,' 'should,' 'may,' and 'might'! :lol:
 
Twister Frost said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
alice said:
Sure there are...they all think the "right" way...until...they question...and find out that the "right" way and the "left" way do nothing but follow the money and the power...I'm sick of all of 'em.

Alice


I tend to agree with you Alice. I might go one farther and say that lawyers, teachers and preachers shouldn't be in government . :?

I think I might be interested in why you think teachers should not be in government? We tend to understand the difference between words like 'could,' 'should,' 'may,' and 'might'! :lol:


To me it seems many teachers and preachers are more idealists and not realists. Many teachers i have run into were left leaning which i guess would turn me off them being in government.
 
Based on the way that the majority of state education associations and the National Education Association approaches politics, your assumption would be correct----BUT, there are a whole bunch of us in the Midwest who are right leaning! It's a sad state of affairs when it appears those three professions are needed: one to write the legalese, one to check for the correct use of the jargon, and the other to pray that all h-e-double hockey sticks doesn't break loose because of it! :p
 
Twister Frost said:
Based on the way that the majority of state education associations and the National Education Association approaches politics, your assumption would be correct----BUT, there are a whole bunch of us in the Midwest who are right leaning! It's a sad state of affairs when it appears those three professions are needed: one to write the legalese, one to check for the correct use of the jargon, and the other to pray that all h-e-double hockey sticks doesn't break loose because of it! :p

Speaking of the NEA, I read somewhere that they are recommending "Rules for Radicals", by Saul Alinsky for reading material.


Just what is needed for sure.
 
hypocritexposer said:
Twister Frost said:
Based on the way that the majority of state education associations and the National Education Association approaches politics, your assumption would be correct----BUT, there are a whole bunch of us in the Midwest who are right leaning! It's a sad state of affairs when it appears those three professions are needed: one to write the legalese, one to check for the correct use of the jargon, and the other to pray that all h-e-double hockey sticks doesn't break loose because of it! :p

Speaking of the NEA, I read somewhere that they are recommending "Rules for Radicals", by Saul Alinsky for reading material.


Just what is needed for sure.

With an organization as large as the NEA you aare going to have your sub-groups who many times get all the attention. Every large group has them and probably always will. Not even the Southern Baptists can meet and agree on everything. They too have those groups who are in the minority many times but get all the publicity. IMO
 
TSR,go to NEA.org, search 'recommended reading', first on the list is Saul Alinsky...that's not a fringe "sub-group". Open your eyes.
 

Latest posts

Top