Tom Goldstein templing his fingers at the serf asking if perhaps there’s something better
This time around, it came from Tom Goldstein, writing at SCOTUSblog. Liberals, according to Goldstein, were sadly mistaken, and perhaps even a little hypocritical, when they attacked Katyal for ably representing his clients (the large corporations that profited from child slavery).
“I start from the idea that our legal system is premised on clients having the best advocacy, so that courts will make the best decisions,” Goldstein wrote. And then, not realizing he was undermining his own argument, he added: “That is a proposition that the American left, which prides itself on standing up for the powerless, including criminal defendants, treasures.”
In other words: Ah, so you believe in standing up for the powerless, yet you criticize an attorney for collecting checks from a large corporation that is currently being sued by formerly enslaved children?
Do corporations deserve the best representation? Doesn’t matter
Corporate lawyers frequently dissemble on this point, so I will be clear: Nothing in our “legal system” or Constitution says Nestle and Cargill deserve “the best advocacy” when it comes to civil claims. But the question of whether they “deserve” it in some ethical sense is completely moot: They will always receive it, because they can afford it. Once you establish that simple fact, it’s clear that the attorneys representing these corporations are not acting out of some high-minded commitment to a central constitutional principle; they are simply representing Nestle for a lot of money. They have chosen to go into corporate law and, as Katyal consistently has throughout his career, make arguments that favor large corporations at the expense of everyone else.
The whole article is good. I’d have to quote every paragraph to highlight every point.
I saw Katyal speak once where he talked about representing Guantanamo detainees and his thesis was essentially that everyone deserves the best representation. I definitely agree with that and then how this essay highlights the separation of lawyer from the rapist/murder in the criminal context. I think I’ve mentioned before how I’ve got a cousin that is a PD doing way too much hard work for way too little pay. Much respect for that.
However, this essay is 100% on point that it’s absurd to apply that same principle to representing fucking Nestle when you’re Neal Katyal making ~$1k/hr.
I’d never criticize any criminal defense lawyer for defending a client, even the worst murderer or Epstein or whoever. Even the best connected, richest defendant’s power is dwarfed by a prosecution. No need to extend that principle to defending giant corporations for slavery, the only principle involved is the cash going to Neil’s bank account.
The secret you’re missing is to become the dog yourself.
Grow extra body hair and eat off the floor sometimes.
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1336163545646555136
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1336164199521804288
Youtube man - dangerous shit
Where is the left-wing Youtube radicalization pathway?
CNN
Scary thing is that right wing conspiracy nut jobs think that youtube is radicalizing the left. I’ve seen right wingers recommend watching The Social Dilemma and the takeaway was basically that youtube is melting minds by pushing liberal agendas.
I applaud the senator for attempting to round up support for the right thing among his Senate colleagues
Here’s your “Right Thing” caucus.
The letter is also signed by Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Ron Wyden of Oregon.
I’m with ya! I love a strongly worded letter. (sincerely)
A high school friend who was always into astrology type New Age shit is now a flat earth die hard Christian who is some sort of sovereign citizen but apparently different enough from a sovereign citizen that he laughs at them. All from hours and hours of Youtube.
I’m building a campervan. All that from hours of YouTube.
grats