See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 15th, 2010 at 8:31 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

   Scott Brown is a putz for rolling over on this bill just because they removed that 19 billion tax. The rest of the bill is still a steaming pile! Again, I regret my vote!

2. #2
   On July 15th, 2010 at 9:07 am, beachmom said:

   I have written to Snowe and Collins so often I can’t even count.
   They don’t give a rat’s butt.
   They’re in it for themselves.
   Snowe even wrote to me that she’s voting for Kagan because she’s excited to have another woman on the Supreme Court.
   She doesn’t make her decisions based on fact or Constitutional principals.
   Write to them though.
   If only to fill their email to overflowing. Bureaucrats don’t like paperwork or too much mail.

3. #3
   On July 15th, 2010 at 9:18 am, rike101 said:

   Hey Scott,

   I thought you called it “The People’s Seat”…

   Well, the “People” don’t want this bill.

4. #4
   On July 15th, 2010 at 9:27 am, Ragspierre said:

   http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/06/crash-sandwich-dodd-waves-goodbye-with.html

   I also understand that this bill contains express racial and gender discrimination.

   Another reparations bill, and one that really will solve nothing of import in our economy, while doing great damage.

   Oh, and Freddie and Fannie remain ticking time-bombs, waiting for their next detonation.

5. #5
   On July 15th, 2010 at 9:35 am, huhwhat said:

   For what it might be worth, I wrote to Scott Brown, Susan Collins and Olypia Snowe urging them to vote no on this wrong headed bill. I am not hopeful, but silence is consent, and I do not give my consent.

6. #6
   On July 15th, 2010 at 9:42 am, beenthere said:

   For a president hungry for good news, passage Thursday would be a welcome achievement.

   Obama is winning every battle that counts. Taken by themselves these horrendous bills each offers a slight hope for repeal (at least some aspects of them) but taken together the trend is unmistakable and terminal.

   I keep reading the same cliches that the popularity of congress is at an all time low, the popularity of the President is at an all time low (with independents), liberals are unhappy because they are not popular. Sheesh, who writes this stuff? Obama and his minions do not care one bit. They are achieving control/destruction of every aspect of the economy. They have the long view of where they are going. Republics/conservatives do not.

   And even if democrats are beat soundly this November, there will be enough RINOs and DIABLOs (e.g. John McCain) elected and re-elected to make the victory hollow. In any event the democrats will soon be back to finish the job. It won’t take nearly 12 years for them to occupy both Senate and Houses.

   And you know what? Most of the people unhappy with ObamaDeathCare now, will be cursing the Republicans for even thinking about changing it. In the meantime, inspired by the NBPP, other groups will be forming their own ethnic/race armies, all to be combined into Obama’s private army. The Left’s vision of mass extermination to seal their victory will begin. Sharia Law will become the law of the land.

   Another round of happy meals. Oops, they will be gone too.

7. #7
   On July 15th, 2010 at 9:45 am, Jim M. said:

   We have been watching this bill from the beginning, and have been and will be referring to it as “FrankenDodd”.

8. #8
   On July 15th, 2010 at 9:47 am, Ragspierre said:

   Dear Senator;

   As you will note, I’m not one of your constituents. But I did, along with millions of other Americans, support your election, and, with them, took great heart in your victory.

   The “Wall Street Reform” bill now pending will do enormous harm to our economy, while doing little or nothing in the way of actual good. It also contains provisions that are expressly discriminatory according to race and gender. This kind of legislative drafting cannot be encouraged, much less voted into law.

   Please, sir, I urge you to vote AGAINST the passage of this frightfully bad bill.

   My note to Brown. Please use any part you wish.

9. #9
   On July 15th, 2010 at 9:47 am, TigerLady said:

   Another reparations bill, and one that really will solve nothing of import in our economy, while doing great damage.
   Oh, and Freddie and Fannie remain ticking time-bombs, waiting for their next detonation.

   Hard to believe this hasn’t all been manufactured to do just what it’s doing. And why are Dodd and Barney’s Frank still in charge of this god-awful mess?

   I’ll email them but I’ll believe in flying pigs before I’ll believe it will do any good.

10. #10
    On July 15th, 2010 at 9:48 am, ErinF said:

    Please consider supporting Olympia Snowe’s opponent in 2012: Scott D’Amboise. He is a Constitutionalist who is pro-life, pro-traditional-marriage, and believes in spending cuts, tax cuts, and term limits.

    http://www.damboiseforsenate.com/

    His site is just in the beginning stages, but he needs all the support he can get. Needless to say, the Maine GOP shamelesslty drools over Collins and Snowe, and won’t support any Constitutionalist opposition. They even went so far as to steal donations made from Mitt Romney’s PAC which were made directly to D’Amboise, and they dumped it into their general fund (which is as effective as flushing it down the toilet).

    D’Amboise will only have a chance at beating Snowe if he gets national support from those who frequent blogs like Malkin’s and Hot Air.

    As a Maine Republican, I can’t stress enough how angry I am. I’m joining D’Amboise’s campaign staff, because I’m at my wit’s end.

11. #11
    On July 15th, 2010 at 9:49 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    Cranking the heat up one more notch on the frog pot.

12. #12
    On July 15th, 2010 at 9:54 am, RedDog said:

    I don’t see how we can survive as a nation with people like this running things. We’re on a runaway train headed for the washed-out bridge. By the time we crash, all the criminal malfeasants in this affair will be long gone.

13. #13
    On July 15th, 2010 at 9:56 am, ThatSamIAm said:

    This financial reform is so dangerous. Obama can, on his own, take over any private company he wants. He will shut down his oppostition completely. He will take over Fox News to shut them up. He will take over insurance companies to stop their protests. He will take over whatever he wants and then fill up the pockets of his supporters. This may be the death of the United States as we know it.

14. #14
    On July 15th, 2010 at 9:58 am, RedDog said:

    These fools have yet to see the housing foreclosures to come. The next financial implosion will be terminal.

    Osama bin Laden has no greater ally than this current government. All he needs to do is make some popcorn, put up his feet, and watch the show.

15. #15
    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:11 am, cicerokid said:

    I’d like to cram a copy of this up Franks’ bung hole, save the save that he would like it.

    Yet another travesty of legislation being passed without anyone reading it. Great representation.

    If they don’t study or read this and it passes, this demonstrates de facto taxation without representation. Tea, anyone?

16. #16
    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:28 am, vinny said:

    what will it take for people to stop paying the bills that dodd, frank, and the rest of these looters charge up?

17. #17
    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:29 am, granite said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:11 am, cicerokid said:

    If they don’t study or read this and it passes, this demonstrates de facto taxation without representation. Tea, anyone?

    And the amnesty these America-haters and -destroyers are trying to effect will give illegals representation without taxation.

18. #18
    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:41 am, chapoutier said:

    I guess Brown WASN’T about to fili-bust out of those jean shorts.

19. #19
    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:42 am, stevevvs said:

    There was a great conservative independent running for the seat Scott Brown has, but everyone wanted someone with an “R” Jersey. Oh well. What is it Rush says, “Symbolism over Substance.”

20. #20
    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:48 am, love2rumba said:

    what will it take for people to stop paying the bills that dodd, frank, and the rest of these looters charge up?

    Well, when people begin to realize no one is investing in new businesses, but socking away their wealth into physically-owned precious metals instead, then bill paying will have its limits.

21. #21
    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:49 am, love2rumba said:

    This financial reform is so dangerous. Obama can, on his own, take over any private company he wants. He will shut down his oppostition completely. He will take over Fox News to shut them up. He will take over insurance companies to stop their protests. He will take over whatever he wants and then fill up the pockets of his supporters. This may be the death of the United States as we know it.

    The quote of the day, IMO.

22. #22
    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:52 am, ent said:

    I’m so disappointed. I thought Scott Brown was on our side.

23. #23
    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:56 am, granite said:

    Only minimally off-topic:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792704575367020548324914.html

24. #24
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:02 am, Insomniac said:

    Fascism. It’s so hot right now. Fascism.

    /Jacobin Mugatu

25. #25
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:03 am, hawkeye54 said:

    Hard to believe this hasn’t all been manufactured to do just what it’s doing. And why are Dodd and Barney’s Frank still in charge of this god-awful mess

    Ah, but it HAS been manufactured to do just what it will do. Dodd and Frank are in this to the complete takeover and defacto nationalization of the financial sector, and contiuning to make themselves and their cronies richer as they go along.

26. #26
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:05 am, PurpleHaze said:

    I agree with the pessimism I see in this thread. Even if both the house and the senate are in republican control after November, the damage that has already been done will not be undone. It will be business as usual for these bastards until, as someone stated above; the democrats will be back in control and finish the job. I think we’re screwed no matter what.

27. #27
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:06 am, cheapseat said:

    Welcome to Venezuela! El Heffe Barry Hussein wants you to check your money at the door, and he will return what he thinks you deserve when you get ready to leave. If you plan to stay in our wonderful republic, you must be able to pick cotton, or watermelons, or lettuce, because El Heffe wants to bring the poor third world up to our standards through a technology redistribution and monetary redistribution REFORM AGENDA. El Heffe Barry knows that the only reason Africa and the middle east have remained in the stone age is because America is a greedy country stealing all the resources out of those areas. The mere fact that these nations have El Heffes which take all the money we PAY for their resources, and puts it into his swiss bank and buying weapons for his militia, is irrelevant. The people starve in Venezuela and North Korea ( and the list is never ending) but the El Heffe lives in palaces and buys a 1st world army complete with Nukes.

28. #28
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:13 am, jsmiddleton4 said:

    Obama is winning every battle that “counts.”

    Huh? That’s why his approval rating is so high…..

    Why do you folks act as if Obama is a king and all this stuff that is being done is permanent?

29. #29
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:14 am, thejim said:

    I just contacted both of our RINOs with the express message that their role in passing the bill will not go unnoticed. A vote against it does not cover up their role in assisting this administration destroy the economy. Both Corker and Alexander helped move the bill forward and their planned vote against designed to hide their involvement won’t afford them cover.

30. #30
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:15 am, tarpon said:

    And how is any of this Constitutional?

    Force all private records to be recorded and handed over to the federal government? That sounds like the start of tyranny.

    Maybe you could get away with this with a bunch of ignorant Kenyans, but won’t fly here.

31. #31
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:16 am, hawkeye54 said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:56 am, granite said:
    Only minimally off-topic:

    Still somewhat on topic – complete control by government of all sectors of our national economy on the route to one world government.

    Isn’t nice to know the government elites are ever mindful to take care of themselves first. Berwick’s Institute for Health Care Improvement, a “non-profit health care charitable organization” that he established, conferred lifetime health care for his wife and him.

    Same goes for all the high level corruptocrats – they will confer upon themselves the best of everything, while the masses fight over the crumbs.

32. #32
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:22 am, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “This financial reform is so dangerous. Obama can, on his own, take over any private company he wants.”

    No he can’t.

    First, this bill sucks. Needs to be repealed as soon as can be. But let’s not start being chicken littles.

    Second, reforms were and are necessary. If you think the financial sector acted in our best interest you are nuts. Does not mean THIS reform is a good plan. An effective reform package needs to be pushed that is based on conservative ideas. “Hands off the private sector” is not a plan AND has been shown that when it comes to the financial sector THEIR profits outweigh our financial stability and regulation is needed. The financial sector is not innocent. Neither is the government of course. But the idea that NO reform, NO controls are needed is bogus.

    Third, we need to demand bills that add a bunch of unrelated stuff be prohibited. Clean bills need to be the law of the land. One issue, one bill. We need to reform Congress as much as the financial sector.

    Fourth, the current vote is to be able to vote. If some of the outrageous stuff can be addressed in debate, there is still a chance to get some of the crap out of the bill.

    Fifth, the courts are the remedy for unconstitutional bills. Many parts of this bill appear to me to be unconstitutional. Even if it passes, the law is not forever stamped on society.

    Sixth, ALL legislation can be undone. 2010 and 2012 are critical elections. A majority of conservative politicians and in 2012 a conservative president are our best hope. Obama is not a king and passed legislation is never the last word. Don’t let the left define our government’s processes. We can change all of Obama’s “achievements” easily and swiftly.

33. #33
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:28 am, Pasadena Phil said:

    Among the many glaring problems in this bill, the core problem is that it doesn’t clarify what the rules are. It merely creates a monster bureaucracy with a mandate to fix the banking system. This is the worst of all possible solutions.

    It is the job of Congress to create laws, not bureaucracies. Regulators enforce the laws. This is going to become a disaster once the political agendas drive decisions without accountability. Total chaos.

34. #34
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:29 am, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “Total chaos.”

    Or a golden opportunity…….

35. #35
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:32 am, rike101 said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 10:42 am, stevevvs said:
    There was a great conservative independent running for the seat Scott Brown has, but everyone wanted someone with an “R” Jersey. Oh well. What is it Rush says, “Symbolism over Substance.”

    You’re right. Joe Kennedy (no, not THAT Joe Kennedy)would have been a better voice for us.

36. #36
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:32 am, jsmiddleton4 said:

    We need to expect these kinds of bills to get both worse in their substance and more frequent in their passage.

    There will be a lot of undoing to do. Which is great news. Conservatives will have both the opportunity and the support of the country to do this stuff correctly. We’ll have a great teachable moment in our country. On display will be the concrete reality of liberalism and what doesn’t work on the one hand and the opportunity to teach and to show the conservative idea and why it works on the other.

    No wonder Newt wants to run for President. We have set the stage for another President to look like Reagan. Its a perfect storm for conservatives.

    What a great time!

37. #37
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:34 am, hawkeye54 said:

    “Total chaos.”

    Or a golden opportunity…….

    Abosolutely. Opportunity out of self-created chaos.

38. #38
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:37 am, SpeakEasy said:

    The VIP mortgages are especially reprehensible. These ass-clowns don’t have the first inclination of what leadership is about. We learned early in the Marine Corps leaders take care of their lowest ranking members before themselves- for instance, the officers always eat last at the chow hall. Maybe military service should be a prerequisite for public office.

39. #39
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:41 am, chapoutier said:

    “This financial reform is so dangerous. Obama can, on his own, take over any private company he wants.”

    No he can’t.

    I don’t know js…I also heard, from Erik Erickson I think, that this bill also give Obama the right to sleep with our wives on their wedding night.

    So it must be true.

40. #40
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:50 am, beenthere said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:32 am, jsmiddleton4 said:
    . . . Its a perfect storm for conservatives. What a great time!

    I never expected to disagree with a poster more and yet hope that he is right and I am miserably wrong. I don’t know what to say, where to begin.

    Right now, I am just waiting for the United Armies of Conservative Lawyers (UACL) to descend upon Washington, stopping and invalidating all these horrible bills. These armies of conservative lawyers are ready to attack, are they not? They are coming soon. Yes? I admit that are a little slow, but we have nothing to worry about. Right?

41. #41
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:51 am, hawkeye54 said:

    I don’t know js…I also heard, from Erik Erickson I think, that this bill also give Obama the right to sleep with our wives on their wedding night.

    He’d best not come knocking at our door, then. I’m part Scottish and share the name and inclination of a certain person played by Mel Gibson in a certain movie. I guarantee, my reaction will be somewhat along the same line.

42. #42
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:52 am, chapoutier said:

    Right now, I am just waiting for the United Armies of Conservative Lawyers (UACL) to descend upon Washington, stopping and invalidating all these horrible bills. These armies of conservative lawyers are ready to attack, are they not? They are coming soon. Yes? I admit that are a little slow, but we have nothing to worry about. Right?

    For the right retainer, just about any lawyer will play conservative for you. And there are plenty already here, so no worries.

43. #43
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:57 am, walterc said:

    He’d best not come knocking at our door, then. I’m part Scottish and share the name and inclination of a certain person played by Mel Gibson in a certain movie.

    Your name is William? /sarc

    I’m not sure America will last until 2013 with these idiots. Unless we can elect all conservatives in both houses, this isn’t going to get much better.

    Note to self, buy more food, reload more ammo.

44. #44
    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:59 am, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “I never expected to disagree with a poster more”

    So been you do NOT think this is a great time for conservatives?

45. #45
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:00 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “For the right retainer”

    I kept my daughter’s from Jr High. Will that work?

46. #46
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:04 pm, Roland said:

    These armies of conservative lawyers are ready to attack, are they not? They are coming soon. Yes?

    For many decades the law schools have been aggressively screening out anyone who will not submit to the worship of moral relativism.

    So there are still a number of libertarian lawyers, but genuinely conservative young lawyers are as rare as genuinely conservative Democrat politicians.

47. #47
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:05 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    I frankly do not understand the self inflicted defeatism folks who call themselves conservatives are apparently fully committed to.

    Mind boggling.

    Obama is not king.
    The Constitution is not dead.
    The majority of this country is conservative.
    Nothing done legislatively is permanent.

    Get a grip, get busy. 2010 and 2012 are coming.

    Why are letting the way the left define you and the way our government works be THE definition?

    Will there be lots of work to do?

    YEP

    By 2011 when the next hopefully conservative leaning House/Sen takes over there will be even more work to do than you can imagine now.

    But its all good. We’ll see a conservative bent for years to come just as when Reagan took office.

48. #48
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:07 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “For many decades the law schools have been aggressively screening out anyone who will not submit to the worship of moral relativism.”

    Sorry but that is hogwash. Several good friends who are lawyers. All of whom are conservative evangelical Christians. One of whom is a city prosecutor now and God forbid in gubment as a conservative Christian lawyer!

    Imagine that.

    The sky is NOT falling…..

49. #49
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:10 pm, chapoutier said:

    For many decades the law schools have been aggressively screening out anyone who will not submit to the worship of moral relativism.

    That is absurd. Law schools care about two things: LSAT and GPA. I dont care if you are righter than Limbaugh, if you have the grades, you get in.

    The reason there aren’t more conservative lawyers (though I happen to know MANY) is because conservatives are taught to hate and ridicule lawyers. Same reason there are a dearth of conservative journalists.

50. #50
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:11 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “will not submit to the worship of moral relativism”

    This and I have to go and chap would probably be able to reflect on this more than I.

    My friends who went through law school, they didn’t have time to submit to anything other than endless studies. They described it as taking a drink from a fire hose set to full blast.

51. #51
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:13 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “conservatives are taught to hate and ridicule lawyers.”

    Oh now chap. That is quite the over simplification there.

    Besides that there is nothing about hating lawyers that falls in just conservative circles. In fact my very liberal brother is always on the edge of sending pipe bombs to his ex-wife’s lawyer….

52. #52
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:15 pm, chapoutier said:

    My friends who went through law school, they didn’t have time to submit to anything other than endless studies.

    Only my first year. After that, and I had my job secure, law school was decidedly less stressful.

    But js is otherwise right. I can’t think of one single exam I took that asked me anything other than to read a fact pattern, issue spot and then write an essay outlining the relevant statutory or case law. Not once was I ever asked how I “felt” about anything or asked to apply any sort of moral (relative or otherwise) structure to my answer.

53. #53
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:16 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    And by the way chap, when I went to “How to be a conservative” school, no one taught me to hate anyone.

    Of course I went to an on-line college but hey, I have my conservative taught graduation certificate. Gets me a discount on Weekly Standard’s web site.

54. #54
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:17 pm, Roland said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:07 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    1) You and I may differ on what we consider conservative.

    2) Which law schools.

    3) There are still some conservative Democrat politicians. They are just very rare and generally local politicians and/or marginalized.

    My point was that expecting some kind of swarming of conservative young lawyers to Washington to take down Leviathan is wishful thinking.

55. #55
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:18 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “But js is otherwise right.”

    Wow. I’ll wear that proudly today.

    See you all later. That is if the world doesn’t end today.

56. #56
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:19 pm, chapoutier said:

    Of course I went to an on-line college but hey, I have my conservative taught graduation certificate. Gets me a discount on Weekly Standard’s web site.

    If it wasn’t this one, I am sorry but your certificate isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

57. #57
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:20 pm, stillontheroad said:

    Concerning this Dood and Barney bill – WSJ Last line:
    “A good definition of a bad law is one that its authors are rewriting even before they pass it.”

    I feel so much more comfortible knowing this.

58. #58
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:21 pm, beenthere said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 11:59 am, jsmiddleton4 said: “I never expected to disagree with a poster more”
    So been you do NOT think this is a great time for conservatives?

    If this is a “great time for conservatives,” I would hate to see a bad one, though I rather suspect we both will.

59. #59
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:22 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “My point was that expecting some kind of swarming of conservative young lawyers to Washington to take down Leviathan is wishful thinking.”

    Its not wishful thinking. Its a reflection of a flawed view of reality.

    Any financial institution who considers some part of this new law to be unconstitutional, and it appears to me there are, will easily find a lawyer to take the case. Filing suits in these matters has nothing to do with a lawyer’s political bent.

    Lawyers, no insult intended, work for fees. This particular legislation will be challenged when people who have money, who have the issues with the law, hire lawyers to do what lawyers do.

    A lawyer’s political bent is irrelevant.

    So the idea that we would have some kind of hope IF there were a pack of conservative lawyers to descend on DC and challenge this law, and since there isn’t we have little to no hope is flawed. It is a flawed view of reality.

60. #60
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:22 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “I would hate to see a bad one”

    Take a look at, sorry, the Bush years….

61. #61
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:22 pm, granite said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:00 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “For the right retainer”

    Full sentence:

    For the right retainer, just about any lawyer will play conservative for you.

    jsm:
    That sentence nicely illustrates why lawyers, as a group (there are many exceptions, including our son); as well as politicans, likely most of whom are lawyers, are often labeled as meretricous.

    From meretrix, which is the Latin word for prostitute.

62. #62
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:23 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    Really, gotta go…..

63. #63
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:24 pm, beenthere said:

    My point was that expecting some kind of swarming of conservative young lawyers to Washington to take down Leviathan is wishful thinking.

    I would be delighted enough if some grizzled old conservative lawyers dumped a few roadblocks in the way of Leviathan.

64. #64
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:26 pm, chapoutier said:

    That sentence nicely illustrates why lawyers, as a group (there are many exceptions, including our son); as well as politicans, likely most of whom are lawyers, are often labeled as meretricous.

    You should care more about the comptenence of your attorney you hire rather than whether or not he personally believes in what he is arguing.

    We are all required to zealously advocate for our client, even if we do think his idea is crap.

65. #65
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:28 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    Your name is William? /sarc

    I’m not sure America will last until 2013 with these idiots. Unless we can elect all conservatives in both houses, this isn’t going to get much better.
    

    I always laugh when people try to guess as it is always that name : ) And you are so right, its conservatives we need – not just Republicans.

66. #66
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:29 pm, Truesoldier said:

    Following the release of the 2,000-page Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill last Friday

    Let’s see a 2000+ page health care bill, a 2000 page financial regulation bill, next step will be a a 2000+ cap and tax bill and they will all have one thing in common, being so large as to make it next to impossible to be able to grasp the entire bills effects for decades.

    Perhaps Congress should follow the example fo AZ and have short to the point bills like the AZ immigration law.

67. #67
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:29 pm, Roland said:

    BTW, listening to the likes of chappy about the ‘objective’ culture of law school would be like listening to Tom Brokaw about the objectivity of the msm.

    And JS is an obvious pollyanna. Sure, nonconservative lawyers will take any case for the right fee, but if you don’t understand that in the hardest fought legal battles you are best equipped with highly capable lawyers who also believe in the case, you know nothing.

68. #68
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:31 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    next step will be a a 2000+ cap and tax bill and they will all have one thing in common, being so large as to make it next to impossible to be able to grasp the entire bills effects for decades.

    That’s the whole idea. If the bills were short, they’d be readable and more understandable. Its a deliberate effort to make the bills impossible to grasp until its too late.

69. #69
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:31 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “And JS is an obvious pollyanna.”

    Yes but as chap noted, I am a right pollyanna……

    So there.

70. #70
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:33 pm, Roland said:

    We are all required to zealously advocate for our client, even if we do think his idea is crap.

    Riiight, chappy. It makes no difference. All lawyers always give 100% on every case.

    Hilarious.

71. #71
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:34 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    I do like the response though Roland. When confronted with your inaccurate view of the way our legal system works your best argument is that I’m pollyannish.

    So name calling as a defense is now a conservative strategy?

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling. If we only had a group of conservative lawyers to rescue us…..

    Good plan.

72. #72
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:35 pm, chapoutier said:

    BTW, listening to the likes of chappy about the ‘objective’ culture of law school would be like listening to Tom Brokaw about the objectivity of the msm.

    Where did I say law was “objective”? I simply said we were not tested on any moral aspect.

    But whatever. I only went through three years of it, which would be about 30-35 tests none of which asked any moral questions, at a school that had a VERY active and large chapter of the Federalist Society. What would I know?

    You would think that if they wanted to weed anyone out, they could have just taken the sign up sheet to that club and started axing them one by one. Curiously, though, that didn’t happen.

73. #73
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:38 pm, chapoutier said:

    Riiight, chappy. It makes no difference. All lawyers always give 100% on every case.

    I never said that. I said we have to “zealously advocate” and I never claimed that all lawyers live up to that all the time.

    But you are an ignorant fool if you think that liberal lawyers don’t represent conservative clients all the time and do it very very well. Because you know what most lawyers care about more than the need to publicly spout off their principles? Getting that next client and retaining the ones you have. And you can only do that if you have a sterling reputation of competence and results, regardless of the client.

74. #74
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:39 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “All lawyers always give 100% on every case.”

    He said GOOD lawyers do.

    Not using Terry Goddard to defend SB1070 is a good example of how a lawyer’s politics do sometimes matter. He had come out opposed to SB1070 and is running for Governor as a Democrat. The idea that as the people’s lawyer for the state of AZ he’d be able to go a good job is absurd. He is not just a lawyer, he is a politician.

    So for him to be disqualified to represent AZ on SB1070 is appropriate. He should have stepped away voluntarily. Would have had more integrity too. “I don’t support the bill and can not in good faith defend it.”

    I’m sure the conservative lawyers I know will be glad to be released from their pretend conservatism so they can let their liberal indoctrination from law school finally out in the light.

    And just so you know Roland, I am of the persuasion that if you drowned 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea what you have is as the joke says, “a good start”.

    Sorry chap….

75. #75
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:40 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “they could have just taken the sign up sheet to that club and started axing them one by one.”

    That was like our nursing school admission process however.

76. #76
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:40 pm, FirstSkirt said:

    IMO, the average American citizen, even those with several advanced degrees, do not fully understand the financial systems/economic systems of the U.S., much less the “global economy”. You cannot blame Americans for feeling edgy when they see bills coming from Congress that have not even been read. Please, nothing is explained to us…we are relying on an Obama-loving press to keep us informed? Yeah, sure, right. If it wasn’t for blogs like Ms. Malkin’s, a lot of us would not know what guys like Barney Frank are trying to do. I’ll bet a lot of people do not know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are quasi-governmental bodies?

77. #77
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:43 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    Just wondering, how many of our founding father’s were lawyers?

    John Adams is the only one I am sure of without checking. Maybe Thomas Paine?

78. #78
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:45 pm, chapoutier said:

    Not using Terry Goddard to defend SB1070 is a good example of how a lawyer’s politics do sometimes matter

    And I would never say a lawyer’s politics never matter, especially when a lawyer has been particularly outspoken about them and it directly relates to the issue at hand. But it should certainly not be the driver in your decision making process. I would think it much more relevant to find out how many times my guy (or gal) has argued in front of the Supreme Court and his win-loss rather than what position he was taking on behalf of his client.

79. #79
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:46 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    He is no lawyer who cannot take two sides.
    Charles Lamb

80. #80
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:47 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.
    Charles Lamb

81. #81
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:49 pm, chapoutier said:

    Just wondering, how many of our founding father’s were lawyers?

    From this source:

    Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers. Of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.

82. #82
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:53 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    I found two different numbers. Both sets of numbers however indicate a majority of them were lawyers.

    Long live lawyers!

    They helped form the greatest country in history!

    Now maybe we could get them to move somewhere else and do the same there?

    Enjoy the day.

83. #83
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:54 pm, spaceycakes said:

    Not once was I ever asked how I “felt” about anything or asked to apply any sort of moral (relative or otherwise) structure

    So, you’re an autodidact?

84. #84
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:55 pm, granite said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:46 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    He is no lawyer who cannot take two sides.

    I remember something along those lines from debate club in high school.
    At some 4-round meets, in 2 rounds we argued for the affirmative; in 2 rounds for the negative.

85. #85
    On July 15th, 2010 at 12:59 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    What boggles my mind is the two who actually caused the financial meltdown are in charge of putting together a “regulation” bill?

    Give me a break.

86. #86
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:00 pm, chapoutier said:

    So, you’re an autodidact?

    Are you asking if I am self-taught? I think you meant something along the lines of automoton, in that we just spit back an answer by rote.

    If so, the answer to that would be no. There are many open issues in law that you need to wrnagle with, and many cases that one could cite and interpret to come to a particular conclusion. We were expected to argue, or at least acknowledge and write intelligently on, both sides. It is just that we were not asked to discuss the moral implications of those sides.

87. #87
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:06 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Speaking only for myself, there are a LOT of cases I decline.

    I also fire clients who lie…to me especially.

    I just spoke with a client, and advised them to settle on the best terms I can negotiate. They are in the wrong, and it is simply good lawyering to advise them of that. I don’t take cases before a jury I can’t honestly tell them has merit.

    Anything else is just bad lawyering, and bad economics for my clients, the courts, and society in general.

    But this tread is about the monstrosity formed by the two biggest banking whores in America.

88. #88
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:12 pm, chapoutier said:

    I just spoke with a client, and advised them to settle on the best terms I can negotiate. They are in the wrong, and it is simply good lawyering to advise them of that. I don’t take cases before a jury I can’t honestly tell them has merit.

    The issue being discussed wasn’t about the merits of the case, though. It was about the politics of the attorney and/or the client.

89. #89
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:13 pm, DBNinKY said:

    Where is all this contempt for the American people on the part of Democrat representatives coming from?

    Since taking over the House in 2006, Democrats have passed one job-squelching, freedom-crushing, dependency-creating bill after another all the while ignoring the pleas of citizens to do otherwise (ObamaCare, stimulus and now, financial reform);

    they keep the populace at risk by leaving our porous borders unchecked;

    they extend to illegals and terrorists the same citizen rights our forefathers fought to secure and protect (Holder’s plans for NYC trials for terrorists), but couldn’t care less if citizens are intimidated at polling places (DOJ-Panthers);

    they ridicule us (Rep Stark);

    manhandle us (Rep Etheridge);

    and mislead us at every turn (Pelosi, Reid, et al), yet still expect us to vote for them.

    I just don’t get it.

90. #90
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:15 pm, Mach1Duck said:

    One of the reasons the American voters are being whipped around is because they are disorganized. The sleeping giant has been kicked, but it does not know where to turn. Pull together, each of us can make a difference if we pull together.

91. #91
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:18 pm, granite said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:13 pm, DBNinKY said:

    I just don’t get it.

    It’s really quite simple:

    They are opposite-worldview holders, fascists, socialists, elitists, America-haters, collectivists, statists, arrogant know-it-alls, and lusters after power.

92. #92
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:19 pm, chapoutier said:

    But Rags does bring up a legitimate, and sticky problem, for lawyers wrt the merits of a case.

    But…I, for example, do not think that the Health Care bill is unconstitutional (we don’t have to argue this here, just accept the premise). But I do think a legally reasonable argument could be made for such. If a client came to me and asked me to represent them in a suit against the governemnt, I would be more than happy to do so. Well, except for the fact I don’t have the expertise in that area or court room experience. But you get my point.

93. #93
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:19 pm, chapoutier said:

    They are opposite-worldview holders, fascists, socialists, elitists, America-haters, collectivists, statists, arrogant know-it-alls, and lusters after power.

    Don’t forget “stunningly-witty-and-handsome.”

94. #94
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:25 pm, Blackstone said:

    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:19 pm, chapoutier said:

    But…I, for example, do not think that the Health Care bill is unconstitutional (we don’t have to argue this here, just accept the premise). But I do think a legally reasonable argument could be made for such. If a client came to me and asked me to represent them in a suit against the governemnt, I would be more than happy to do so.

    And it wouldn’t somehow feel “wrong” for you to stand before the court and forcefully make an argument that you disbelieve, as though you do believe it? Wouldn’t that be something like lying?

    (not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand your perspective)

95. #95
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:27 pm, spaceycakes said:

    actually, chapoutier, I was asking if you were ‘self taught’ on the portion that was left out:

    Not once was I ever asked how I “felt” about anything

96. #96
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:29 pm, rambler said:

    We still get kicked because the candidate has ties to the party. Support and funding count for something. Combine that with the White House thuggery and we have the candidate disappointing us. It means that many will need to be 1 termers until the message gets out. The mantra needs to be Recall and Replace. I think that all this is so new to everyone in DC that the the feeling is that we will run out of steam and everything will return to what they consider normal. They didn’t do this to us over night and we won’t get them to understand over night either. Getting them out of the gov permanently is the only answer. It has to extended beyond voting them out, since they can be appointed to other jobs. They need to be totally gone.

97. #97
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:32 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    with Chairman Barney Frank casting 6 of the ‘no’ votes himself.

    Can we send these people to jail yet?

98. #98
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:33 pm, chapoutier said:

    actually, chapoutier, I was asking if you were ‘self taught’ on the portion that was left out:

    Ahhh…I get it. My apoligies.

    So to actually answer your question: I thought lawyers, and by extension, judges, were supposed to be dispassionate and keep things like our views of morality out of our arguments and decisions. It’s all about the black letter, right?

    I don’t know…I work in an area that is not terribly fraught with great moral dilemmas. I’ve never had to grapple with whether or not I would represent guilty man (I think I would). The worst I deal with is whether to include terms in a contract I am writing that are blatantly one sided, and which I regularly object to when I see them in a contract presented to my client.

99. #99
    On July 15th, 2010 at 1:33 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Bureaucrats don’t like paperwork or too much mail.

    Don’t worry – they don’t do much actual work like reading letters or listening to phone calls. Most of the legislative work in this country is done by 19 year old interns while the Congresspeople are out whoring.

    Too harsh?

100. #100
     On July 15th, 2010 at 1:37 pm, Truesoldier said:

     On July 15th, 2010 at 12:33 pm, Roland said:
     Riiight, chappy. It makes no difference. All lawyers always give 100% on every case.

     If they are a smart lawyer that wants more business they will do it, but not every lawyer is smart.