Let’s kill all the lawyers

When I was admitted to practice in New York many years ago I was required to take an oath that went something like this:

Lawyer’s Oath
I do solemnly swear:

I will support the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the State of [practicing state here]; I will
maintain the respect due to courts of justice and
judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any suit
or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust,
nor any defense except such as I believe to be
honestly debatable under the law of the land;
I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes
confided to me such means only as are consistent with
truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge
or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;
I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the
secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in
connection with my client’s business except with my
client’s knowledge and approval; I will abstain from
all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial
to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which I am
charged; I will never reject, from any consideration
personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed, or delay any cause for lucre or malice;
I will in all other respects conduct myself personally
and professionally in conformity with the high standards
of conduct imposed upon members of the bar as
conditions for the privilege to practice law in this State.”

You can even get this in a plaque with the name of the state inserted as well as your name.

Well, they may as well discontinue that line of bric-a-brac because it doesn’t even have sentimental value anymore.

If you are a lawyer, you can lose your licence to practice if you are caught with an ounce of crack. What if you violate your oath, violate the constitution and urge others to do the same? It turns out nothing happens. You can in fact proudly proclaim the constitution should be scrapped–albeit for non-Christian foreigners, at least for now–and you not only don’t get disbarred. You get to “teach” law at Harvard and use this “prestige” to spread your views in the New York Times editorial pages. Because all that ancient Whig talk about due process and the whole original tea party thing and the-shot-heard-round-the-world (which was discharged to prevent the British from rounding up the terrorists Samuel Adams and John Hancock to send them to “trial” in Britain)–all of that stuff, well, that was for the Eighteenth Century. And, anyway, they didn’t have to worry about terrorism in those days. Not like Indians hired by the British might burn down your house or the like.

And in those days they didn’t throw out coerced evident. Never mind that they didn’t coerce evidence. The fact is a federal judge doesn’t want the CIA to torture people. Whoever heard of that use of the rule of law? Not Assistant Attorneys General in the Administration of George W. Bush. The rule of law in that administration applied to people with an ounce of crack, not to those who wanted to dismantle the Constitution.

The street performers who now support the same philosophy, dress up like Eighteenth Century patriots, but don’t have the slightest concept of what being one was all about.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s