Here’s a piece forwarded to my email today. I’m assuming his numbers & facts are accurate, and he makes some interesting observations. Thought y’all would appreciate it.

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 Frist 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 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 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 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 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.

The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you” and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!

  1. trishothinks says:

    Wow…..that’s either enlightening or scary….possibly both.

    Maybe we should ban lawyers in this country!


  2. sirrahc says:

    Hey, Trisho! Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

    Yeah, it’s both. A couple lawyer jokes come to mind…. But, we have to remember that there ARE decent lawyers out there, and rumor has it there are even a few ethical tort lawyers!

    Btw, I like your blog. I’ll be back later.

  3. pastorjeffcma says:

    I don’t think I was aware of the consistency of such a “prestigious” profession was a bedrock of the Democratic party. Makes the chances of tort reform “somewhat” slim, don’t you think? Great information!

  4. sirrahc says:

    Slim, but not impossible. ;->

  5. Mark Baird says:

    Let’s look at how a tort trial typically works. The injured party has a lawyer (you know, the “bad guy”). The doctor/corporation/defendant has a lawyer (or lawyers). There is a judge. And then there are twelve (sometimes six) ordinary citizens. – the jury.

    The injured party’s lawyer has a chance to tell his client’s story. The lawyer(s) for the doctor/corporation/defendant has a chance to tell his(their) client’s side of the story.

    The judge tells the jury what the rules they have to apply to the case are.

    Then the jury makes a decision.

    It is this last group of people the Republicans are really complaining about. They are the ones deciding whether to award money to the person who claims s/he was injured.

    But to hear the Republicans tell the story, you would think that there is only one lawyer in the courtroom (the injured person’s lawyer), the judge is asleep, and the injured persons’s lawyer is sitting with the jurors as they deliberate, telling them what to do.

  6. Mark Baird says:

    And so you want to limit access to local courts.

    A jury is made up of local citizens, men and women from the community who are in the best position to evaluate how the conduct at issue compares with the standards of the community in which they live.

    • The composition of the jury is not known in advance of the trial, thus reducing the likelihood of undue influence being exerted on the jurors from either side.

    • Jurors cannot be paid by either side. They can only consider evidence that meets a certain threshold of reliability and can only consider testimony given under oath. They cannot be approached by one party outside the presence of the other party. (Compare this with the legislative process, where access to the decision maker often depends on contributions having been made by an interested party; testimony is frequently not given under oath; no reliability threshold for evidence is required; and interested parties usually lobby the decision maker outside the presence of the other interested parties).

    • Jurors commonly complete their service in just a few days or weeks and then return to their private lives. Judges are often on the bench for many years, and in some cases for life, leaving them vulnerable to ongoing efforts to influence their decisions.

    • It may be easy to find one errant adjudicator who is out of touch with their community (such as a judge). It’s much harder to find 12 ordinary citizens who will come to an outrageous result, and even if they do, there are mechanisms in place to correct such a result.

    And so if you can not trust juries who can you trust. If the common man is not capable of knowing how to run his schools locally or how to spend his money who can you trust. If the common man is not capable of being the conscience of society then who is? If the common man is not capable of dealing with complex medical cases then maybe we should just eliminate all juries regarding complex cases and even complex murder cases and let politically appointed judges decide or a panel of experts.

    Yes, maybe we should start to reduce access to the courts, a justice system that our founding fathers gave us. That would be the Democratic/liberal thing to do, let big government in DC set a nationwide cap. That is so Democratic/liberal. Let big business accumulate more power and influence.

    Be careful what you wish for and quit being, well so liberal.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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