Saturday, June 18, 2005

The Good Are Soon Corrupted- Lawyers 1 Step Removed

Senator Durbin, a typical Senate LAWYER (JD, Georgetown University, 1969) is part of the reason the public feels cheated when good people are elected to office and have their outlooks changed by the Washington, D.C. political machinery. Lawyers of both parties comprise 53% of the Senate nowadays and 100% of the Judicial branch. The separation of powers, a system of checks and balances conceived by our founders, has been subverted by class rule -the Lawyer Class.

We would certainly not consider a Senate of over 50% Realtors, Auto Salespersons or College Professors to faithfully represent America. Yet, look what has happened. People feel: 1) lawyers are smart; 2) lawyers are good at writing and reading law; and, 3) lawyers are models of decorum making them "naturals" for the job of congressman or senator. All of the above may be partially true. But, in reality: 4) lawyers are also trained to defend the guilty with any plausible lie; 5) propagandize juries; and, 6) extort money through mere threats (of litigation and personal ruin).

Newcomers go to Washington to serve their constituencies as promised, but with their rules of decorum are given a new pecking order placing federal judges atop a power structure dominated entirely by lawyers. Newbies feel powerless, humbled and very vulnerable, especially when threatened with political threats and retribution. Conversion to the Washington way of thinking takes place relatively quickly. Lawyers, it seems, are only one step removed from con artists and mobsters. The difference lies in their license to practice law.

What's worse yet, is that long-serving Senators like Durbin are the role models for newcomers. Anyone besides me starting to see a problem with the status quo?

2 Comments:

Blogger Rob said...

I'm a Democrat and generally lean left, but one thing Republicans championed in the "Contract with America" back in the mid 90's was the idea of term limits for Congress. There was argument against it, since many felt it takes away the choice of the people in who represents them. But while I can see the validity of said arguments, I see the overriding bad the "professional politician" class has caused over the years...on both sides of the aisle.

I have nothing but respect for the senior Senator in Hawaii. Sen. Daniel Inouye is a true testament to the "American dream". He went from being in an internment camp after aiding in recovery efforts on Dec. 7, 1941 (he was interred because of his Japanese ancestry), to serving in the Army and earning a battlefield commission, to being a leader of the heroic 442nd in Europe, where his actions led to the rescue of another American unit under intense enemy fire. He and members of his unit were awarded the Medal of Honor in 2000 for this action.

He has done well for Hawaii in the Senate, as shown by his overwhelming reelection margins (over 70% nearly every time).

But he's been a Senator longer than I've been alive, and I'm 36. He's nearing four decades in the Senate...I don't believe he's corrupt, but he's likely the exception...most long serving elected officials become beholden over time to the influences of the big money players, the corporations, the special interests.

Would that remain if those groups had to court new representatives every few years? Even if/when they managed to get their hooks in one, he'd be gone in short order (relatively speaking), and there's no guarantee the next guy would even be sympathetic to that interest's cause. It would be a major stumbling block to the big lobbies and special interests...and may help to break their hold on Congress and return representatives to actually representing the people, since they would be "the people", not the "legislative class".

10:37 PM  
Blogger Vigilis said...

We can agree on that, Rob.

7:54 PM  
|

Post a Comment

<< Home