Is it any wonder that the same lawyer that defended terrorists is attacking Arizona?

N

Norm D

New member
Is this the liberal idea of "justice." Should we try to get this guy disbarred like the liberals did to John Yoo?

Hypocrites...
 
Do you know what the job of a lawyer is? To put the best scenario forward for their client. The lawyer does not have to buy into the situation. That is not their job.
 
Wow, so a lawyer who believes in Habeus Corpus (you know, that whole thing in our Constitution that guarantees representation for anyone being tried in court) is attacking Arizona for a law that's unconstitutional? And that's hypocritical? Gotta question where you thought you were going with this one.
 
Wow...

I'm so *glad* that you know nothing about our justice system and the way it works.

Here: Why don't you go sit over there next to the kids at the coloring table and color for a bit?

It'd be less stressful for you and you wouldn't have to burden yourself with the adult world any.
 
Several Democrat lawyers that strongly support terrorists & other people that have attacked and killed Americans are now in the White House. Look at Democrat Obama's words, actions, associations, friends, etc. and that is not a surprise.
 
Whether he defended a terrorist or not is irrelevant. Everyone has the right to an attorney, and a really good attorney is able to defend even the indefensible (even if they personally disagree with it). Second, this is a government attorney employed by the Department of Justice, obviously someone who will do what he is payed to do and not after his own ideals. Next, even terrorists have the right to be defended and have their side of the story heard. Murderers are represented on a daily basis because they are still humans who have basic human worth. Terrorists, although terrible in their morals and actions, have basic worth. Finally, just becuase he represented a terrorist has no implications on his ability to attack the Arizona law. He is merely the tool. The base argument that the DOJ put out there will still be argued, which is legitimate.
 
Back
Top