Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-04-2002, 03:14 PM

<a href="http://arktimes.com/brummett/053102brummett.html" target="_blank">A worrisome judicial appointment from Arkansas</a>

Quote:

Lavenski Smith, for the moment the chairman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission, probably will be confirmed soon by the U. S. Senate to serve on the U. S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

. . .as the Supreme Court showed by deciding the recent presidential election in conformity to its political leaning, judges have the real power.

All of that obscures, perhaps by strategic design, the weaknesses in Lavenski Smith's nomination. He is woefully inexperienced and he has embraced conservative alliances that raise questions about whether his politics are a tad extreme and whether he will be adequately devoted to the law on separation of church and state and a woman's right to choose abortion.

In fact, this reminds me of Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court. Cynical Republicans figured they could neutralize liberal dissent by choosing a dark-skinned nominee with a limited record obscuring conservative extremism. . . .

Meantime, he was once the volunteer executive director of the Rutherford Institute, which thinks entirely too much is made of separating church and state and which aided Paula Jones in her battle with a certain Democratic president.

Smith said several years ago that he would practice law from a Christian perspective. That was his business, of course. But it longer would be his business as a federal appeals judge in a multi-cultural, religiously free democracy that cannot impose a particular religion through the actions of any branch of its government.

Smith also represented plaintiffs years ago in a lawsuit seeking to forbid abortions altogether at the University Hospital, even if paid for privately, on the argument that the doctors got their salaries paid by the state. He lost.

<a href="http://www.rutherford.org/" target="_blank">The Rutherford Institute</a> has a lot of great sounding rhetoric, but brings cases designed to poke holes in the wall of separation, such as the recent Good News Club case in the Supreme Court which expanded religious groups' rights to use public school facilities.

fromtheright · 06-04-2002, 03:54 PM

Toto,

Sounds like one of the good guys has finally made it on the Court.

I don't know anything about this appointment but am curious how his level of experience compares to that of Democratic appointments. Any particular "conservative alliances" that are extreme? Are we deciding who is extreme by whether he is associated with Rutherford because of the Paula Jones episode?

It just amazes me to hear Thomas described as an extremist. Yes, some of his opinions have taken a different turn from previous decisions, but I hardly think that makes him an extremist, when those opinions are considered. And practicing law from a Christian perspective hardly means that he seeks to impose a theocracy.

Also, I'm not sure that it is "pok[ing] holes in the wall of separation" for the Supreme Court to make a decision that impacts a wall which they discovered in the first place. Maybe the wall wasn't intended to be as solid as you guys see it.

"[R]represented plaintiffs years ago in a lawsuit seeking to forbid abortions..." Does the fact that a lawyer represents a rapist mean that the lawyer endorses rape? If we're going to impute motivations let's do it from what we know to be a person's viewpoint rather than from one's position as a paid advocate. Perhaps he did agree wholeheartedly with the case, but that should be supported by more than what his clients wanted.

Buffman · 06-04-2002, 06:30 PM

And practicing law from a Christian perspective hardly means that he seeks to impose a theocracy.

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I understand your definition of practicing law from a Christian perspective.

Dark Jedi · 06-05-2002, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:
<strong>"[R]represented plaintiffs years ago in a lawsuit seeking to forbid abortions..." Does the fact that a lawyer represents a rapist mean that the lawyer endorses rape? If we're going to impute motivations let's do it from what we know to be a person's viewpoint rather than from one's position as a paid advocate. Perhaps he did agree wholeheartedly with the case, but that should be supported by more than what his clients wanted.
</strong>

Your comparison fails in that a rape defendant is there against his will, guilty or not. He is entitled to a fair trial with competant representation.
In the case of a civil suit, the plaintiff is there by an act of will. They willfully oppose or seek to change the subject of the suit. As representation of that case, it infers a very very strong likelihood that he supports and agrees with the plaintiff.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2002, 03:54 PM	#2
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Toto, Sounds like one of the good guys has finally made it on the Court. I don't know anything about this appointment but am curious how his level of experience compares to that of Democratic appointments. Any particular "conservative alliances" that are extreme? Are we deciding who is extreme by whether he is associated with Rutherford because of the Paula Jones episode? It just amazes me to hear Thomas described as an extremist. Yes, some of his opinions have taken a different turn from previous decisions, but I hardly think that makes him an extremist, when those opinions are considered. And practicing law from a Christian perspective hardly means that he seeks to impose a theocracy. Also, I'm not sure that it is "pok[ing] holes in the wall of separation" for the Supreme Court to make a decision that impacts a wall which they discovered in the first place. Maybe the wall wasn't intended to be as solid as you guys see it. "[R]represented plaintiffs years ago in a lawsuit seeking to forbid abortions..." Does the fact that a lawyer represents a rapist mean that the lawyer endorses rape? If we're going to impute motivations let's do it from what we know to be a person's viewpoint rather than from one's position as a paid advocate. Perhaps he did agree wholeheartedly with the case, but that should be supported by more than what his clients wanted.

06-04-2002, 06:30 PM	#3
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	And practicing law from a Christian perspective hardly means that he seeks to impose a theocracy. Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I understand your definition of practicing law from a Christian perspective.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.