Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
|
Alrightey, then!
So, it looks like your primary source (which you quote in full, with a small response at the bottom - clearly you were channeling host ;-)) is the National Review Online. I would put it to you that they are a clearly biased right-wing outfit. That isn't to say that they are wrong, but, really, I don't expect them to be unbiased when it comes to a democratic candidate who also happens to be a trial lawyer who sues on behalf of 'the little guy' against doctors, hospitals, and large companies. Maybe you agree, maybe not. Regardless, let's look at the facts they present. Just because they are biased doesn't mean they are wrong.
Quote:
|
Not only is this how Edwards made his millions, but due to the donations from trial lawyers you will NEVER see any improvement in the insane litigations until the democrats are out of power in the house, senate and white house. Right now with senate rules nothing can be done even though they are not a majority.
|
Ok, so, to paraphrase your arguments and assumptions:
1) There is a litigation problem in the US. Trial lawyers are harming our country by their practices.
This is not self-evident to me, even though it may be so to you. Prove to me that there's a problem.
2) Trial lawyers 'own' democrats through their campaign contributions.
I'll grant you that trial lawyers contribute to democrats more than republicans. It's probably true. How is this different from every other special interest donating to politicians? How is it worse for the country than, let's say, Big Business lobbying for their interests? Or me sending a cheque to a given candidate along with a letter asking them to pay attention to my point of view? Unfortunately, money talks. That's the way the system works. People give money to the campaigns of people who agree with them on various positions, and politicians are more likely to listen to people to donate to them.
3) Edwards is part of the problem.
Is this because he's a trial lawyer and all trial lawyers are bad, or are their good trial lawyers, and Edwards has done something in particular that is bad?
Forgive me for paraphrasing instead of quoting you directly, but I'm trying to get at the meat of your arguments, and point out some assumptions that I think you are making implicitly rather than stating explicitly. Feel free to correct me if I misstated or didn't state any of your points.
More quotes - specific quotes from the original article that you use to bolster your case:
Quote:
Edwards has repeatedly told campaign audiences that he fought on behalf of the common man against the large insurance companies. But a political critic with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career in North Carolina told CNSNews.com a different story
"Edwards always helped the little guy as long as he got a million dollars out of it," said the source, who did not want to be identified.
|
That is utter bullshit. First, the source is anonymous for no apparent reason. He or she spouts a silly accusation, which effectively amounts to "Edwards did his job as long as he got paid. Oh, and by the way, he got paid a lot." So, I'm supposed to be jealous of how much a successful trial lawyer like Edwards makes? Fine, I am. I'd love to have a job that makes me millions of dollars. But that doesn't mean he is a bad person. He only did his job so long as he got paid? So does my mechanic, my doctor, and myself. Few people can afford to work for free, and, of those that can, I assert there's no moral obligation for them to do so.
Several websites seem to indicate that he didn't do any 'pro bono' work while he was a lawyer. After a few quick minutes googling, I don't find anything to dispute that. If true, that's certainly a concern - my understanding is that it's considered a professional obligation for attorney's to provide some pro bono work. It's something I'd like clarification on. However, it doesn't necessarily disqualify him as a candidate for president, to me, and doesn't seem worthy of the hatred people have for him.
Do you think Edward's charged too much for his services? Maybe so, but from what I've read, they sound perfectly inline with standard lawyer fees to me. Unfortunately, we live in capitalist system, and people can charge whatever the market will bear. Apparently the market bears paying (good) lawyers lots and lots of money. Fine. Edwards, btw, worked on contingency - meaning if he lost a case, he got nothing. If he won, then he got a (large) percentage of the 'winnings'. Apparently his clients thought this was fair. As an aside, it's important to note that many of the 'high dollar' awards we hear about are later reduced by a judge, on appeal, or by plea bargain.
Quote:
The cause of cerebral palsy has been debated since the 19th century.
Some medical studies dating back to at least the 1980s asserted that doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process. Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise of the high profile court cases that helped Edwards become a multi-millionaire ...
|
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that scientific consensus has been building since the 1980s that 'doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process.' Fair enough. I haven't done the research to check up on this, because I've spent too much time on this post as it is, so I'll accept it as a given for now. However, from the very article you quote:
Quote:
|
Dr. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, said it is conceivable for a doctor's incompetence to cause cerebral palsy in an infant. "There are some cases where the brain damage did occur at the time of delivery. But it's really unusual. It's really quite unusual," Goldstein said.
|
So, a cerebral palsy expert, who one would assume is up on the latest research, says that while it is 'quite unusual' for cerebral palsy to be caused during delivery, it does happen in 'some cases'.
So, what proof do you have that:
1. The specific cases that Edwards was involved in were cases where the doctor was not at fault? What specifically about the case makes you think it was decided incorrectly? Where did the judge and jury go wrong?
- Remember, the article you quoted still allows that cerebral palsy *could* be caused during delivery. One would assume that Edwards would tend to pick cases that he could win - in other words, those cases where the doctor was at fault.
2. If you think that some of the cases Edwards won for his clients were illegitimate, then what makes you think that Edwards had reason to believe that the doctor was not at fault? According to the article you quoted, scientific consensus had not yet been reached in the 80's and 90's when Edwards was taking part in these cases.
3. What, exactly, did Edwards do in these cases that was so wrong?
Hrm, maybe this is a clue to what you think he did wrong:
Quote:
The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.
'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"
Edwards' emotional plea worked. ...
|
So, apparently the author of the article knows that it was the emotional plea by Edwards that swayed the jury, not the facts of the case. He doesn't back up this assertion with facts, alas. The quote mentioned above is cheesy, to say the least. It's clearly an emotional plea, with more than a little mumbo-jumbo. However, I suspect that Jennifer's parents *hired* Edwards to speak on their daughter's behalf in the most eloquent way he could, because they thought she had been harmed by her doctor. The jury in this case agreed with this, and awarded the parent's compensation. The judge approved the verdict. Edwards got paid his part of the settlement. What part of this process is wrong?
Making emotional pleas on behalf of their clients is one of the things lawyers do. Any decent lawyer recognizes that juries decisions are not entirely logical. This is a flaw in our legal system - that juries (and judges) are human, and are often swayed by things other than plain facts and logical arguments. If you have a recommendation to fix it, I'm all ears. However, in the context of our legal system, it was Edward's *duty* to argue for his clients as best he could. Not just an option. A duty. He has a duty to make the strongest possible case, within the law and the guidelines of his profession. When has Edwards ever been charged with violating the law, or reprimanded or disbarred for his conduct?
Quote:
|
"Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law," Olson told CNSNews.com .
|
He was a good lawyer, by all accounts, including in this aspect. Great. If I needed a lawyer, it sounds like he would be a good choice. This doesn't necessarily mean he'd make a good president. But on the other hand, it doesn't mean he'd be unsuitable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Edwards is a typical [**redacted, as apparently the term offends some people**] lawyer, out for a buck, and he doesn’t care who’s life he fucks with, as long as there is a big pay out. He has been bought by the trial lawyers of America, and has no place as the president. The highlighted text above makes one wonder WHICH John Edwards we're are talking about, but they are both con artists so I guess it doesn't mater.
|
You haven't show me any wrongdoing on his part. It sounds to me as if you're against the very existence of trial lawyers. I find that to be completely ridiculous. You're welcome to hold that opinion, but if you're trying to convince me that it is true, or that Edwards is a bad guy, you haven't managed it.
How did Edwards behave improperly? Who did he harm?