|
What a retarded jump in logic.
"Of course, Edwards's own cases may have been legitimate, but given jurors' difficulty in making scientific determinations and the trial bar's record in this area, there is certainly reason to be suspicious. Why then, in an era in which candidates are so subject to public scrutiny, has Edwards been given such a pass?"
How about... BECAUSE THE CASES MAY HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATE??
The answer is right in front of your eyes- if the doctors were negligent, they were responsible. How can you color Edwards' plaintiffs as anything but legitimate without knowing the facts of the cases? Certainly they were found to have been wronged- isn't that the point?
Argue all you like about our legal system, but blaming John Edwards for representing people against corporations is sad commentary. That's the whole point of the legal system, to represent those who don't have the expertise to represent themselves... would you rather Edwards be a corporate attorney, turning away claims by legitimately wronged families?
|