Free Liberal

Coordinating towards higher values

Neither Left Nor Right

by Paul Jacob

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head.

Nathan Koppel, in an article at the Wall Street Journal's online site, finds it odd that a former Bush administration attorney is now in private practice arguing against a prosecutor who fabricated evidence in a murder suit. A similar piece at law.com, by Tony Mauro, proclaims that, "To Build Practice, Ex-Bush [Solicitor General] Embraces Liberal Clients."

Now, I'm not exactly a conservative, but I make common cause with conservatives all the time. Many of my best friends are conservative, and so are some of my best ideas. So I ask you: Since when is defending a wrongfully convicted man against a lying, unjust prosecutor any more "liberal" than "conservative"?

Does conservatism really mean letting governments cook up evidence to throw innocents into prison?

No.

And yet both of these writers characterized former Solicitor General Paul Clement as somehow liberal and unconservative for "embracing" -- yes -- "liberal clients."

Well, a hug was involved. But if a lawyer ably defended you against a malign, immoral agent of the state, mightn't you offer a hug?

Embraces aside, the issue at hand is neither conservative nor liberal. Americans -- of any party -- oppose injustice. Right?

Or: left?

This is not a matter of left-right disagreement. Or party politics. Or, even, America vs. other nations. It's simple justice.

Paul Jacob's "Common Sense" is published by the Citizens in Charge Foundation. Their website can be visited at www.citizensincharge.org.


« Government Stimulus, One Year Later | Main | Tax Favors for Government Employees? »

Comments

As near as I can tell, the conservative judicial philosophy is to build up the myth of a powerful and omniscient government which will "protect us from evildoers" and "scare would-be criminals straight," and as such conservatives are more interested in having judicial cases decided quickly than in having them decided correctly, so long as they can convince the public that they system is (usually) right. This can be seen in their willingness to discard Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections and, yes, in their willingness to frame someone if they don't know who is really guilty (or, if they know who is guilty and don't want the public to know that that person is guilty).

# posted at by Miko