MaxedOutMama
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Mad Poets on the Stewart Case
I felt a lot easier in my mind after reading what some legal minds had to say about the Lynne Stewart case. I certainly don't want the government prosecuting lawyers who represent unpopular clients on whatever charges they can come up with, but people whose general reasoning I trust seem to be relatively comfortable with the case, and they certainly know more than I do.
One that's particularly good is up at Mad Poets Anonymous. He linked to another post at Mellow-Drama which is exceptionally useful for gaining perspective. The poster is not discomfited by the prosecution but a commenter disagrees and make the case on the other side. It is interesting that those who support Stewart seem to concede that she broke the law:
One that's particularly good is up at Mad Poets Anonymous. He linked to another post at Mellow-Drama which is exceptionally useful for gaining perspective. The poster is not discomfited by the prosecution but a commenter disagrees and make the case on the other side. It is interesting that those who support Stewart seem to concede that she broke the law:
hmmm... y'all are mising the broader picture. the NLG has never disagreed w/the fact that Lynne Stewart broke the letter of the law. But- as law students and lawyers we have to question whether those "laws" (or in this case executive rules w/no checks and balances) are constitutional and valid. I'm guessing everyone who posts to this site is pretty much square against civil disobediance as a way to create social change b/c well y'all are in favor of corporate control. But I ask you- if you are in favor of the Iraq War- how can you hypocritically say that the war was justified even tho it was against international law (illegal!) and is using violence as a means to an end??? I'm actually against the war AND would never have done what Stewart did- BUT I see her case for its broader implications- what it means for executive power and our system of checks-and balances and the adversarial process.It's also notable that Mellow Drama was aware that there was a possibility of abuse and seems to have tried to check into the problem. I would be perturbed if many of these types of prosecutions went forward or were threatened. The situation can't be totally black or white.
Comments:
<< Home
I'm more sympathetic to Martha as well, but that might be a product of my own ignorance. I thought she was railroaded, and I doubt I would have voted to convict if I were on the jury - but then I didn't hear the whole trial and all the evidence.
Hmmm. I read your quote of that comment, then went to the site and read it again. Maybe I'm dumber than your average just-beyond-teenage law student, but I have no idea what the writer is trying to say.
Civil disobedience has a long and sometimes distinguished history. Part of it involves paying the price for disobedience, and I have no problem with Stewart going to jail. It's always amazing to me that lawyers, like journalists, consider themselves to be above the law that applies to us commoners.
As far as Martha of the Stewarts is concerned, I'll join any demonstration in support of her. But, she wasn't a lawyer or a reporter, so I guess she was fair game.
Civil disobedience has a long and sometimes distinguished history. Part of it involves paying the price for disobedience, and I have no problem with Stewart going to jail. It's always amazing to me that lawyers, like journalists, consider themselves to be above the law that applies to us commoners.
As far as Martha of the Stewarts is concerned, I'll join any demonstration in support of her. But, she wasn't a lawyer or a reporter, so I guess she was fair game.
Tom,
Most lawyers don't consider themselves above the law. I'm sure they feel a bit smug about their superior knowledge of it, but I can't blame them for that.
That commenter was saying that she was right to dissent and that she should not have been charged, that she should have received only an administrative penalty. It's amazing how many blogging lawyers don't agree; given most of the press coverage I have read I would have concluded that there was a legal consensus that prosecuting Lynne Stewart was unjustified.
The comment pretty well declares the mindset I think. I had not considered people like you and me were just automatically "in favor of corporate control", and I'm kind of stunned at the insight that allows the commenter to immediately know all that. I rather enjoyed the logical discrepancy between recommending civil dissent against "improper" domestic laws but of course a slavish consideration of international law.
What I thought was most useful in gaining perspective is that those opposing the government's action seem to be doing so while conceding that the government had the law on its side. I'm just trying to entertain you, Tom!!
Post a Comment
Most lawyers don't consider themselves above the law. I'm sure they feel a bit smug about their superior knowledge of it, but I can't blame them for that.
That commenter was saying that she was right to dissent and that she should not have been charged, that she should have received only an administrative penalty. It's amazing how many blogging lawyers don't agree; given most of the press coverage I have read I would have concluded that there was a legal consensus that prosecuting Lynne Stewart was unjustified.
The comment pretty well declares the mindset I think. I had not considered people like you and me were just automatically "in favor of corporate control", and I'm kind of stunned at the insight that allows the commenter to immediately know all that. I rather enjoyed the logical discrepancy between recommending civil dissent against "improper" domestic laws but of course a slavish consideration of international law.
What I thought was most useful in gaining perspective is that those opposing the government's action seem to be doing so while conceding that the government had the law on its side. I'm just trying to entertain you, Tom!!
<< Home
