Will Edwards be the new AG if obama wins?

[rpanic]

Politicians don?t have to appoint qualified people, only people that will do what they want.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Citrix
i bet he will be.

Supreme Court Justice imo.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Harvey

qualified in that he's, like, seen the inside of a court room.

barely in that he has absolutely no experience with federal law or managing a huge organization like the justice department.

As a personal injury lawyer, Edwards specialized in corporate negligence and medical malpractice cases. In the two decades before he was elected to the Senate, he is reported to have won about $152 million in 63 suits, primarily battling large law firms well funded by for their negligent large corporate clients. That why he won a reputation as a defender of the poor and working class.

In the Senate, Senator Edwards continued to be a champion for regular, hard-working families, taking on critical issues like quality health care, better schools, protecting civil liberties, preserving the environment, saving Social Security and Medicare, and getting big money out of politics.

That sounds like a lot of good experience to me.

I'm not sure what kind of "proof" you're really looking for other than being antagonistic. 😕

Since you're the one who said he's "barely qualified," and considering the substantial public record of his achievements, proof that he's done anything that would indicate he's not qualified would be a start.

Why is asking you to back your own unsubstantiated, derogatory and FALSE statement being antagonistic? Or is distracting from the truth about the issue you raised the best you can muster? :roll:

it's what he hasn't done.

what has he done that makes him more qualified to serve as AG than any other ambulance chaser? he's got no experience in federal law beyond a lack-luster term in the senate. the only experience you quoted was:

As a personal injury lawyer, Edwards specialized in corporate negligence and medical malpractice cases.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

qualified in that he's, like, seen the inside of a court room.

barely in that he has absolutely no experience with federal law or managing a huge organization like the justice department.

As a personal injury lawyer, Edwards specialized in corporate negligence and medical malpractice cases. In the two decades before he was elected to the Senate, he is reported to have won about $152 million in 63 suits, primarily battling large law firms well funded by for their negligent large corporate clients. That why he won a reputation as a defender of the poor and working class.

In the Senate, Senator Edwards continued to be a champion for regular, hard-working families, taking on critical issues like quality health care, better schools, protecting civil liberties, preserving the environment, saving Social Security and Medicare, and getting big money out of politics.

That sounds like a lot of good experience to me.

I'm not sure what kind of "proof" you're really looking for other than being antagonistic. 😕

Since you're the one who said he's "barely qualified," and considering the substantial public record of his achievements, proof that he's done anything that would indicate he's not qualified would be a start.

Why is asking you to back your own unsubstantiated, derogatory and FALSE statement being antagonistic? Or is distracting from the truth about the issue you raised the best you can muster? :roll:

Harvey,

Over the years I've seen you demonstrate some fairly impressive knowledge over a pretty broad range of unrelated topics. So you surprise me here. I must assume that you have been exceptionally fortunate to have so completely avoided a courtroom or intraction with attorneys.

If you were charged with DUI, would you seek out a patent attorney?

Should a divorce lawyer handle a 1st degree murder case?

So, John Edwards has made a good living suing for product liability - tort law (medical malpractice was his specialty). These are cases under state law. North carolina law in his case.

You do realize that the AG has NOTHING to do with state law (and product liability or medical malpractice is only a small sliver of state law anyway). His area of responsibility is federal law. Other than possible familiarity with the federal UCC (Uniform Commerce Code - again, which has nothing to do with the AG's responsibilities) Edwards has NO demostrable experience with federal law. In fact, no experience in any area of responsibility assigned to an AG.

It's been proven here in this thread that state tort law - product liability or MM - has nothing to do with the AG's responsibilites, so how is it, again, exactly that Edwards has good experience for the job of AG? BTW: I'll point out that the AG is rarely in court himself, and when he is it has nothing to do with tort law, it's about Constitutional law. AFAIK, Edwards has never argued before the SCOTUS. In fact, I can find no evidence he has even appeared beofre the NC state supreme court or is even qualified to argue a case before the US Supreme Court.

Link to Edwards most important cases


Description of AG's responsibilities:

The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 503) concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The Attorney General is considered to be the chief lawyer of the US government. The Attorney General serves as a member of the President's Cabinet, but is the only cabinet department head who is not given the title Secretary.

The office of Attorney General was established by Congress in 1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."[1] Only in 1870 was the Department of Justice established to support the Attorney General in the discharge of his responsibilities.

The members of the Department of Justice represent the United States in legal matters generally and offer advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the Supreme Court in cases of exceptional importance. Under most circumstances the United States Solicitor General argues before the Supreme Court on the government's behalf. The Attorney General is seventh in the United States presidential line of succession.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think Fern's attacks on Edwards are predictably partisan and baseless...

-snip-

If you're gonna make that claim, the least you can do is back it up.

Fern

 

[extra]

I don't think so. Not that he wouldn't be a decent one. The people saying "he's not qualified" are acting like he'd hafta manage the whole thing by himself. This is silly and obviously not the case. HOWEVER I think obama would do better to appoint someone more experienced in constitutional matters and in management.

I don't know why everyone is so focused on AG or Supreme Court Justice. There are two high level positions of which Edwards would be *ideally suited* and would be in his element of helping out those in need:

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
or
Secretary of Labor

He would be absolutely fantastic for either of those positions and would do well. From either post he would be set up to help deal with the issue of poverty much better than from the AG's office or as a Supreme Court justice.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Current MA Governor Deval Patrick will be made AG by Obama.

 

[miketheidiot]

i think there would be better positions for edwards to pursue his agenda than AG.

obama would be a much more qualified individual, for instance

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think Fern's attacks on Edwards are predictably partisan and baseless...

-snip-

If you're gonna make that claim, the least you can do is back it up.

Fern

Well, it's a matter of opinion. You made attacks that were not backed up for the most part.

The *nice clean guy* image he has seems completely phony. We saw some of the *real* John Edwards during his Senate campaign. This guy can be totally vicious and coaches clients/witnesses to lie on the stand.

During the election, a piece of video poped up showing Edwards in the courtroom and in counsel's chambers. (I must assume that teh video was shot by a lawyer working with him, the general population is forbidden from carring any electrical devices into court). The nice smiling Edwards while in public or a courtroom is COMPLETELY different than the one behind closed doors. He berated his client/witness for not lying correctly and then proceeded to coach him on what (and how) to say.

"Completely" phony? I don't think so. You don't provide evidence from the Senate campaign.

How is he "totally vicious" in a way inconsistent with how he should behave as a lawyer or Senate candidate? Did he do a push poll about illegitimate black children?

If the video you describe was made public, obviously, it didn't cause him any problems with the bar for anything inappropriate. You accuse him of repeatedly coaching people to lie, offering only one anecdote, and not any specifics for that one anecdote. You then go on to change the word lying to coaching them what to say and how to say it. *That's what trial lawyers do*, within certain limitations. You fail to make the case for your attacks at all.

Are you attacking based on how you don't like what trial lawyers do, or are you attacking him for doing something wrong as a trial lawyer?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Citrix
i bet he will be.

I like the sound of that. AG Edwards. Nice.

 

[Pepsei]

technically speaking, you don't even have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court....

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Fern
I live in NC; i.e., where Edwards is from.

The *nice clean guy* image he has seems completely phony. We saw some of the *real* John Edwards during his Senate campaign. This guy can be totally vicious and coaches clients/witnesses to lie on the stand.

During the election, a piece of video poped up showing Edwards in the courtroom and in counsel's chambers. (I must assume that teh video was shot by a lawyer working with him, the general population is forbidden from carring any electrical devices into court). The nice smiling Edwards while in public or a courtroom is COMPLETELY different than the one behind closed doors. He berated his client/witness for not lying correctly and then proceeded to coach him on what (and how) to say.

That video made the hair on the back of my neck stand up; he's that scary. He's not ethical from what I can see.

IMO he's not qualified either. As Sirjonk points out, there are an awful lot of different areas of law; product liability has exactly zilch in common with criminal or Constitutional law.

Nor has he ever managed a large prosecuters office. The AG is responsible for managing all the offices of federal prosecuters (and their cases) across the country. He has no experience in that.

IMO, this is no time for a neophyte, we need someone with a lot of Constitutional law experience to go along prosecutorial and management experience.

Fern

Where is that video now?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
technically speaking, you don't even have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court....

No, the US Constitution doesn't require a lawyer be appointed. Of course it's only about 10 double spaced pages so they had to leave some things to common sense.

 

[Lemon law]

Implicit in the thread seems to be the premise that Obama bought Edwards endorsement by promising him a given position. And now we are falling over ourselves by totally baseless speculation guesses on what that position is.

But we are talking about an Edwards who has good looks, sacks fulls of money, sadly a dying wife, and we have to look at things through his eyes.

He is still fairly young and now is somewhat searching for a mission in life. Right now he is out of office and I think he correctly guessed that Obama is the inevitable democratic nominee. And there are a plethora of position in a likely Obama Presidency that would give him a way to stay in the public mind. And once he has a position, like all politicians, he has to figure opportunities will exist for him to seek a better position.

But when a politician hold no office, its very hard to come back. I think that is the main Edwards motivator, democrats will look after democrats. And if McCain wins, Edwards will be diminished.

I also think much too much was made of the poor 2004 debate showing Edwards had against Cheney. Much of that was due to Kerry muzzling Edwards during the campaign, but when Edwards is arguing his own case, he can be a very formidable advocate with the passion and fire so missing against Cheney.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Edwards will not be on Scotus, and AG is really unlikely. He is neither a judge nor a prosecutor. There's a thousand types of law, and class action products liability is not good practice for the rigorous constitutional arguments Scotus decides, nor has he demonstrated a highly notable legal acumen that would qualify him for the post short of 10+ years on the bench like the other justices. He'll probably be named poverty czar and be appointed diplomat to some third world country where he'll learn about real poverty. Or he'll just accept an endorsement deal from Pantene and call it a day.

He already learned about real poverty at the hedge fund he worked at, remember?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
Obama must have promised him something for the endorsement, but a cabinet seat seems a bit much for a guy who's just barely qualified.

"Barely qualified?" The man's been a successful attorney in personal injury cases on behalf of the poor against demonstrably negligent large corporations. He did it all on spec, meaning he wouldn't have made a dime if he hadn't won his cases.

Maybe you'd like to tell us what qualifies you to make such a ridiculous, unsupported statement. :roll:

Yeah, the personal wealth he's accumulated certainly demonstrates helping the poor was his primary motivation. You dont bill $1k an hour if you are working for the poor.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Harvey,

Over the years I've seen you demonstrate some fairly impressive knowledge over a pretty broad range of unrelated topics.

Where? I'm not that impressed with your "impressive" knowledge. You hit some topics right and others very wrong.

So you surprise me here. I must assume that you have been exceptionally fortunate to have so completely avoided a courtroom or intraction with attorneys.

My, my, aren't we presumptuous? Guess you've never met my sister, Judith Epstein, a California Appellate Court judge, or my brother-in-law, an attorney who has represented little clients like Orange County, or any of my good attorney friends. I dropped out of law school afer one year, but I know enough of the language and the concepts to follow reasonably high level discussions.

If you were charged with DUI, would you seek out a patent attorney?

Should a divorce lawyer handle a 1st degree murder case?

So, John Edwards has made a good living suing for product liability - tort law (medical malpractice was his specialty). These are cases under state law. North carolina law in his case.

Do you think attorneys, especially bright ones, are familiar with the practice of law only their own specialty and have no interest or understanding of how courts work in a wider range of practice? :roll:

Prattle on all you want, but you know NOTHING about what Edwards does or doesn't know or the range of his interests in legal issues outside of his practice. What I do know is, he's a self-made man who has vigorously pursued cases on behalf of those most in need, and he has beaten large teams of over-paid ethical turds representing those who have been proven not to give a shit about who they harm... as long as they can get away with it.

I hope Obama is elected. I hope he chooses Edwards to be his AG, and I hope the first thing he does is indict the entire Bush administration for treason, murder, war crimes, torture and every other crime they have committed against the American people.

 

[Lemon law]

Someone needs to prosecute the whole of GWB&co.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And another little thought, even though Elliot Spitzer got caught in a sex scandal, he would make a dynamite Federal Prosecutor or assistant AG in an Obama administration.

Or even as an investigator. Spitzer, knows how to get things done and so does Edwards. Two people I would not want after my ass, but great people when they are doing the people's business.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Harvey, I find it amazing that you presume Edwards, a trial lawyer, works on behalf of the poor. Do you have any information that shows his cases favor the poor over any other segment of the population? Lawyers dont give two shits who they are representing in a malpractice or product liability case, because the payout at the end is all the same to them. Being an advocate for the poor is just a brand Edwards has built for himself, primarily starting in his runup to the 2008 election. Trial lawyers labeling their work as "public service", while billing hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour, is a crock of bullshit that only a fool would believe.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Harvey, I find it amazing that you presume Edwards, a trial lawyer, works on behalf of the poor. Do you have any information that shows his cases favor the poor over any other segment of the population? Lawyers dont give two shits who they are representing in a malpractice or product liability case, because the payout at the end is all the same to them. Being an advocate for the poor is just a brand Edwards has built for himself, primarily starting in his runup to the 2008 election. Trial lawyers labeling their work as "public service", while billing hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour, is a crock of bullshit that only a fool would believe.

One can build a far better case that Edwards is working for the poor than you can build a case that GWB is working in the interests of the USA.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Harvey, I find it amazing that you presume Edwards, a trial lawyer, works on behalf of the poor. Do you have any information that shows his cases favor the poor over any other segment of the population? Lawyers dont give two shits who they are representing in a malpractice or product liability case, because the payout at the end is all the same to them. Being an advocate for the poor is just a brand Edwards has built for himself, primarily starting in his runup to the 2008 election. Trial lawyers labeling their work as "public service", while billing hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour, is a crock of bullshit that only a fool would believe.

One can build a far better case that Edwards is working for the poor than you can build a case that GWB is working in the interests of the USA.

I fail to see your point. I wouldnt try to argue either one of those cases.

 

[NeoV]

"I also think much too much was made of the poor 2004 debate showing Edwards had against Cheney. Much of that was due to Kerry muzzling Edwards during the campaign, but when Edwards is arguing his own case, he can be a very formidable advocate with the passion and fire so missing against Cheney."

Cheney's big score in those debates was saying "I've never met you before", which got all kinds of play, but in fact pictures were available the next day that showed the two of them shaking hands on the Senate floor - despite Cheney's assertions they had never met before.

Edwards is a good bet to get some position, but I agree with the poster that mentioned him as the labor or HUD sec instead - AG would cause quite a stir I think - but I'll say this - he's a 100% better candidate than either of the two morons Bush put in that position.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Harvey, I find it amazing that you presume Edwards, a trial lawyer, works on behalf of the poor. Do you have any information that shows his cases favor the poor over any other segment of the population?

See this paragraph in the middle of page 2 of this article from the Boston Globe:

Racial sensitivity is still an imperative for the Southern liberal, but there are other issues involved as well. This is where Edwards's background as a trial lawyer, and his particular brand of populism, comes in. He built his reputation as an advocate for the poor and middle class, both black and white, in confrontations with big corporations and institutions, and his ability to translate his courtroom success into a political message helps explain the wide support he attracted outside the South in the Democratic primaries. Edwards may not be an old-fashioned white Southern liberal (for one thing, he's too young to have fought in the civil rights struggle), but his work as a trial lawyer seems to qualify him for membership in an historically small club: a Southern populist who appeals across racial lines.

More examples aren't hard to find. Would you like some Grey Poupon with your crow? 😉

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Harvey, I find it amazing that you presume Edwards, a trial lawyer, works on behalf of the poor. Do you have any information that shows his cases favor the poor over any other segment of the population?

See this paragraph in the middle of page 2 of this article from the Boston Globe:

Racial sensitivity is still an imperative for the Southern liberal, but there are other issues involved as well. This is where Edwards's background as a trial lawyer, and his particular brand of populism, comes in. He built his reputation as an advocate for the poor and middle class, both black and white, in confrontations with big corporations and institutions, and his ability to translate his courtroom success into a political message helps explain the wide support he attracted outside the South in the Democratic primaries. Edwards may not be an old-fashioned white Southern liberal (for one thing, he's too young to have fought in the civil rights struggle), but his work as a trial lawyer seems to qualify him for membership in an historically small club: a Southern populist who appeals across racial lines.

More examples aren't hard to find. Would you like some Grey Poupon with your crow? 😉

Your response included no examples at all of how John Edwards favors the poor. An opinion piece is hardly an example.