I was a little more than offended, and disappointed, when I saw MoveOn.org's e-mail framing the attack on Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court as a stop against "corporate lawyers". Without defining the term, MoveOn is throwing rhetoric out there against Roberts, hoping something will stick.
Let be the first to say: stop. It's just dumb. Because someone is a corporate lawyer, and represented corporate interests, doesn't mean they are not qualified to sit on the bench of the Supreme Court. If this is the best frame we got, then let's just confirm the man, 'cause it's a weak frame.
(more below)
Second, MoveOn's "corporate lawyer" dig really doesn't do Dems any good, considering we have a few "corporate lawyer", K Street types on our side of the street as well. Two major players come to mind:
Exhibit #1: Lloyd Cutler. Mr. Cutler, who died in May, was White Counsel to two Democratic presidents (Carter and Clinton), and was considered the ultimate Washington power broker. He founded and maintained one of the largest firms in the country, Wilmer Cutler. Can't get much more corporate than that.
Exhibit #2: Vernon Jordan. We all remember Vernon from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Jordan works for Akin Gump, another huge corporate law firm.
Ultimately, what does it say when MoveOn attacks corporate lawyers: our corporate lawyers are better than yours?
Which brings me to my last point. There are lots of corporate lawyers who give money to MoveOn, Grassroots Democrats, DFA, the Democratic Party, and invididual candidates. By demonizing corporate lawyers, are we saying, "We don't want your kind anymore?"
Corporate lawyers represent their clients zealously, with passion, and without prejudice. That's what they are paid to do. But that doesn't mean that's who they ARE when it comes to their politics or beliefs.
I don't know if Roberts is a baddy corporate lawyer or not. What I do know is framing the debate around "corporate lawyers" is kind of silly, considering some of the brightest minds in law work for large, corporate firms.
And ultimately, don't we want a bright mind on the Supreme Court?