Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
• “Every other mature democracy relies on politically insulated bureaucrats to run its elections. In the United States, we depend on partisans. . . . The foxes are guarding the electoral henhouse.” — Heather Gerken (“How Does Your State Rank on �The Democracy Index’?” Jan. 1) • “[C]urrent sentencing law for [white-collar] offenses has so far slipped the bonds of reason that the prosecutorial and judicial ministers of the law are unwilling to enforce it.” — Frank O. Bowman III (“Settling for a Scapegoat,” Jan. 8) • “Does convening a meeting of House leaders in the hours after the resignation of a member to compare stories on who was made aware of that member’s conduct an act that �reflects creditably on the House’?” — Timothy J. Heaphy (“What About the Next Kid?” Jan. 22) • “When government officials are called �war criminals’ and when public-interest lawyers are called �terrorist huggers,’ it not only cheapens the discourse, it scrambles the dialogue.” — Theodore B. Olson and Neal Katyal (“We Want Tough Arguments,” Jan. 22) • “[I]f lawyers may follow their conscience by taking on unpopular clients, why shouldn’t clients be free to follow theirs by moving their billable work elsewhere?” — Lawrence J. Siskind (“Clients Can Choose, Too,” Jan. 29) • “If journalism is the first draft of history, unedited blogs are more like the first draft of journalism. This may make the copy fresh and exciting, and if it includes a few typos, so what?” — James McGrath Morris (“You Read It Here First?” Feb. 26) • “The truth is, some sources don’t deserve to be protected. The public interest — and the profession of journalism — would be better served if sources understood that abusing their relationship with a reporter will mean they forfeit whatever right they had to expect confidentiality.” — Randall D. Eliason (“Striking Out,” March 19) • “[Reading Supreme Court opinions is] just like discovering a scrambled message in The Da Vinci Code or another unexpected coincidence on �Lost.’ We scratch our heads wondering whether the writer is tempting us with a taste of something to come — or not even thinking along the same conspiratorial lines.” — Evan P. Schultz (“The Temptation of Justice Thomas,” April 30) • “[D]oesn’t Virginia Tech speak for itself? Isn’t it obvious that reform is necessary after this kind of tragedy? Well, yes, it is obvious to just about everyone what should happen — it’s just that precisely which solution is made obvious turns out to depend on where people stood in the gun debate before the shooting.” — Donald Braman and Dan Kahan (“Beyond the Gun Fight,” April 30) • “When the president lets [Alberto] Gonzales meet with him alone, I would add, the Constitution is at risk.” — Stuart Taylor Jr. (“Corroding the Constitution,” May 21) • “Anna Nicole Smith is not, in and of herself, a legal argument, legal doctrine, or legal story.” — Dahlia Lithwick (“Talk Less About Anna Nicole,” June 4) • “Enron’s banks worked hand-in-hand with Enron to design and implement sham transactions with the sole purpose of hiding debt and generating fake revenue. If that’s not participating in a scheme to defraud, what else can we call it?” — William S. Lerach and Thomas G. Wilhelm (“Bankers for Crooks,” May 28) • “The legal profession’s gifts to the public are not always simple, nor do lawyers always come down where they ought to be. Something has gone wrong when pro bono publico crops up in the business plans of law firms, in the representation of tony nonprofits, and on both sides of civil rights litigation.” — James H. Johnston (“The Not-So-Simple Gift,” June 25) • “[A] conscientious prosecutor must regularly ask himself, �What if I’m wrong? Would my actions be, and appear to be, appropriate if the defendant did not do what I think he did?’ “ — Deborah Jeffrey (“How Prosecutors Go Bad,” Aug. 6) • “She sued! She didn’t get the grade she wanted on her leaf project so she sued. Her leaf project, for crying out loud.” — William W. Bedsworth (“A Heartbreaking Case of Staggering Unfairness,” Aug. 13) • “Don’t fire any U.S. attorneys. Yes, yes, they work for the president, and he can fire them for any reason or no reason at all. Just don’t do it. No matter what.” — Timothy Lynch (“What Does DOJ Need Now?” Sept. 3) • “It would be nice if officials held themselves to a higher standard of candor than simply �could this get me indicted?’ “ — Randall D. Eliason (“What Exactly Do You Mean?” Sept. 17) • “After all, the District does not ban home possession of knives or hatchets. Does that justify the city’s handgun ban [under the Second Amendment]? Could publication of cookbooks be barred under the First Amendment as long as restaurant guides were allowed?” — Robert A. Levy (“Loaded for the High Court,” Sept. 24) • “It is in the national interest to prevent government abuse, especially when covered up by the state secrets privilege.” — Louis Fisher (“People v. State,” Oct. 1) • “[F]or a diversified investor, securities fraud litigation is a deadweight loss. Only the lawyers win.” — Richard A. Booth (“The Grander Scheme,” Oct. 8) • “Objective advice may mean saying no to the president, but it can also mean saying no to Congress. Independence of thought runs in both directions on Pennsylvania Avenue.” — Douglas W. Kmiec (“An Attorney General Who Says No,” Oct. 22) • “[Pervez] Musharraf has given us a glimpse of how an unfettered leader sets about disbanding a civil society in the name of fighting terrorism. The first thing you do is get rid of the lawyers. Just ask Dick the Butcher.” — Douglas McCollam (“When Liberty Is on the Line,” Nov. 12) • “If one accepts the premise that the term �arms’ cannot reasonably be construed to include all forms of modern weaponry, the only basis for determining what weapons are included that is both objective and consistent with at least the Framers’ specific intent and original understanding of the term �arms’ is that it encompasses only those types of weapons that actually existed in 1789, such as single–shot, muzzle–loading firearms.” — Richard A. Allen (“A Gun May Be a Gun May Be a Gun,” Nov. 26) • “Why should cookie companies escape liability for their shameless promotion of dunking? And those celebrities with the milk mustaches in the advertisements, like Marilyn Manson, Garfield, and Larry King — aren’t they foisting milk upon the lacticly challenged?” — Robert N. Weiner (“A Daffy Milk Suit Goes Sour,” Dec. 3) • “For me, it was a great experience to be a man of few words and no personality, not amusing, no philosophy of life or law, no nonsense, no time to spare, and All Business — two initial caps.” — Charles Reich (“Remembering When We Were Bachelors of the Law,” Dec. 24)

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.