Hacker News Reader

Would we really be saying that for a lawyer who defended the Catholic church in the sex abuse scandal? No, b/c anyone with _any_ integrity would likely walk away from that...or anyone with any political smarts.

Very poor example... The right for everyone to have a proper defense in criminal trials is a cornerstone of the legal system, and I'm really surprised anyone would argue against it.

I understand your point, however the role of the Solicitor General has a specific function that leads one to wonder - "The office also determines which cases it will bring to the Supreme Court for review" This is a very dangerous role for someone who has engrained themselves in such a controversial topic. Not to mentioned (according to the article) hasn't been able to argue a consistent punishment for such crimes. I would imagine in the same token anyone else involved in another highly controversial law topic should receive the same scrutiny. Where Obama is heavily criticized is the fact that the general populous has a lynching out for big corporate media companies that are trying to fill their pockets with more money by simply "suing the shit" out of anyone that dares cross their path.

+1 from me.

That's it for Obama. Great, inspiring speeches, but too many poor decisions, and quite the hand for choosing the wrong people for important positions. Maybe he wants to appease everyone? Either way this is not what I expect from a leader. The RIAA is the exact opposite of "by the people, for the people".

I am officially out of the Obama camp. I suppose now it's off to see that the next Republican candidate is not an un-electable retard from the tea party camp. And BTW clearly anyone remotely associated with the tea party is an un-electable moron.

Why must it be either a Democratic or Republican candidate? This seems to be a major weakness in American politics, that a failure with one party leads to people endorsing the other, regardless of their positions and merit. I know it is easier said than done, but it looks like there is room for more parties.

While I agree with you that it would be great to have a viable third party in the United States, the very structure of the voting system here (the single member district plurality system) has been shown to favor a two party system under various game theory analyses.

Check out Duverger's law for more insight on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law

I live in a country (Canada) that falls under the article's counterexamples. We have four parties in Parliament. None of them can break out of the 30s, currently, in terms of their polling numbers. In addition, no party has actually won a majority in 6 or 7 years.

I am sure it must be the same in America as here in England, seeing as you guys basically adopted our legal system wholesale. Here in England, you can not just refuse a case because you want to, so, if a paedophile instructed a barrister, he is not allowed to turn him down just because it does not look good to others. It is not simply that it is advisable that he should not refuse him, it is rather, he actually can not refuse him or gets disciplined otherwise.

John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, despite how much he abhorred the British control over the colonists.

and you seem surprised? Why?

Has not the choice of )Obama to reward bankers who got us into the biggest financial collapse of the world not told you who is boss? There was a coup lately, the companies won we as individuals lost and the US constitution lost