The nomination of soon to be judge Farr for a district court seat in North Carolina passed the hurdle today of a cloture vote in the senate. It took the vote of vice president Pence to break a 50/50 tie.
The big beef of the Democrats against Farr is that as an attorney he was hired by the state of North Carolina to defend the congressional districting map for the state and also to defend a law requiring voter ID. The Democrats say that the map was a racial gerrymander and the voter ID law was voter suppression aimed at minority voters. That's nonsense, but let's assume for the moment that the Democrats are actually correct. That means that the Democrats want to keep Farr off the federal bench because as an attorney he represented a client with a view they don't like. Think about that. An attorney doesn't have to like his client or like his client's position. The attorney need only provide competent representation to his client. In fact, it would be unethical for an attorney to refuse to represent a client based upon the client's positions.
Think of what the Democrats are really saying. They want an attorney to be responsible for the positions of clients represented in the past. In other words, when Hillary Clinton got a child molester off many years ago in Arkansas, she was (at least according to Democrats) not carrying out her responsibilities as an attorney, but rather espousing that there's nothing wrong with molesting a child. Any attorney who represents a murderer needs to be held responsible for doing so (or so claim the Democrats.)
This is a crazy smear even for the Democrats.
The big beef of the Democrats against Farr is that as an attorney he was hired by the state of North Carolina to defend the congressional districting map for the state and also to defend a law requiring voter ID. The Democrats say that the map was a racial gerrymander and the voter ID law was voter suppression aimed at minority voters. That's nonsense, but let's assume for the moment that the Democrats are actually correct. That means that the Democrats want to keep Farr off the federal bench because as an attorney he represented a client with a view they don't like. Think about that. An attorney doesn't have to like his client or like his client's position. The attorney need only provide competent representation to his client. In fact, it would be unethical for an attorney to refuse to represent a client based upon the client's positions.
Think of what the Democrats are really saying. They want an attorney to be responsible for the positions of clients represented in the past. In other words, when Hillary Clinton got a child molester off many years ago in Arkansas, she was (at least according to Democrats) not carrying out her responsibilities as an attorney, but rather espousing that there's nothing wrong with molesting a child. Any attorney who represents a murderer needs to be held responsible for doing so (or so claim the Democrats.)
This is a crazy smear even for the Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment