The big question family and friends ask when you decide to become a lawyer (at least, it was when I started on this journey) is whether you could represent someone you know to be guilty. A related question many law students face (or did when I was in school) is whether they want to work in big law firms and represent corporations (guilty or not). These questions, of course, are naively simplistic, and at some point early in one's career, one learns that there is much more complexity, and many more public and private interests at stake, than the questions suggest. One's answers to the questions evolve over time, adding layers of nuance that take into account some of this complexity as it becomes appreciated through experience.
One of the early versions of my answer I learned from my law school professors. It had to with the adversarial system of justice. The concept is that every citizen is entitled to representation. Moreover, ours is a system of truth-seeking and conflict resolution that depends on the battle between adversaries. The attorney for each is duty-bound to represent his or her client vigorously, presenting the client's affirmative case and the rebuttal to the opponent's' case as strongly as possible within the constraints of the law and legal ethics. From the thrust and parry of dueling counsel, truth, or at least some acceptable approximation of it, will prevail. And this adversarial conflict, bound as it is by strict rules and overseen by a power-wielding authority figure (i.e., a judge), substitutes for the lawless and potentially violent means of resolving differences that would prevail if our judicial system did not exist. I still believe in this system as the best means of resolving disputes; and, indeed, it is the source of my livelihood.
It would be a mistake to think that the adversarial system that works so well in our courts can work equally well in other branches of government. And yet lately it seems we are witnessing a resurgence of adversarial posturing in Congress. The adversaries, of course, are the representatives and senators of the two political parties. They seem at times, and especially now, much less interested in governing than they are in fighting, much less willing to compromise than to win at all costs. It is as if they were elected to represent their political parties rather than the American people. The news publications and talk shows are awash with concern about the extreme partisanship that has overcome the business of making laws to protect the American people and promote the public good. It is the reason Evan Bayh gave for not running for re-election, as so well articulated in an op-ed piece he published in today's New York Times.
Congress always has been, always will be, and always should be a forum for vigorous debate. But that debate must serve the greater interest of good government, not the unseemly goal of advancing a political agenda. In the courtroom, there is a judge to enforce the rules of conduct, and both a judge and jury to decide the outcome of a case. The only judge and jury in Congress is the judge and jury of public opinion, ultimately expressed each election day in the voting booth. Those of us who find partisan bickering abhorrent need to let our voices be heard, and send a message to those in Congress that it is time they work together, collaboratively if not always in agreement, to solve the grave problems we face as a nation. And that those elected representatives who will not reach across the aisle and get to work on an agenda for all Americans need not reapply when their terms expire.
One of the early versions of my answer I learned from my law school professors. It had to with the adversarial system of justice. The concept is that every citizen is entitled to representation. Moreover, ours is a system of truth-seeking and conflict resolution that depends on the battle between adversaries. The attorney for each is duty-bound to represent his or her client vigorously, presenting the client's affirmative case and the rebuttal to the opponent's' case as strongly as possible within the constraints of the law and legal ethics. From the thrust and parry of dueling counsel, truth, or at least some acceptable approximation of it, will prevail. And this adversarial conflict, bound as it is by strict rules and overseen by a power-wielding authority figure (i.e., a judge), substitutes for the lawless and potentially violent means of resolving differences that would prevail if our judicial system did not exist. I still believe in this system as the best means of resolving disputes; and, indeed, it is the source of my livelihood.
It would be a mistake to think that the adversarial system that works so well in our courts can work equally well in other branches of government. And yet lately it seems we are witnessing a resurgence of adversarial posturing in Congress. The adversaries, of course, are the representatives and senators of the two political parties. They seem at times, and especially now, much less interested in governing than they are in fighting, much less willing to compromise than to win at all costs. It is as if they were elected to represent their political parties rather than the American people. The news publications and talk shows are awash with concern about the extreme partisanship that has overcome the business of making laws to protect the American people and promote the public good. It is the reason Evan Bayh gave for not running for re-election, as so well articulated in an op-ed piece he published in today's New York Times.
Congress always has been, always will be, and always should be a forum for vigorous debate. But that debate must serve the greater interest of good government, not the unseemly goal of advancing a political agenda. In the courtroom, there is a judge to enforce the rules of conduct, and both a judge and jury to decide the outcome of a case. The only judge and jury in Congress is the judge and jury of public opinion, ultimately expressed each election day in the voting booth. Those of us who find partisan bickering abhorrent need to let our voices be heard, and send a message to those in Congress that it is time they work together, collaboratively if not always in agreement, to solve the grave problems we face as a nation. And that those elected representatives who will not reach across the aisle and get to work on an agenda for all Americans need not reapply when their terms expire.
Comments
Post a Comment