[hobbyjogger]

Same here (M&A/VC lawyer for nearly a decade). Agree 100% on all of the above.

I became skeptical right off the bat when she compared Boies' civil representation of Weinstein (at ostensibly $2,000+ per hour) to the defense attorneys who volunteered to represent Guantanamo detainees.

[rayiner]

Most Americans would say that an American businessman has more of a right to effective legal counsel than foreign jihadists detained in Guantanamo. Once you start making the distinction between clients who have more or less of a right to effective legal counsel, you’ve already bought into the ideology complained of in the article.

[hobbyjogger]

I don't at all disagree that Weinstein has as much of a right to effective legal counsel as the rest of us.

I'm just pointing out the obvious: there's an enormous difference between (i) an indigent defendant's right to a public defender in a murder trial and (ii) the "right" to be represented in a civil suit by one of the most successful, famous and expensive lawyers in the country. The first is a constitutional right - the second is a market transaction (on both sides).

[klyrs]

> Most Americans would say that an American businessman has more of a right to effective legal counsel than foreign jihadists detained in Guantanamo.

1. Alleged foreign jihadists. An incredibly small minority of whom have actually been convicted, mostly (6 of 8) through plea deals. [1]

2. Little surprise (though, citation needed) that most Americans disagree the Constitution. That doesn't mean we should burn the document.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/guan...

[ss108]

You're assuming they are all terrorists at Guantanamo, but it's known now that many of them are innocent randos who got swept up. You're also totally ignoring the difference between torture that violates international law and general human rights norms and getting prosecuted under the rule of law.

You seem to be doing pretty much doing exactly what the woke ppl do w/r/t men accused of sexual assault: you seem to want to decline to apply the protections of the law and its underlying ethical norms to people you don't like and disparage the notion they should have legal assistance.

[olsonjeffery]

You like falling back on majoritarian arguments when it suits you (at least twice in this thread, but I'm only partway through!). Are you in favor of abolishing the senate, then?