Theodore Oldon is resigning as Solicitor General. This is a man who I have disagreed with many times. Yet, as I try to seperate political views from personal views, he is a man who probably believed in most of the cases that he fought for. As many people know, his wife was on the flight which crashed into the Pentagon.
His case in Bush v Gore was flawed, yet he did argue it well enough to win. In my opinion, every Bush case he has argued has been a setback for our country. My opinion is quite mixed on him.
Anyway, I’ll put in an early bid and venture that he’s had a preview of the SC’s view or judgment of the cases he’s recently argued and that has persuaded him to quit.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I remember Ted Olson being involved in the Arkansas Project, a smear campaign to dig up dirt on Bill Clinton. During confirmation hearings he lied about his knowledge of the project and his part in it. This was the whole business of the state troopers who claimed Clinton used them to procure prostitutes, later the troopers recanted their stories, it was all made up via Ted Olson and the Arkansas Project.
I’m now calm and can respectfully disagree. Firstly there is a common misconception that lawyers are guns for hire. It isn’t so. Lawyers are bound by ethical rules and have duties to the Court and the profession as well as the client.
How so did O offend IMHO?
2 Ways. I’ve just read the transcript of the Oral argument in the Gitmo case. O was responsible for the outrageous argument that Gitmo was outside the reach of any court in the US.
The function of this advice was to permit any conduct without restraint of law. Why wrong? Because it was obviously an argument that would not survive SC challenge as indeed the court indicated pretty damn quick. It was a “device” and a sham, an attempt to oust the jurisidiction of the SC. I knew that and I’m not Solicitor Generalof the US.
Then there’s the lie/misrepresentation on a material matter in the Oral argument, the torture. O probably had a duty to correct his statement to the Court once the true facts were known. Did he draft a submission:
“I’m sorry I advised we don’t torture because we do. Please consider your decision accordingly”?
Brutus I oppose torture and humiliation absolutely. For lawyers in high office who abuse their position on the other hand… I’m reminded of a painting The Corrupt Judge. (Title?)
He was made Solicitor General as a reward for his (and equally if not more so, his wife’s) relentless anti-Clinton activity, more than for his (alleged) merits as a lawyer.
As said, many of the cases he has argued are downright un-American. Yet he got up there and argued them with a smile because he believed he was moving forward with the destructive, right wing ideology that he and all the rest of those people share.
No reason to wish ill on him personally. Someday he will wake up and realize that in his own, small way, he helped his wife get killed. That moment will be all the comeuppance he deserves.
(It does bear wondering whether some justices went easy on his arguments, in the months that followed 9/11.)
There was no intent to smear all lawyers and “hit men.” However if you have the psychological attributes to be a hit man but don’t want to actually kill anyone, legal training can be an advantage. This looks like an approximate picture of Olson.