American Taliban lawyer appointed to third-highest Justice Department position

[Yurt]

When an attorney defends a client in a situation likely to set precedent he is in a position to defend the constitution itself from those who continually try to erode due process for everyone not just the presumed guilty.

he does have that duty, but he also has the duty to zealously represent his client. you can defend the constitution and do both at the same time.

"likely" is not part of his duties, so long as he UPHOLDS the constitution if the courts rule that way, that is not the attorney's fault.

 

[occupied]

When an attorney defends a client in a situation likely to set precedent he is in a position to defend the constitution itself from those who continually try to erode due process for everyone not just the presumed guilty.

he does have that duty, but he also has the duty to zealously represent his client. you can defend the constitution and do both at the same time.

"likely" is not part of his duties, so long as he UPHOLDS the constitution if the courts rule that way, that is not the attorney's fault.

I do not understand what kind of distinction you are trying to make but the various high profile terrorism cases had the clear potential to effect case law for a long time. While many were eager for a rush to judgement and the harshest penalties there was a need for someone there to make sure that due process was protected.

 

[Yurt]

When an attorney defends a client in a situation likely to set precedent he is in a position to defend the constitution itself from those who continually try to erode due process for everyone not just the presumed guilty.

he does have that duty, but he also has the duty to zealously represent his client. you can defend the constitution and do both at the same time.

"likely" is not part of his duties, so long as he UPHOLDS the constitution if the courts rule that way, that is not the attorney's fault.

I do not understand what kind of distinction you are trying to make but the various high profile terrorism cases had the clear potential to effect case law for a long time. While many were eager for a rush to judgement and the harshest penalties there was a need for someone there to make sure that due process was protected.

um....yes...and that is the judicial system. that includes lawyers and judges.

not sure what your point is.

 

[Salt Jones]

Everyone is entitled to a defense....Boy, for people who love the Constitution as if it were written by the hand of God, you either don't understand it very well, understand it, but think that the people charged with defending criminals in a court of law are guilty of some kind of "crime of association", or....knowing Matthew and his virulent, bigoted posts when it comes to African Americans......because the dude in question is black

That's why he defends the scum of society. Sadly, they know no better than to degrade civilization.

Not saying all are bad that are defending, but too damn many.

So the constitution says you shouldn't defend the scum of society?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Everyone is entitled to a defense....Boy, for people who love the Constitution as if it were written by the hand of God, you either don't understand it very well, understand it, but think that the people charged with defending criminals in a court of law are guilty of some kind of "crime of association", or....knowing Matthew and his virulent, bigoted posts when it comes to African Americans......because the dude in question is black

I wonder if he would recuse himself if a case came before him regarding Sharia Law?
I bet he wouldn't....just sayin'

He hasn't been appointed as a judge.

And he's one of 50 or so department heads, all the same rank - not "the number 3 spot".