Attorneys come in many different types, but all have some tie to the practice of law. Attorneys can do many things, though. Attorneys can give legal advice to those who need it, sometimes avoiding the need for a trial. Oftentimes this is the aim of those who prefer to stay out of court and settle matters in a less traumatic manner than a lawsuit. Sometimes attorneys draft contracts for their clients, ensuring that their clients can, for example, dodge liability in some cases. Contract work, as I understand it, can be rather boring, but I must assume that some find it rather enjoyable, and certainly clients enjoy the end result of not being in any kind of legal trouble. Attorneys can and do represent clients in court or in negotiations, ensuring or at least improving the odds that their clients’ travails have a favorable outcome.

But these are really only shallow descriptions of the occupation, and not an explanation of the role. To my mind, attorneys are of service to people who need help. This help is almost always of a positive kind – legal advice preventing an action, a good contract protecting the parties involved and providing direction, or a favorable outcome in trial.

After all this, I think the role of the attorney is the same as any civic-minded person. We should always – every day – ask the question, “How can I be of service?”

Note: Forgive me, this is a combination of a 1L assignment and a memory of an episode of “The West Wing”. Regular programming restarts tomorrow.

Guest Blogger Andrew Foley Over at Mightygodking on the Health Care Debate:
Andrew Foley (among others) is blogging at Mightygodking, a blog of diverse topics, and I’m not sure how they select who writes what, but from that metaphorical hat Andrew must have drawn Health Care. Instead of a dry dissertation on why Obamacare will either save or destroy America, he elected to go with humor. For anyone who is too damn tired to read another screed on this (admittedly important) topic, the above link will be as a cool drink to a man in the desert.

Chris Matthews Breaks Down Gun-Toting Town Hall Protestor:

I’ll let the video speak for itself, but I believe a mark against Chris in this interview is when he goes on a 20 second tangent, asking the protestor if he believes if President Obama is an American citizen by birth. It seemed inconsequential to my eyes, but the rest of the interview is great. Bringing guns to town hall meetings, as it turns out, is wrong.

The Full Text of the House Health Care Bill:
Not especially sexy, but we should probably all know what we are talking about. Its a long read.

Christopher Hitchens is a buzz kill (kinda):
Hitchen’s is usually an entertaining and thought-provoking read, and at least on the latter, he delivers in this article on why the U.S., and especially the Obama administration, fouled up the business of retrieving the two hostages of North Korea (Laura Ling and Euna Lee). That said, I feel he ignores, either knowingly or not, the upside of the operation: Laura Ling and Euna Lee are back in America, and not in North Korea. Hitchens’ thesis is that they were always going to be released, and that we should not have given Kim Jong Il what he wanted, namely, any modicum of legitimacy. I suppose whether this was a success or not depends on whether the freedom of these two women, in the mind of the reader, outweighs any perceived uptick in respectability in Kim Jong Il or North Korea.

This program has proven popular among consumers who were on the fence about purchasing new cars, and among dealers who had been previously trying desperately to move cars off their lots. “We’re selling cars like candy bars. It really, really is a good program and I hope they keep it going…it’s good for the consumer,” said Bobby Soldano, of Arrigo Dodge Chrysler Jeep in Sawgrass, Fla. Of course, the program also has its detractors among the auto sales community: “They’re forcing the dealers to front the program…it reaches a point where, for us, it doesn’t make good business sense,” said Nate Mercer, of Spitzer Toyota in Monroeville, Pa. They’ve stopped doing “Cash for Clunkers” deals. [1]

The program also has mixed reviews in Congress. Most Democratic lawmakers have heralded the program as a great stimulative measure: “Dealers are packed and sales are booming,” said Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. However, some Republican lawmakers have reservations on the program. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C, has called the program “inept” and “poorly run”, and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, has threatened the possibility of a filibuster.

One has to wonder if this would be a good idea. A certain amount of resistance is good and certainly wanted in a two-party government. However, even the threat of a filibuster raises the stakes, and as has been noted frequently over the last two weeks, this is a popular program for consumers and dealers.

But how popular is it really? Rasmussen Reports recently performed a telephone survey of 1,000 adults, and found that 54% of those polled thought that “Cash for Clunkers” should not be further funded, with 33% polled favoring further funding, and 13% unsure.[2] These results are virtually the same as a similar poll done in mid-June by Rasmussen, which showed 54% opposed and 35% favoring, and close to 12% unsure.[3]

The Republicans, by not venturing politically into an absolute melee, can make this a net positive by following three steps. By cautioning on the cost of this program (which DeMint and Coburn seem to be doing), and by having qualified support for this program coming from the more moderate wing of the party, perhaps from a senator like Susan Collins of Maine, who has already declared her support for the cash infusion, and by constant questioning as to the efficiency of the program, the Republican party can be seen to be responsible caretakers of the government coffers, and it may go a ways towards removing the fiscal stink of the last eight years. This would have the added positive effect of making the Senate Republicans seem less obstructionist than they have been thought of. There are not many situations in which it might be possible to have your cake and eat it too, but this might be one of them.

Please note, as this is a young blog, that this post is not in any way an endorsement of either party, but merely a passing thought supported by a bit of evidence.