Yours and Dave's post are brilliant!

Are you sure you're not Capt Neal in disguise?

Amen!

Bob Crantz


"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
One should never confuse what can be done without violating the law
with
what is right.


That's a funny thing for a lawyer to say.


Dave wrote:
Not at all. There seems to be an unfortunate trend among many to say
that if
anything is morally wrong, there ought to be a law against it. The
converse
of that notion is that if there's no law against something it's morally
right. Both are dodges of any responsibility to exercise moral judgment,
consigning one's conscience to the custody of legislators and judges.


Agreed. Attempts to legislate morality (either by omission or comission)
is automatically doomed to failure, for one thing, and my personal
tastes run more towards freedom than straight-jacketing all citizens
according to the cultural whimsy of the current clique in power
(whomever they may be). This is one of the reasons why I regard the U.S.
Constitution as a work of genius.


A lawyer is an expert in what the law allows, and to some extent what
the
law allows you to get away with. But a lawyer has no more expertise than
his
neighbor in assessing what is morally right. He can raise the question
for a
client, and perhaps help the client think it through. But he cannot
answer
it for the client.


Sure. But not all lawyers think that way, unfortunately... nor do all
accountants ;)

I'm reminded on a conversation I had recently with one of my partners,
who
is an orthodox Jew. He represented another orthodox client whose spouse
was
in arrears on child support. One of the remedies available was to have
the
delinquent spouse jailed for contempt for failing to pay. He told me
that
Jewish law prohibits a Jew from "ratting out" another Jew to be jailed
by
the civil authorities, and asked whether he should tell his client that
this
option was available. I told him he was ethically obligated under the
canons
of ethics to zealously represent the client, and that meant he had to
tell
the client the option was available. What else he told her, if anything,
about the moral choice, was beyond the scope of the canons of ethics. To
become the keeper of the client's conscience by withholding the option
was
entirely improper.

An interesting dilemma. I assume he also told her that he could not
pursue such action and would need to retain another lawyer.

Your partner basically has to decide which set of rules has the higher
priority... but it seems to me, that by telling the client that she had
the option of putting the ex in jail, he certainly violated the spirit &
intent if not the letter of the Judaic civil authority re/jail
prohibition.

I have read a bit about medical ethics situations that were altogether
impossible... also read enough to have a low opinion of most "ethicists."

DSK

SUCK - UP!

To the Lava Lakes with you!

CM


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
Doug, you think for yourself. That alone is a perceived threat to others.
That's why they wish you hell. Hell, if its full of independently minded
souls, may not be such a bad place.

Amen!

Bob Crantz
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
And standing on
principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real
conservative.


Bob Crantz wrote:
Doug, there's no place in hell for you!


Me auld Irish granny would smile down upon you for saying so.

However when she was standing right in front of me, she disagreed with
your above statement ratehr violently...

DSK

You crossed eyed drunk girly boy!



"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:b7tZd.31476$i6.4380@edtnps90...
SUCK - UP!

To the Lava Lakes with you!

CM


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
Doug, you think for yourself. That alone is a perceived threat to
others.
That's why they wish you hell. Hell, if its full of independently minded
souls, may not be such a bad place.

Amen!

Bob Crantz
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
And standing on
principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real
conservative.


Bob Crantz wrote:
Doug, there's no place in hell for you!


Me auld Irish granny would smile down upon you for saying so.

However when she was standing right in front of me, she disagreed with
your above statement ratehr violently...

DSK

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-117640.htm


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
ink.net...
Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California,
Indiana and Kentucky:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm

And they spit on the USMC!!!!

Unions = communionists

They will all burn in hell!!!!

Amen!

Bob Crantz

Typical liberal garbage. They support the gov't as long it agrees with
them. They support free speach as long as it agrees with them. They
support Marines as long as every one of them agrees with them.

What a major snub! And this after the Marines are fighting and dieing to
support freedom in the world, and ultimately freedom here for unions to
continue to fleece their membership.

L

--
Enjoy my new sailing web site
http://sail247.com
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-117640.htm


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
ink.net...
Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California,
Indiana and Kentucky:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm

And they spit on the USMC!!!!

Unions = communionists

They will all burn in hell!!!!

Amen!

Bob Crantz

Ah Balls,

Wasn't going to get into this one BUT: not being a Union Man I do have
to put my 2 cents it.

Isn't obvious that the Unions, stupid or not are the direct results of
the STUPIDITY ON MANAGEMENT!!

Where good, humane, fair management exists, Unions do not. Where
business exists with management and labor working as a team, each
respecting one an other, there is nothing to gain with Unionism.

Ole Thom

Dave,

Great post on law and morality!! A bull's Eye comment. Thanks

Ole Thom

Thom Stewart wrote:
Where good, humane, fair management exists, Unions do not. Where
business exists with management and labor working as a team, each
respecting one an other, there is nothing to gain with Unionism.


Definitely true.

Unions are just a method of countering the stupidity, greed, and
short-sightedness of ownership... and/or management... with stupidity,
greed, and short-sightedness from the workers. To coin a phrase, two
stupids don't make a smart!

DSK

Doug,

"Two stupids don't make one smart"

You been observing ASA post and replies?

Ole Thom

Liberals pander! Liberals pander!


"Lonny Bruce" wrote in message
news:KsDZd.6088$GI6.2179@trnddc05...
Typical liberal garbage. They support the gov't as long it agrees with
them. They support free speach as long as it agrees with them. They
support Marines as long as every one of them agrees with them.

What a major snub! And this after the Marines are fighting and dieing to
support freedom in the world, and ultimately freedom here for unions to
continue to fleece their membership.

L

--
Enjoy my new sailing web site
http://sail247.com
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-117640.htm


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
ink.net...
Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California,
Indiana and Kentucky:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm

And they spit on the USMC!!!!

Unions = communionists

They will all burn in hell!!!!

Amen!

Bob Crantz