From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Date: 12 Sep 1992 16:52:11 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep12.011538.10476@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>" Hillary Clinton trusts lawyers more than parents.
>I think she has it exactly backwards."

Yesterday's NY Times had a letter reminding us thatthe Republican love
of parents rights is just another campaign ploy made up for the moment.

The parents want to move the family. A teenage child refuses to go
along. Can he sue? Is supporting his suit family values? Quick, make up
your mind.


YES! When the parents want to go home to the Soviet Union. The case:
Polovchak v Meese. The government pretty much created ways for young
Polovchak to stay and the parens sued Meese -- the Republicn
arch-conservative Attorney General -- for the right to take their son
with them. The case dragged out (on purpose) long enough that the child
turned 18.

So much for "no government interference when parents want to move".
Before you write "wee, that was an exception" -- your criticism of
Hillary Clinton doesn't allow for ANY exceptions. Ooops. Another
miserable conservative hypocrite exposed.

Now let's take on cosmetic surgery....

>>Please bear in mind the
>>difference between plastic (or other) surgery performed for purely
>>cosmetic reasons and plastic (or other) surgery performed for the
>>purpose of correcting or lessening the effects of a medical problem
>>(e.g., a harelip).

>Did H. Clinton mention harelips? And what do harelips have to do
>with abusive parents, anyway?

I don't know if Hillary Clinton mentioned it, but it ocmes up because
the harelip is a real case with a real child and real parents who for
religious reasons refused to permit the operation to correct it.

>So a child will go out and pay a lawyer (with whose money?) to sue
>the parents so he/she can get the harelip surgery/braces/abortion
>desired that the parents don't approve of.  Once the principle is
>established, where do you draw the line? You get (you guessed it)
>a judge to figure out the fine vague and fuzzy line between an "important"
>and "fundamental" decision like harelips, and incosequential ones
>like getting tattoos, playing music loudly, etc. More legal meddling.
>Hard cases make bad law, and apparently harelips make for harebrained
>legal principles.

My recollection is the parents won, so you can rest easy. Of course, I
bet you don't have an uncorrected harelip, but then the Republican motoo
is now "I've got mine, screw you." In this case it's "I don't have mine,
screw you." Heh.

I should point out that courts make judgments like this often. It;s well
settled that when the child's life is endangered the courts will require
surgery or other medical treatment even over parents' religious objections.

>PPS. A guilty man comes into your office, and wants you to represent
>him and plead not guilty. As his attorney, what does "legal ethics"
>require you to do? (hint: doing his bidding, as is the current vogue,
>is a suggestion to some of us that "legal ethics" is an oxymoron.)

A lwayer may not knowingly enter perjured evidence into a case. If he
knows his client is committing perjury, he must withdraw.

Why don't you cross-post to misc.legal, where you can get definitive
answers to this. I'm not an atty.

andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4991 alt.politics.clinton:5248 alt.politics.elections:13030