Barack Obama and John Edwards are making friends, and some say it’s because the latter wants to be the next attorney general of the United States. This article takes a look at his most famous case and what it would mean for that new potential office.

Edwards defended his trial-lawyer past on the campaign trail. The mother of one of his clients, Valerie Lakey, has spoken on his behalf, and in his 2003 book, Four Trials, Edwards uses Lakey’s case as a supposed example of bringing a callous, recalcitrant company to justice for the terrible injuries suffered by a little girl […] The Lakey case seemed to inoculate him against criticism of his pre-Senate career as a plaintiff attorney.

It shouldn’t have, for the facts of this case tell a different story-that of a blameless company attacked, solely because of its deep pockets, for the negligence of others. The Lakey case is really about the collusion of trial lawyers and judges to make lawless, plaintiff-friendly rulings.

Which is probably why, if he were nominated, he wouldn’t be confirmed.

After Genarlow Wilson of Georgia was sentenced to 10 years without the possibility of parole for engaging in consensual oral sex when he was 17 and the girl was 15, a handful of states have revamped laws originally meant to target sex offenders. Stateline.org reports:

Connecticut, Florida, Indiana and Texas enacted laws in 2007 that make a distinction between sexual predators and adolescents who do not pose a risk, such as those caught in so-called “Romeo and Juliet” relationships, in which one partner is of consenting age and the other is not.

Check out the changes here. Realistic approach or slippery slope?

It’s usually cat people vs. dog people, but in one courtroom drama that’s too funny for television and too good to be true, it’s cat people vs. bird people.  That’s because one of the bird people shot a cat who, apparently, was stalking the very birds he likes to watch. 

This is a question I always wanted my rhetoric students to address, although I thought the assignment might be controversial - and the assignees would be a little biased.  Here’s a quick precis of the current debate about making the change:

Arguments for 21: 1) It prevents deaths from drunk driving. 2) It prevents binge drinking. 3) Young people’s brains aren’t fully formed, so they’re more susceptible to alcohol. 4) It protects them from pressure to drink. 5) It saves taxpayers billions in medical costs and lost productivity. 6) The polls are on our side.

Arguments for 18: 1) The data on drunk driving are debatable. 2) Excess, not age, should be the issue. 3) The current drinking age “has forced drinking underground,” which results in binge drinking. 4) Other countries have lower drinking ages without harm. 5) If competence to drink requires a fully formed brain, set the age at 25, not 21. 6) If saving lives is paramount, why not “mandatory injections of alcohol for men between the ages of 50 and 65″?

Your thoughts?

Vigilante justice in Alabama.  Another good reason to have a gun in the home.