I don't at all disagree that Weinstein has as much of a right to effective legal counsel as the rest of us.

I'm just pointing out the obvious: there's an enormous difference between (i) an indigent defendant's right to a public defender in a murder trial and (ii) the "right" to be represented in a civil suit by one of the most successful, famous and expensive lawyers in the country. The first is a constitutional right - the second is a market transaction (on both sides).

I think the point is that the quality of justice should not be a market transaction. To echo the GP's point, you accept it, most Americans accept it, but the people described in the article reject it. To them the best legal representation should go to the most vulnerable. Not the richest.

Sort of the opposite. The point I'm making (and the author misses) is that a business decision to make huge profits by representing a "bad guy" in society's eyes isn't remotely equivalent to a moral decision that even the worst (and poorest) offenders in our criminal justice system deserve to have a competent advocate on their side. The public defender is admirable precisely because he or she is driven by a belief in justice despite public criticism and low pay - not simply because it's a lucrative opportunity to generate profits.

Consider that Boies makes more in a (long) day working for Weinstein than some public defenders stand to make in a year. Boies has plenty of other clients he could work for and be paid lucratively - public defenders don't have the luxury of choosing their cases (and aren't in it for the money).

> Most Americans would say that an American businessman has more of a right to effective legal counsel than foreign jihadists detained in Guantanamo.

1. Alleged foreign jihadists. An incredibly small minority of whom have actually been convicted, mostly (6 of 8) through plea deals. [1]

2. Little surprise (though, citation needed) that most Americans disagree the Constitution. That doesn't mean we should burn the document.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/guan...

> Little surprise (though, citation needed) that most Americans disagree the Constitution. That doesn't mean we should burn the document.

I agree! Tell that to the folks this article is talking about, who say stuff like “the Constitution is racist.” (E.g. https://www.newsweek.com/elie-mystal-doubles-down-against-ha.... Author is the former editor of a popular legal news site.)

These folks want to upend the taboo that currently exists in the legal profession over judging other lawyers based on who they choose to represent. My point is that this sort of politicization of the profession doesn’t go down the road they think it does. There is no stable equilibrium where lawyers face social blowback for representing Weinstein or Catholic hospitals or Trump but are lauded for representing suspected terrorists and sex traffickers.

You're assuming they are all terrorists at Guantanamo, but it's known now that many of them are innocent randos who got swept up. You're also totally ignoring the difference between torture that violates international law and general human rights norms and getting prosecuted under the rule of law.

You seem to be doing pretty much doing exactly what the woke ppl do w/r/t men accused of sexual assault: you seem to want to decline to apply the protections of the law and its underlying ethical norms to people you don't like and disparage the notion they should have legal assistance.

You like falling back on majoritarian arguments when it suits you (at least twice in this thread, but I'm only partway through!). Are you in favor of abolishing the senate, then?

I'm using the majoritarian argument as a foil. The point is that if we start personally attacking lawyers for how other people feel about their clients, its the folks representing Gitmo detainees that are going to get the disproportionate share of the heat, not ones representing businessmen.

This is a poor "what aboutism" response to their point.