Time to replace lawyers in politics and government?

Many of the lawyers I’ve known, or known of, prided themselves on their ability to split hairs. Politicians frequently share the same inclinations. I remember a former occupant of the White House noting “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

There are at least two major issues right now where clearer legislation, regulations and judicial orders could have benefited all fo US a great deal. I’m sure you’ve heard something about the Feeding Our Future fraud allegations and the corresponding debate about who said or did what and why. The Star Tribune had  a clarifying article about it, followed by today’s editorial: “Hungering for clarity after food fraud.” I take exception to the editorial calling out Walz and Ellison since the same editorial cites two distinguished, uninvolved, legal talents who imply different assessments of the situation:

David Schultz, a Hamline and University of Minnesota professor and political observer who reviewed but is not involved in the case, told an editorial writer that it looked like a classic administrative law case in which lawsuits are filed to force government agencies to issue permits or licenses or, in this case, approve partner sites promptly.

"I don't see anything that says the court compelled MDE to resume payments," he said.

On the other hand:

Former Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner, who also isn't involved in the case, told a Star Tribune reporter this week that although there was no formal order from the judge, she could see why MDE could take Guthmann's comments during the hearing to mean that the agency would be hard-pressed to stop payments.

"The bottom line is that Judge Guthmann did not order them to continue payments. At the same time, it is understandable why the Department of Education felt like they had to continue paying," Gaertner said. "A fair reading of the federal regulations seemed to require it, and more importantly though, they had to feel constrained to not in any way interfere with the FBI investigation."

 

WOTUS or not?

Photo by J. Harrington

The second issue has to do with a piece of legislation that will celebrate its 50th anniversary next month, The Clean Water Act Amendments (of 1972). The piece of legislation failed to clearly define “Waters Of The United States” [WOTUS]. So, in addition to various interpretations over the decades, we now have two federal agencies (Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency) working toward a redefinition at the same time that yet another case is headed toward the current “Supreme” Court. We all know the old definition about what flows down hill but governments and legislatures seem to have a real problems grasping that water, surface, atmospheric and ground, all flows as part of one system. There was a recent article about PFAS being in each drop of rain that falls, as one example. But, in addition to the federal mess, in Minnesota the Supreme Court reached a decision on one “public water” but kicked that can back to the legislature to clarify the broader application questions.

Is this the best we can expect when we elect amateurs to represent US in at the state and federal level? A mishmash of conflicting interpretations of legislative intent compounded by a failure to agree upon the facts of a case? There are other examples that I’ll save for another day. For now, remember this other piece of advice to lawyers from a journalist and poet who must have watched lawyers carefully:

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

― Carl Sandburg 

 

If we got rid of the lawyers in government, we could be better served by replacing them with poets, but that seems like a sorry misuse of the talents of such a wonderful class of people. Do you have any suggestions on how we can “cut to the chase”  instead of splitting hairs?

The Abracadabra Boys

By Carl Sandburg

The abracadabra boys—have they been in the stacks and cloisters? Have they picked up languages for throwing into chow mein poems?

Have they been to a sea of jargons and brought back jargons? Their salutations go: Who cometh? and, It ith I cometh.

They know postures from impostures, pistils from pustules, to hear them tell it. They foregather and make pitty pat with each other in Latin and in their private pig Latin, very ofay.

They give with passwords. “Who cometh?” “A kumquat cometh.” “And how cometh the kumquat?” “On an abbadabba, ancient and honorable sire, ever and ever on an abbadabba.”

Do they have fun? Sure—their fun is being what they are, like our fun is being what we are—only they are more sorry for us being what we are than we are for them being what they are.

Pointing at you, at us, at the rabble, they sigh and say, these abracadabra boys, “They lack jargons. They fail to distinguish between pustules and pistils. They knoweth not how the kumquat cometh.”

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.