Friends, I opined on last week's Newsmaker Show about how I would go about denting Liz Warren's front-runner status if I were a Democrat, and I believe I mentioned the fact that it would be surprising if in the past she had not allied herself with some of the very corporate interests she now derides. In other words, when she claims to be siding time and again with the little guy, she may be blowing smoke. This would be a very damning charge for progressives, because up to now Warren has been seen as radical, yes, but certainly not tainted by corruption or self-interest. Well, along comes this investigative reporting by the New York Times. Finally, Warren is being treated to some critical thinking by her fellow liberals. She should expect a whole lot more of it. Stay tuned.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/elizabeth-warrens-days-defending-big-corporations/ar-AAJswEP
Dr. Waddy: The article you cited contains much of legal esoterica and I must read it again. Meanwhile:
ReplyDeleteLet's consider the history of bankruptcy law. Without researching it it in depth I would guess: It was initially a reaction to the horrors of 18th century Debtor's prisons in Britain. Surely the creditor has an accredited right but it was probably recognized in Parliament(increasingly then the source of law not contrary, but perhaps more expansive than the Common Law) that mitigating circumstances do obtain and that perhaps there is some obligation on the creditor to investigate the prospective debtor's credit worthiness. Consideration of this perhaps fundamental legal principle may be relevant in consideration of E. Warren's past advocacy; not for my part, for moral purposes but in order to combat her campaign.
Dr. Waddy: She is defended in the article as being an effective advocate for bankruptcy law as it is and this suggests a concern for everyday people, who also benefit from it, which could be an effective counter to criticism from leftist purists in her party to the effect that she is a phony. I mean, some of those people actually thought Hillary Clinton was not leftist!
ReplyDeleteBottom line for us: E. Warren making SCOTUS nominations would be every bit the disaster that having Hillary make them would HAVE been. The only concern we need have over the situation described in the article is how this might contribute to the Dem nomination of a weak candidate.
Jack, I don't have an issue with any of Warren's legal work back in the dark ages of the 1990s -- in fact, I agree that bankruptcy ought to shield a person or a company from debt obligations, even PC obligations. The more interesting point is that, first, the NYT is going after Warren and questioning her progressive credentials, and, two, someone who works for big corporations is not necessarily credible as a crusader against big business. We may be seeing here part of the playbook of the pro-Biden establishment. Can her actions be rationalized by leftists? Sure. But before they can be rationalized they have to be questioned, and thus far she's gotten a pass.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: A well perceived point and perhaps its importance for people of our convictions is what it may reveal of the skill of the Biden campaign. You have supported your assertion that he is not finished.
ReplyDelete