Lawyers vs. non-lawyers

September 4, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The race for the next president of the United States is Democrats vs. Republicans, but it’s also lawyers vs. non-lawyers.

Both Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have law degrees, whereas on the Republican side Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin never went to law school.

It seems nearly every party-nominated candidate for president has either a law degree or a military background (which, to me, makes Gov. Palin an even more interesting choice for veep because she has neither).

Looking back at the candidates running for both parties in the primaries, the overwhelming majority held law degrees. It’s kind of like the question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Do those who have political aspirations choose law school as a career boost, or do those who become lawyers later decide to enter politics?

When it comes to elections, does attending law school and practicing law give some candidates an edge over others? Are attorneys considered more qualified by the general public to go into politics than someone who has a business degree or communications degree but works his or her way up through the political ranks to become a governor, representative, or senator?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT