Obama's supreme court picks from WHITE COLLAR CORRUPTION law firms

[presence]

Obama's supreme court picks (per NY Times) come from law firms that are "who's who" of how to get out of jail on corporate corruption


https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0187/2004/products/m4_small.jpg?v=1448982759


David Barron, academic and federal judge, penned Obama's controversial american citizen drone policy

The New York Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) Editorial Board describes the policy


"a slapdash pastiche of legal theories —
some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law —
that was clearly tailored to the desired result."



now aside from him...


These guys...

every one of them

comes from a law firm that specializes in white-collar get-out-of-jail-free-cards for

"foreign corrupt practices", "bribery", "ponzi schemes", etc. etc. etc.

Paul Watford, a multinational fixer for Munger, Tolles & Olson
The American Lawyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Lawyer) described the firm as an "army of trial lawyers capable of waging war".

Merrick Garland, a multinational fixer for Arnold & Porter LLP

Patricia Ann Millett, a multinational fixer for Miller & Chevalier

Sri Srinivasan, a multinational fixer for O'melveny and Myers

Loretta Lynch - drug war DA; fifa prosecutions, multinational fixer for Hogan Lovells



http://i.imgur.com/zjG9kTF.png
http://www.mto.com/practices-industries/practices/international/fcpa-investigations-and-counseling

http://i.imgur.com/3jM9zu5.png
https://www.omm.com/services/practices/regulatory-and-government-affairs/foreign-corrupt-practices-act/

http://i.imgur.com/jFUg2IH.png
http://www.hoganlovells.com/bribery-corruption/

http://i.imgur.com/ZO5bcd5.png
http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/services/capabilities/practices/anticorruption

http://i.imgur.com/BrlcR8l.png
http://www.millerchevalier.com/OurPractices/International/FCPAInternationalAntiCorruption

[Zippyjuan]

A lawyer argues for whatever his client wants. That is not necessarily their own personal views. It could be- but doesn't have to be. Judges must look at both sides as presented and rule based on the law and the arguments.