A Pair of Perspectives on Pakistan Protests
So how did yesterday’s rallying in support of Pakistani lawyers go? It depends on whom you ask.
It was a smashing success, according to Eric Turkewitz:
Hundreds of New York attorneys tuned out at 1:00 today to rally in support of Pakistani lawyers that were arrested for demonstrating against the firing of the Pakistani Supreme Court….By my eye, the crowd looked to be about 300-400 lawyers, well in excess of what I had anticipated. Attorneys filled the steps of the courthouse and spilled out onto the sidewalk below.
It was a big disappointment, according to David Giacalone:
… [F]ewer than 800 hundred lawyers took part yesterday in the two Pakistan solidarity rallies. Sadly, I do not believe it was because no one knew (did Musharaff jam everyone’s Blackberries and cellphones?) or because the protests were “splintered.” Everyone just had higher priorities at lunchtime on a lovely autumn day in Manhattan. Seems to me, curiosity alone should have ensured more than a triple-digit body count.Will D.C-area lawyers, and those congregating from around the country to the Nation’s Capital, make a better show of solidarity today around the U.S. Supreme Court at Noon today?
Good question. If you attended the D.C. march, feel free to share your observations in the comments.
New York Lawyers Rally By Hundreds In Support of Pakistani Lawyers [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]
not impressed yet by U.S. lawyers re Pakistan [f/k/a]
Attack of the Lawyers! (subscription) [TNR (Ben Wittes)]
Earlier: Something To Do on Your Lunch Break Today
(21) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
1
First!
Judicial fellatio>Pakistan
This DC lawyer heard nothing about any rallies. But I couldn't have gone anyway because I was busy in court, shouldn't all lawyers be worried about the interests of their clients, rather than attending silly rallies?
If nothing else don't lawyers have better things to do with their valuable (billable) time than attend rallies?
The DC one was disorganized and pretty lame, but had a decent turnout. However, there were no chants, speeches, etc. People walked to the SCOTUS following signs, and then sort of dispersed haphazardly upon realizing there was nothing else planned. The actual 'march' lasted about ten minutes.
About 300 in DC. Not too big, but seemingly disorganized.
We should have had some more Emory grads.
>>>But I couldn't have gone anyway because I was busy in court, shouldn't all lawyers be worried about the interests of their clients, rather than attending silly rallies?
If nothing else don't lawyers have better things to do with their valuable (billable) time than attend rallies?<<<
And yet, you find the time to read this blog and post.
The turnout was pretty good and diverse in DC; the ABA President gave a short speech by the Library of Congress; but it did sort of end anti-climactically with not much once we reached the Supreme Court.
DC needed more WGWAG
Is there a rally supporting Musharaff?
The alternatives to him all seem worse. Be careful what you wish for our Pakistani brethren. Pushing for legal niceities now (and the rule of law is a great good), at the expense of security and stability, may lead to a "one man, one vote, one time" democracy, followed by some dark times indeed for the Pakistanis.
will schulte be marching?
This topic overshadowed by South Florida Judge Blowjobbery. What a comment on our society and profession.
2:33 -- My sentiments exactly.
"... [F]ewer than 800 hundred lawyers took part yesterday in the two Pakistan solidarity rallies..."
Wow, there were 80,000 lawyers participating in the rallies?
This typo was good as Jonathan Lee Riches(c) demanding "$60,000,000,000 billion dollars" in damages.
What Musharaff did was pretty terrible. On the other hand, judges and lawyers are terrorized every day all over the world for trying to uphold the rule of law (cf. Iraq). What makes Pakistan's lawyers deserving of a march and not others?
Plus, as lawyers, isn't there something more constructive we can do with our skills and positions rather than attending a rally? Mass protests work best for people whose only way to be heard is to wave a piece of posterboard on a stick.
What Musharaff did was pretty terrible. On the other hand, judges and lawyers are terrorized every day all over the world for trying to uphold the rule of law (cf. Iraq). What makes Pakistan's lawyers deserving of a march and not others?
Plus, as lawyers, isn't there something more constructive we can do with our skills and positions rather than attending a rally? Mass protests work best for people whose only way to be heard is to wave a piece of posterboard on a stick.
What Musharaff did was pretty terrible. On the other hand, judges and lawyers are terrorized every day all over the world for trying to uphold the rule of law (cf. Iraq). What makes Pakistan's lawyers deserving of a march and not others?
Plus, as lawyers, isn't there something more constructive we can do with our skills and positions rather than attending a rally? Mass protests work best for people whose only way to be heard is to wave a piece of posterboard on a stick.
3:38 - No, there were fewer than 800 hundred. That does not tell us that 80,000 attended.
Fact: Fewer than 800 hundred justices currently sit on the SCOTUS.
Apologies for the comments in triplicate - guess the server error occurred after the post had already gone through.
2:33, you are absolutely right. People seem to think democracy is great. Liberal democracy is great. Otherwise, democracy is merely anarchy at worst, or Iran at best.
4:37, you are a literalist assclown.
I doubt 79,999 lawyers attended the rallies.