UPDATE: On this site, Lynne Stewart is called a “dyke” and lambasted for her physical appearance. Hey, Feminist Law Professors, would you be more interested if Lynne dressed up in a Slim Jim costume?
* * *
So Lynne Stewart is going to give a lecture at Hofstra Law School and the knee-jerk reactionaries are going bonkers.
CONVICTED FELON! DISBARRED LAWYER! TERRORIST LOVER!
Please.
Mind you, do any of thesejackasses commenters know Lynne Stewart? Do they know anything about her? Do they know anything about the case, except what they read in the New York Post? Of course, the WSJ is always good, because of its fastidious fairness toward radical types.
It’s one thing that people who are clueless waste a thousand words writing about Michael Mukasey. After all, he will hold high public office and understood that the job came with a free proctology exam.
But Lynne isn’t running for office, and didn’t ask for every reactionary showboat on the internet to peek under her dress. If they knew Lynne, they might possibly have a clue how their shrill attacks are just ridiculous.
Notice that the loud-mouths don’t mention that Lynne was sentenced to only 28 months, and remains free on bail pending appeal. Yeah, she’s a big terrorist threat. If she doesn’t bake you brownies instead.
I’ve know Lynne for 20 years. My letter in support of Lynne at sentence was cited (I believe) more than any other of the 800 letters of support in her pre-sentence memorandum. I’ve tried cases with Lynne and I’ve taken meals with Lynne. Lynne Stewart is a friend of mine.
If you don’t know Lynne, then let it go already. And if you did, you wouldn’t be writing such nonsense.
* * *
So Lynne Stewart is going to give a lecture at Hofstra Law School and the knee-jerk reactionaries are going bonkers.
CONVICTED FELON! DISBARRED LAWYER! TERRORIST LOVER!
Please.
Mind you, do any of these
It’s one thing that people who are clueless waste a thousand words writing about Michael Mukasey. After all, he will hold high public office and understood that the job came with a free proctology exam.
But Lynne isn’t running for office, and didn’t ask for every reactionary showboat on the internet to peek under her dress. If they knew Lynne, they might possibly have a clue how their shrill attacks are just ridiculous.
Notice that the loud-mouths don’t mention that Lynne was sentenced to only 28 months, and remains free on bail pending appeal. Yeah, she’s a big terrorist threat. If she doesn’t bake you brownies instead.
I’ve know Lynne for 20 years. My letter in support of Lynne at sentence was cited (I believe) more than any other of the 800 letters of support in her pre-sentence memorandum. I’ve tried cases with Lynne and I’ve taken meals with Lynne. Lynne Stewart is a friend of mine.
If you don’t know Lynne, then let it go already. And if you did, you wouldn’t be writing such nonsense.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why do some blogs not allow comments?
October 8 Roundup
The DC Examiner quotes both Walter and me in their series on corruption in the trial bar. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: privacy laws interfere with college mental-health treatment, which of course…
October 8 Roundup
The DC Examiner quotes both Walter and me in their series on corruption in the trial bar. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: privacy laws interfere with college mental-health treatment, which of course…
“Peak” should be “peek”
Thanks Barry. Spellcheck just doesn’t cut it.
How dare you!
Former federal prosecutor Andy MacCarthy knews Stewart personally from the time they spent on opposite sides of the first WTC bombing case, and has been quite critical of her actions and the relatively light sentence she received.
Andy’s comments about Lynne, posted here, are quite responsible.
He is critical of what she did, but doesn’t levy ad hominem attacks at her. We can disagree about whether her conduct was illegal without smearing Lynne for her appearance, but as Andy makes clear, she is neither evil incarnate nor some hateful object of ignorant invective.
Although the ad hominem slurs and remarks about Stewart’s appearance are indeed regrettable, one need not know her personally to evaluate the three specific charges against her that you have singled out: “convicted felon,” “disbarred lawyer,” and “terrorist lover.” Of the three, the first two are demonstrably true: Stewart was convicted of a felony and subsequently disbarred. As for the the “terrorist lover” charge, while it may be a bit hyperbolic, Stewart’s own publicly reported statements and actions have left her open to it. A 2002 piece on Stewart that appeared in the New York Times (not the WSJ or NY Post) included the following:
“The little she knew of the sheik himself . . . appealed to her . . . As Stewart got to know her new client, she came to see him as a fighter for national liberation on behalf of a people oppressed by dictatorship and American imperialism. She came to admire him personally too, for his honesty, his strength of character, his teasing humor. ‘I’ve made up my mind,’ the sheik would say. ‘I’m going to marry you, and that will solve everything.’ ‘And what do women get if they fight in jihad?’ she would ask.”
In another New York Times story from 1995, Stewart declared her support for “directed violence” against, among other things “institutions which perpetuate captialism.”
While Stewart should not be subject to over-the-top ad hominem attacks, neither should we minimize the gravity of her offense, or the vile nature of many of her public statements.
And that, like Andy’s, is a responsible approach. She is indeed a convicted felon, lest it be reversed on appeal. She is a disbarred lawyer by operation of law. Mind you, the 1995 quote was long before the Shiek case. It is the wild hyperbole that has been thrown around that has gone over the top.
Please also bear in mind that when Judge Koeltl sentenced her, he was also aware of the gravity of the offense. Yet he had the real person standing before him, not the cartoon evil Lynne Stewart as painted around the blawgosphere.