The Lawyer's Stranglehold on Governance
A scathing editorial arguing that the legal profession’s devotion to precedent over progress is choking American democracy.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
President Taft is a lawyer. Of his cabinet, seven out of nine are lawyers. In no other country do courts possess the powers they do in the United States; they set aside statutes enacted by Congress and state legislatures, and enjoin executive action. The writ of injunction has been so enlarged that few phases of government are exempt from their reach. We find the lawyer possessing the reins of government in every direction. Does this situation make for progress? The lawyer's vision is backward—not forward. His education has dealt chiefly in precedents; his criterion is not 'what is right?' but 'what is established?' We believe the failure of government to be progressive and its tendency to be the handmaid of vested wrong are due to the undue influence of lawyers in government.
“His criterion is not WHAT IS RIGHT? but WHAT IS ESTABLISHED?”
This 1910 critique of the 'legalistic' capture of government mirrors modern anxieties about the judiciary’s role in striking down legislation, from labor protections to civil rights. The editor’s call for 'duty to the state' over 'duty to client' remains a volatile question in American political theory.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.