I Guess John Edwards Wasn't Available

Print This Post

You may also like...

36 Responses

  1. Les Fields says:

    I wonder if this guy is going to have much to say about the legality of Obama's birth certificate. Probably not. Amerika abanddoned the constitution in 1867.

  2. Rliyen says:

    Anybody want to start a pool to see how long he lasts in the position before being asked to leave/forced out/leaving in order to 'spend more time with family'?

  3. Ken says:

    Believe it or not, I had actually already heard about this. (Attending certain law schools on the Charles has its advantages in terms of contacts — Obama '91, me '94).

    More incompetent mopery by this administration.

  4. Patrick says:

    Les, kindly cut out the birther shit. It's been debunked a thousand times, and my tolerance for it is low today.

  5. Simon says:

    Learn to spell. You're an idiot. The fucking Senate approved of President Obama.

  6. Tim Chang says:

    I find this to be an absolutely ideal choice, given the Obama's consistent positions against giving the insurance company fat cats more food for the troth. Who better than one who has dedicated himself to fighting for the little guy?

  7. Brettmcd says:

    you would think so tim chang. its people like this so called 'medical malpractice lawyer' whove done so much to drive up insurance costs that working people are dependent on the government rather than doctors for their health. i suppose thats fine with people like you but some of us remember the constitution which says that all rights not granted to the government are reserved to the people.

    i guess youve never read the constitution.

  8. PLW says:

    According to MY connections at a certain OTHER school along the Charles river, a massive DDOS is planned for the opening day of this fat-cat ambulance chaser's "term".

  9. Tim Chang says:

    i'm quite familiar with the constitution, thanks. but it's a proven fact that health insurance companies' business plans involves taking in as much premium dollars as possible while limiting claim payouts. they always rely on rediculous interpretation of policy exclusions to do so.

    i guess you've never read your insurance policies.

  10. REAL Patriot says:

    Fuck you, "Patrick", if that is your real name. I've read this so-called blog, and it's pathetic. Boo hoo, we can't use hate speech against protected minorities. Boo hoo, the big bad courts hold companies accountable for their heinous actions.

    The truth is you just can't accept an African-American man in office. You can't accept someone with progressive ideals that will take this country back from Bushco and Halliburton. You're just mad that he hasn't hired some John Roberts or Sam Alito for this job.

    Grow up.

  11. REAL Patriot says:

    And now you are deleting my posts. TYPICAL.

  12. Brettmcd says:

    o im quite familiar with the way insurance companies work tim chang. for years my sister suffered from a terrible medical condition. her insurance company paid all of her bills with no problems ever and her doctors gave her the best of care. its people like this 'medical malpractice' lawyer who would take her rights away and force her to suffer and die the way people have to in canada where people have to wait for a week to get a broken arm treated because doctors arent allowed to do their job.

    i suppose its fine with you that my sister would have died young thanks to obama and this 'medical malpractice' lawyer.

  13. Wow, that guy sure sounds like a loser! You really nailed it! You sure know your stuff. I'm glad I found your blog, it looks very useful. I will bookmark this post for later use.

  14. Chris says:

    Brett's not on the pre-banned list?

  15. Bob says:

    :( It's becoming harder and harder for me to separate satire and sarcasm from complete nut-jobbery.

  16. DMG says:

    What's with the post deleting lately?

  17. Patrick says:

    Sorry about that DMG. As you can see, some of our readers simply cannot control their passions. I admit that I myself have a dim opinion of this appointment, but I can't allow the sort of hostility and profanity that some of the deleted comments contained.

    As you can see, I've allowed some fairly harsh and profane comments to remain. As for those I chose to delete, good riddance.

  18. Tim Chang says:

    I've had the last five comments I've made die in "moderation". It's rediculous that a right-wing blog such as this picks and chooses whatever comments best fit it's agenda. While it continues to slander an excellent choice by the administration.

    That's just way things work around here I guess.

  19. Ted K says:

    Are you seriously saying that you believe someone is unsuited for a job in the office of the White House counsel because (among other reasons) he opposes torture? And you're questioning his patriotism on that basis? Given that Barack Obama won a presidential election as an opponent of torture, can you please give me an approximate percentage of Americans who are unpatriotic on the basis of their opposition to a tactic that has been used extensively by repressive governments throughout history, is considered deeply immoral by most first-world countries, and has been repeatedly shown to be an ineffective tactic for intelligence purposes?

  20. Patrick says:

    This man has besmirched the names of American heroes Ted, including Robert Bork.

    This man is not fit to carry John Yoo's briefcase, much less to work in the office of White House counsel, an office that used to stand for principles that have made American justice the envy of the world.

  21. Ted K says:

    Um. Good one. Would it be even marginally plausible at this point to say that I got it and was just playing along? Clearly too many hours of looking at briefs and decisions made me forget the date.

  22. Patrick says:

    Yes it's two weeks from tax filing day Ted. I hope you enjoy paying this leech's salary.

  23. Packratt says:

    I suppose this means I'm still in the running to be the next official White House Police Professionalism Blogger?

  24. Eric T. says:

    Man, you guys have some great readers. A couple even seem to have a sense of humor, which is a real bonus.

  25. Chris says:

    I managed to figure out that it was probably a prank, only to be fooled by the fake Brett. Sigh.

  26. Charles says:

    The comments here are the best thing about this prank. It was like an asshole magnet.

  27. Wow, this is rich stuff. I have to agree with Charles above. And I can't wait to read the response from the Geto Boyz. Keep up the good work, Patrick.

  28. I know you guys do this sort of thing yourself, but I lawyers are constrained by their ethics code–which applies even when they are not practicing law—not to make an effort to convince people the false is true. And there is no April 1 exception. For said lying lawyer to accuse those who trusted him to meet his professional obligations of showing a lack of due diligence by not checking his fake facts is gall to the 10th power. Sure, the Times was sloppy, as it often is. But sending out false stories in the current environment is like throwing a match in a haystack. It's no longer funny.

  29. Ken says:

    Jack, I don't agree with you even a little.

    By logical extension, lawyers who blog can't use irony or satire or any other device that offers other than an obvious true-on-its-face meaning, right?

    Also, could you please cite the authority for the proposition that lawyers are constrained by an ethics code that applies even when they are not practicing law not to make an effort to convince people the false is true? To what communications does that extend?

    I think it is a rather remarkable proposition that lawyers can't play April Fool's jokes.

    And let's be blunt: the joke only works because a cautious reader would immediately be suspicious, both of Eric's post and Patrick's denunciation. It wouldn't be funny if Eric had reported something utterly believable and consistent that was false. It's only funny because it plays into people's willingness to get angry about politics (and in the process be gullible) and the media's general incompetence and legal illiteracy.

    Someone once said that all satire is a joke between the teller and the listener at the expense of a hypothetical third party who takes it literally.

    [If you're punking us here, well done.]

  30. SG says:

    On the contrary, the virtue of such hoaxes is that it teaches (or re-teaches) that no one can be trusted to always, infaillibly say "the truth" : not lawyers, not the media, not internet, not the government, not "Joe the Plumber", not the right, not the left, not the center, etc.

    Not even the BBC ! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/3591687.stm)

  31. "lawyers are constrained by their ethics code… not to make an effort to convince people the false is true."

    Methinks Jack is making his own April Fool's joke. Those who are the butts of jokes 364 days a year should at least be able to make their own at least one day a year.

  32. SeanD says:

    Sadly, it appears Jack Marshall is all too serious. Here is the esteemed Mark Bennett's post about the topic:


    A definite contender for asshat-of-the-year…

  1. April 1, 2010

    […] selected Eric Turkewitz as the first official law blogger. You can find coverage here, here, and here. I looked into the story, and it’s legit: According to folks I talked to, there’s no small […]

  2. April 13, 2010

    […] importantly, as Patrick points out over at Popehat, Turkewitz has a blogging history that will clearly embarress the White House [I]f  Turkewitz’s past is any indicator, you can forget about changing the tone in Washington, […]

  3. April 13, 2010

    […] that was a massive blogosphere-wide April Fools Conspiracy. And I was part of […]

  4. April 1, 2011

    […] be a parody of a political attack, if it were still possible to parody such attacks anymore. (see: I Guess John Edwards Wasn't Available) Patrick also has a source inside the Senate Judiciary Committee to give the appointment credence, […]