September 25, 2012

[Cough, Cough] Elizabeth Warren Also Represented an Eeeevil Corporation Against Coal Miners

Monique Chartier

Mass senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren purports to represent the little guy. Just ask her website.

Washington is rigged to work for those who can hire an army of lobbyists and an army of lawyers to get special deals. It isn't working for small businesses and middle class families. That has to change.

It's turning out, however, that she did not always do so. Hillary Chabot and Joe Battenfeld have the story in today's Boston Herald.

Warren represented LTV Steel in 1995, when she was a Harvard Law professor, aiding the bankrupt company’s bid to overturn a court ruling forcing it to pay its former employees and dependents $140 million in retirement benefits.

Warren was one of two LTV lawyers who wrote a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the appellate court decision siding with the coal miners, documents obtained by the Herald show. The high court never took up the case.

Warren was paid about $10,000 for her work, according to her campaign. The latest disclosure comes after the Herald reported that Warren defended an insurance giant against asbestos victims.

In other Elizabeth Warren news, Professor William Jacobson lays out in considerable detail on Legal Insurrection the potential problems with Elizabeth Warren not possessing a Massachusetts law license.

And Ms. Warren has just launched an ad addressing her own, undocumented claim of one thirty second Native American heritage and

defending herself from attacks suggesting that she claimed to be Native American in order to benefit from racial preferences in the legal profession.

Check out Ms. Warren's opponent here.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Let's not kid ourselves.

As flawed a candidate as Prof. Warren appears to be, she stands a remarkably high chance of winning in Massachusetts.

Posted by: brassband at September 25, 2012 4:10 PM

If warren only practiced in Federal court,a MA license wasn't required as long as she was licensed somewhere at the time.
Her CHOICE of clients belies her "image"as a friend of the ordinary wage earner.It's not like she defended a criminal-any criminal has a right to a defense-a corporation in a civil case only has a right to a lawyer they can afford-no one made her take these cases-she was greedy for money.Plain and simple.I'm sure the Scott McKays of the world will fall all over themselves defending her.

Posted by: joe bernstein at September 25, 2012 5:48 PM

Sorry, Brassband, I have to disagree with your modifiers. The polls might have her ahead but not by that much.

Posted by: Monique at September 25, 2012 6:09 PM

fake pocohontas might win. unbelievable. sad state of affairs is the northeast minus NH.

Posted by: Bob at September 25, 2012 6:53 PM

Monique -- hope you're right. Having observed Mass. politics for many decades, seems to me that serious flaws rarely hamper Dem candidates . . . (going all the way back to Curley; way before my time but wasn't he re-elected Mayor of Boston while still imprisoned?)

Posted by: brassband at September 25, 2012 7:34 PM

Warren is similar to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. She is 10% Native American and 90% phony. Swimmer Kennedy kept getting reelected even after he left a young female to drown. Is Warren that bad?..... of course she is...just bad enough to get elected.

Posted by: ANTHONY at September 25, 2012 7:53 PM

Liberals love liars.

Posted by: John at September 25, 2012 9:10 PM

Warren isn't a Kennedy.The nature of her legal work may really hurt her image as a defender of the "little guy".Brown is a reasonably good Senator.He can't move an inch further to the right in MA.He's likable-warren is like a walking case of PMS.

Posted by: joe bernstein at September 25, 2012 11:02 PM

Personally I could not care less about a candidate's "likability", whatever that is.

This thread calls her "flawed" without explaining her flaws - What is freely asserted is just as freely denied.

She is accused of being a lawyer interested in money. What a surprise, a lawyer who pursues money! This is in contrast to what lawyer in congress who doesn't?

She is called "fake pocohontas (sic)" by someone who succeeds only in exposing his own prejudices.

I will say that none of the "arguments" presented makes a case for voting against her. Her efforts in establishing the Consumer Protection Agency persuade me to support her. That, at least is an accountable action which may be debated. Maybe some of you who contributed to this thread can explain why the agency is such a bad idea. Then we can begin a reasonable discussion.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at September 29, 2012 10:20 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.