In one of the most insane propositions I have ever seen, Lawrence Taylor reports on a bill going through the Senate in Tennessee.
The proponent of the bill wants to stop DUI (and DWI) lawyers from advertising their expertise because it is getting to hard to convict people accused of DUI. Hmm.. so her solution is that they should not be able to get lawyers that specialize in the area?
Hey Senator, why not cut it off at the pass, and propose legislation not to allow people to have lawyers? Or better yet, who needs jury trials anyway?
Lawrence pointed out another article where Senator XXXX explained her reasoning: She "said she pushed for the amendment because she was tired of suspected DUI offenders not being convicted.”
Yes, people found not guilty of a crime? How can that be? Surely they must be guilty, right? Those 6 idiot jurors were fooled!
Oh wait.. maybe there was another motive? The article also explains that her move "brought criticism from her opponent who practices in DUI law"
Ahh.. politics at their best.
(P.S. I didnt really want to put her name in here, because that might have been "advertising" that she didnt want. But because her opponent Timothy Barnes, a Clarksville attorney, seems to support the First Amendment, I dont see the harm in mentioning him here.)