US Senator Scott Brown has attacked Elizabeth Warren in recent days for her legal work on behalf of Travelers Insurance in an asbestos case, asserting that it undermines her reputation as a consumer advocate. But Travelers is not the only large corporation Warren has represented.
Warren also helped write a petition to the US Supreme Court for LTV Steel in the 1990s, assisting the former industrial conglomerate in its fight against a congressional requirement that it pay millions of dollars into a fund for its retired coal miners’ health care.
Comments
"Warren, a Harvard Law School professor, did not argue the coal case in two lower courts, where LTV lost. Instead, she is listed on a petition to urge the Supreme Court to review the case, which the court rejected."
Another half-baked controversy because she wanted the case reviewed?
What I'm getting from this and the Travelers case is that she sided with large corporations to ensure that the corporations retained the financial ability to pay its victims/retirees promptly instead of relying on future settlements, and in order to do so, there had to be trade-offs so the corporations would get something out of it.
Not as evil as the Globe is trying to make it out to be.
Get out that spin polish someone is looking a little tarnished. ..." to ensure that the corporations retained the financial ability to pay" Do you even believe that? Wow.
This comment has been removed.
I don't recall any of your Romney articles requiring the readers to pay to read them. So Lizzie is STILL making the people pay, even in news print.
This comment has been removed.
Any chance the Globe will write a story about Warren's apparently illegal practice of law in Mass. without a license? Even if this is turns out to be legal based on some exemption, I think this is a story worth looking into. The staff is probably looking for the right spin, this takes time...
Did she practice or just consult? Because there is a difference.
This was answered in the article Begon. You must have had your Scott Brown blinders on. She did not practice so she did not need it. However she was a member of the Supreme Court Bar and entitled to litigate federal cases. Now what issues has Sen Brown worked on that so tickles your fancy?
The Globe pretends to inform people about bankruptcy law in a few sentences, leaving enough fodder for both sides. In truth there is not enough information to make a judgment. If these cases are going to be brought out then a fuller discussion and enlightenment is required. A reporter just writing down what each side said without some independent research is a disservice to the public. After reading and rereading the article it is hard to figure out rationales. As usual if you support one candidate or the other that is where your opinion migrates. In short it leaves us just where we were before this was presented. Does the Globe really want the next debate cluttered with a few complicated cases with many actors and readers with little expertise on the subject are suppose to figure out if this is good, bad, or indifferent? All I know is she was respected for her work and it helped reform our bankruptcy laws. It preserved payments to claimants, distributed funds reasonably, and tried to keep companies from shirking their responsibilities by declaring bankruptcy.
You say, " All I know is she was respected for her work and it helped reform our bankruptcy laws. It preserved payments to claimants, distributed funds reasonably, and tried to keep companies from shirking their responsibilities by declaring bankruptcy. " .....And you know this how? Where is your research on this, and where can we see it?
yeah ... and let's see your long form birth certificate while we are at it. boy, the full moon pack is out baying this morning.
Clearly, this woman is a liar and a hypocrite. And the spin put out by her in this article is laughable.
Since Ms. Warren never passed the Massachusetts Bar, how is it that she can practice law?
The answer is in the article. She didn't argue the case, she consulted on it. Perfectly legal. ALso, this was almost 20 years ago.
Warren, through her campaign, declined an interview request. What is she hiding?
This is another sounds strangely similar to her denial that she claimed Indian heritage for career advancment. dishonest, immoral - and self serving?
She's a fraud! This is what happens when the Democratic regime in MA hand picks its candidates instead of letting the voters decide. The party did not want a primary so they forced all the other candidates to withdraw while they annointed Miss Lizzie.
More evidence of how the Dems continue to strip away your freedoms.
Have you forgotten how Mitt Romney became the GOP candidate for Governor? Or how Scott Brown was selected? Welcome to politics. Methinks thou doust protest too much.
A person who accepts money to perform obscene acts is called a 'prostitute'.
to affirmative action baby, liar and snooty professor, "WesternCiv2" with that marvelous pic of one of the foulest imperialists of the 20th century, is added whore?? really??
This comment has been removed.
I refer to her debate performance when I ask, "why did she repeat the words, billionaire and millionaire" 37 times? She lacks that amazing grace and bludgeons her supporters with campaign slogans designed to inflame the masses of "poor folks" who hate "rich" people. Class warfare versus telling the truth is the stratagem. The truth is simple. She is a lawyer who like any good debater will take any side and argue it. In the case in point here, she must have done it for the bucks. So, why now, is she our declared champion and protector against those really nasty banks and businesses like Travelers and LTV Steel? May I suggest she found a step ladder. Not answering or providing records and evading the truth is her stock in trade. Yes, she is in the political trade where facts lie buried under the truth. Her Harvard pull got her the contacts for this nomination. If good Democrats really had a choice, would they want her for this senate seat? Try that question on your next Democrat survey.
yeah. pro FOX. sort of tells you what you need to know.
this is a Karl Rove script.
Liz Warren Liberal . Liz Warren Phony.
typical Republican smears in the Karl Rove era: take the opponents best features, here intelligence and candor, through lies and more lies endlessly repeated with the Republican Noise Machine, convert into stupidity and liar ...
at long last, does Scott Brown and his ilk have no decency? that answer is obvious. this campaign is all about dressing up Scott Brown in sheep's clothing ... oh, Mr. Independent Senator ... you'll vote lockstep with your Republican colleagues reliably, right? that is all you need to know, and it is a true thing. all the rest is spin, noise and, quite frankly, misogynist smears. Warren as an affirmative action baby and now a liar? yeah, and I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. apparently Brown is counting on the ability to fool most of the people some of the time.
This comment has been removed.
But you don't present anything to refute the FACTS of this story.
When Jim Braude asked in the interview yesterday if she would release a list of her other clients, she replied "I don't have it". Warren isn't big on transparency, and clearly there is a reason. Warren, relase your Penn and Harvard employee records and client list; as a consumer advocate don't you believe voters have a right to know?
Seems like big corporations wrote her some Big Paychecks which she had no problem cashing at the expense of workers, both LTV and Travelars Insurance. Not to mention she can't state what a 'middle income' salary is. She is so uninspiring and while I am a Democrat, Scott Brown is earning my vote not as much as Ms. Warren is losing it.
Some Democrate!
Yep.....Let’s see what we have so far for the Warren household…… >3/4 of a million $$ annually from Harvard University for Mr. & Ms. Warren >$200K (+) from Travelers Ins. to help make this pesky Supreme Court issue go away..... >$100K (+) annually for Ms. Warren's consulting fees and personal appearance fees. Seems to me that she is one of those 'Millionaires & Billionaires' that she is sworn to protect us from....like ‘puttin' the Fox in charge of protecting the hen house’......
Wow, are you repubs are really getting desperate. You all sound like hungry wolves going for a very small piece of meat.
Is this all you can come up with. I just can't stop laughing.Can't you see how stupid this makes you look? If Elizabeth Warren had earned 10 million dollars this might be a story, but $10,000 over 20 years ago. Do you really think that lawyers only represent people that they love and admire? Thanks for the laugh.
Hear, hear!
This comment has been removed.
Look this is simply RIDICULOUS. Get a check on reality. People had LIVES BEFORE running for office now and it included working sometimes with different corporations or on behalf of them. Sometimes especially in the legal field, as I personally have experienced in a NON-attorney, role one must represent many different interests. Guess what? We LIVE in a capitalist society in case you haven't noticed. In our system even corporations deserve representation as well. You may not love the company you represent but in our system EVERYONE deserves their day in court with legal counsel. THIS is a good thing AND the attorney in a firm does NOT often get to pick and choose whom they represent. Without corporation attorney advocacy the entire economic system would collapse as companies ad infinitum would be sued with NO representation. Even plaintiffs would suffer by that. 1993 is a long time ago and ONCE AGAIN I think Elizabeth has answered this sufficiently. I was ALWAYS a left of center cause advocate but that did not mean I did not have to make a living. Representing insurance companies, corporations and those involved in bankruptcy need representation too and sometimes as in life things are not neatly wrapped packages. GET A GRIP Senator Brown, my image is of you and your staff wading through all kinds of material just to get a GOTCHA MOMENT on this gem of a candidate. You were a BULLY in the first debate and you continue to be so. I look at Elizabeth Warren now who formed the Consumer Protection Bureau for what she IS and WILL be a STRONG ADVOCATE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. Massachusetts should consider itself LUCKY to get this brilliant woman. Mr. Brown, Jesus said, do not look at the speck the other man's eye when YOU have a LOG in your own and I say YOU HAVE A BIG ONE!
You said it better than I did!
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Liberal strategy is to bludgeon opposing voices into silence. No matter how much truth is told, the response is not to present the truth. It is to batter and ram the opposition with damning epithets. Lacking a reasoned, rational response for Professor Warren's faux feathers, school yard name calling splashes the playground with dirty words. The latest, "a Karl Rove script" left out that killer defamation, "Neocon" and "stupid right winger". Saying the Democrats lack their own "Noise machine". is like saying a chicken haas no feathers. No defense exists that would satisfy a "believer" who denies reality. Let us look at a little bit of reality. Do you really believe that the windmill and clean energy business will employ those thousands of displaced workers from the "dirty" oil and gas industry? Did the "Hate groups" that blasted the oil pipe line from Canada help lower the cost of gasoline from its current nearly $4/gallon. Do you really believe the fed printing paper money does not make you the payer of our national debt with your cheapened pay check? How many independent Democrat senators were there when Obama, Harry and Nancy blasted that unread million page Obamacare law through Congress at Midnight?
Bludgeoning opposing voices into silence is a practice that predates definitions of liberal, conservative, or curmudgeonly. Ever heard of Socrates and Meletus?
The well is poisoned by your examples. The Keystone pipeline takes dirty, corrosive oil-shale liquid FROM CANADA and transports it through the US, over an aquifer that supplies 7 states and deposits it in refineries that produce oil FOR THE WORLD MARKET, through the Gulf of Mexico. No workers are displaced. We EXPORT gas and oil and diesel! The pipeline supports very few permanent good jobs and gives Canada an outlet to the world through the Gulf of Mexico. In simpler words, a foreign country is building a pipeline across sovereign US soil, with inherent dangers, from north to south. This pipeline does not produce many jobs and does not reduce the price of oil. It does however, give Canada the cheapest way to move this dirty oil to the world! Refineries in the US are closing(!) in the northeast, contributing to the shortage of gas and rising prices. Why? Because they are not profitable enough for Big Oil. They would rather export, where the profits are larger, so if you want to blame someone for shortages and prices, look at the same people who stiffed you during the 70's with gas lines, shortages etc., telling you oil was running out (while tankers waited offshore for the price to rise.) "The dirty little secret that those pushing so urgently for building Keystone XL don't want you to know is that the tar sands oil producers are in cahoots with Texas refineries to move the product onto the lucrative global export market, selling it to buyers in Europe, Latin America and China -- not to you and me. The pipeline and the toxic crude it'll carry across six states would do..." http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/6978:the-keystone-xl-flimflam
I have criticized the Globe for appearing heavily biased in its articles associated with this campaign (favoring the Warren campaign)......I was pleased read this article and to see that there is some motivation on the part of the Globe's editorial staff to be fair in its reporting. Thank You.
So bias is anything you don't like, and fair and balanced is anything you like? Both candidates have flaws that have been reported on. That's what newspapers do.
JLErwin3.....you missed my point.....There have been PLENTY of pro-Warren articles published by the Globe in recent weeks. My observation above points to this artlcle as one that offers balence and adds more legitimacy to the Globe as a news organization. No argument with your 2nd point......both candidates are indeed flawed.....we are left with a choice to 'Pick our Poison' between the two.
This article reads as though it was a lightly reworked press release from the Scott Brown campaign. Is that how the Globe's responds to accusations of bias?
What I said to Normie applies here as well.
"would seem to undercut her image as a middle-class champion"......
Nope. Does undercut...... same with the Travelers suit, same with her claiming minority status, same with her drawing 340K for teaching one class...
How does the "claiming minority status" afect that at all? Except that you wanted to get the smear in?
This comment has been removed.
The wheels appear to be coming off the Warren campaign. I can hear all the shrill cries of gender discrimination now.
This comment has been removed.
This is just another distraction. Elizabeth Warren has proven over and over again that she will fight for the middle class workers and against the abuses of big business. Her work to get the Consumer Protection Ageny in place speaks much more to her character than these shady attempts by the Brown campagin to re-interrupt her past. I know she will work in Congress to protect the middle and lower class citizens of this country. I also know what Scott Brown voted enthusiastically for the Blount amendment, which whould have allowed any employer to simply declare that they would not cover any illness they wished. So, if cancer was costing them too much on their insurnace, they could just object to paying for cancer treatments and write it out of the employer provided insurance. The Blount amendment went far beyond religious freedom, it also included the right for employers to arbitrarily limit health care to its employees. Elizabeth Warren never would have voted for the Blount bill. Scott Brown did. Trying to twist her legal representation of two companies does not show her position on helping the middle class. The Consumer Protection Agency does. And the Bount amendment shows Scott Brown's commitment to big business over the workers. Brown, as a typical politician, is simply trying to cloud the air with unfounded accustations. Elizabeth Warren is a strong advocate for the lower and middle class. Scott Brown is not.
Good post. Wall Street's Favorite Senator received another distractive Fall Present in the shape of the Coal Act. The distractions, which you mention, are important to Brown because thay take time and effort to refute. Witness the other baloney happenings: Indian or not, recipes, asbestoes and now coal. All this takes the voters eye of the ball: Brown's sorry, sorry votes as a senator from Mass and a US senator. Maybe it's time Democrats should sink a little closer into the mud with Republicans: Kings and Queens, Hillary Clinton, "dead" Osama binLaden, supporting Jeff Perry, influence-peddling, plagiarism of STOCK act, specious military service and on and on and on. All with verification. Many in Brown's own words, like the military service: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/07/guard_service_a_key_to_candidate_brown/?page=3 Preserve the middle class, keep the recovery going, sleep in your own bed with your own choice and don't worry about sickness ending your dream. Vote Democratic, President Obama and Elizabeth Warren, and end this Republican Theatre of the Absurd and its second banana, Scott Brown's Soap Opera Life tour.
It has been clear from the start of the American Indian controversy that Elizabeth Warren has no integrity whatsoever. She believes that she does not have to answer questions put to her on that issue, Traverlers and now this with the LTV. Senator Scott Brown has worked tirelessly for all and does so by crossing the aisle to get things done.
Care to provide an example of Brown "crossing the aisle to get things done?"
So, this is news? An attorney defended her client. That's what attorneys do. If she had not, I suppose that would have been a scandal, too.
I think it's a measure of the strength of Warren's candidacy that the attacks against her are so ludicrous. Really, Globe.
Sir, the news in this story is that Warren, who claims to be an advocate for the working middle class and disadvantaged citizens, is anything but that. With all that is being reported about her now, its plain to see that she is a fraud. Beyond the legal fees that she was paid to represent companies seeking to avoid responsibility for actions that may have harmed their employees, the fact that she and her husband profited from the misfortune of others when they acquired residential property in foreclosures, shows that she'll take advantage of any situation to profit from. Everyone is entitled to legal representations but don't be out there claiming that you have always battled against big business and for the consumer when you have done just the opposite in these instances. Or her criticism of the high cost of higher education in the US when she makes in excess of $350,000 per year while teaching a single course at Harvard or the fact that she also was compensated more than $150,000 while still receiving her Harvard salary is further proof that she is a total fraud. She is the worst candidate any party has ever fielded in a statewide election.
Warren is obviously a good lawyer. She believes whatever her client pays her to believe. If that means shifting the burden of paying benefits from a large corporation to the the taxpayers - so be it. She was getting paid and did her job.
This gives me good reason to doubt her sincerity as caring for the middle class when the middle class would have borne the payments for AMR.
Perhaps it's these cases that persuaded Ms. Warren that the corporations were predators on individual emplyees, and she took up her cause from that point. In another scenario, because a lawyer takes a criminal case and defends a suspect, that does not mean that the lawyer is also a criminal or that he/she sympathizes with the criminal. Defendants have a right to a lawyer and to be defended. Some individuals (foolishly), try to defend themselves.
Scott Brown has a history of lying. He says he was briefed on the OsamaBinLaden raid. He specifically said "Yes", when asked if he had seen the pictures of the dead man. He told several audiences that he talks with Kings, Queens, and Prime Ministers in the course of his busness as a senator. Some members of his family dispute his accounts of his own childhood as told in his book, "Against all Odds".
He is not a man we can take at his word, in my opinion. I would suspect that Karl Rove is at work for Sen. Brown with the latest ad, "What else don't we Know"? Despicable innuendo. Gutter politics.
Karl Rove is a brilliant man. You should listen to him more often.
In fact, Karl Rove did meet with Brown around the Republican convention. I always love articles from a Business-connected source. It gives me a bit more confidence that Republican might read it. This one is terrific! http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-13/scott-brown-wall-streets-hope-to-stop-elizabeth-warren
This should have been the lead paragraph, not buried at the end: "Warren has taken criticism from Brown for representing Travelers Insurance in a case where she earned more than $200,000. Warren, in that case, was on the same side as many asbestos victims, who were trying to unlock a $500 million settlement fund in exchange for giving the company immunity from future asbestos lawsuits. Travelers won the immunity, but in a separate case won an order that it did not have to pay the settlement." Trying to do the right thing backfired; we assume that she learned her lesson from this experience.
AND, after the words "Travelers won the immunity" should follow: Warren left the case at this point and had no further relationship with either side. The "separate case" was a lower court decision that was given long after Warren left.
Ironic that the fork stuck in Warren's campaign telling us she's done was made from LTV steel . . .
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Typical Karl Rove smears--absolutely. This is Karl Rove’s technique--take a person’s biggest strength--Elizabeth’s Consumer Protection Act and her advocacy for the middle class and throw little bits of mud all over her. See if something sticks. Karl tries to muddy the water--and better still, he tries to make white look like black. We know that Scott was seen talking to Rove the one day Scott was at the Republican Convension--apparently that was his most important reason to be there. Scott doesn’t want us to know how he votes. Mud slinging with Rove’s help is all he has.
Convention
This comment has been removed.
'Elizabeth Warren helped LTV Steel fight a congressional requirement that it pay millions into a fund for its retired coal miners’ health care.' </p>
The union will be paid to hold signs for her just like they did for Coakley... but they will vote for Brown again like they did before. They know Scott Brown. And they know Liz knows nothing about them.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
More proof of this fraud. She hammered the middle class, how ironic. I am a union member and will be voting for Scott Brown.
Really. What union? SAG?
esfsdfsdf: I realize you're really trying to spin this away but you cannot. I ask you to think for a moment; what if this were Scott Brown parading around as a Native American, lawyering for Travelers and now this. And to find out she isn't even qualified to practice? Cmon, you're looking more desperate.
Globe: How about digging for a list of Warren's clients? Some of this must be in the public record, it must be possible to find out all the cases she was involved in ( without a Mass license).
The sections of this Globe article that illustrate that Elizabeth Warren, navigating the complicated practice that is bankruptcy law in her role on behalf of the corporations, was indeed trying to help employees using the avenues that she knew. No wonder she has emerged from these cases with the attitude that the system is "rigged" against us. Think maybe it was an incentive to create the CPB? If she had been prosecuting, the Globe would have run a piece on how she helped companies bilk their employees by declaring bankruptcy and then dissolving.
Liz Warren didn't look ready to be a senator. She should have run as a selectman first. Or something. Jill Stein is much more prepared for a state-wide or senate position than Liz Warren. It is obvious Warren isn't ready for such a job.
This comment has been removed.
That's the election.
How so?
Nice Articile Noah, what did you cut and paste it from Scott Browns newspare the Herald.. This is another example of how lazy reporters have gotten...
This comment has been removed.
Forget the lying about her "Native American Heritage", this will put her away for good.
This comment has been removed.
I don't think so. This is too long ago. We are talking 20 years. The Blount ammendment on the other hand which Brown co-sponsored was this year and far more relevant. And we will not let him forget it.
In a 2006 PBS interview, Warren upbraided LTV for treating employees “like paper towels. You use them and you throw them away.” Warren did not mention in the interview she was a paid lawyer for LTV. Of course not, she's a liar and a hypocrite.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Am I really reading this article in the Globe. Now I know Warren is finsihed!
This comment has been removed.
I am afraid I have some very bad news for The Boston Globe. Not all legal clients will qualify for sainthood.
What is at issue under our current legal system is that any person, group, organization, or business is entitled to the best representation available. Our legal system is, in the end, a challenge of opinions on one side vs. opinions on the other side. Facts are important but aren't always crucial to the outcome of a case.
Mr. Brown has been involved in a few cases as well. Is he claiming all his clients were pristine and error-free. Why is The Boston Globe not looking as deeply into his clients and his voting records in both Senates?
The difference is is that today Warren would be fighting them and Brown would be for them.
and you know that how? This belongs to Warren and has NOTHING to do with Brown. Nice try but Fail.
Can you guys come up with something this century maybe?
Fail
Fail? Groovy.
"OOPS" so much for the working person....just like her $375 thousand dollar salary for teaching 1 course at Harvard...where many students cannot afford to go or they come out with a massive debt. Beside using a minority status, is this what MA. needs another do as I say, but the elites & myself will tell you peons how to live, but not like us. Will she visit the Occupiers this weekend....she was so proud to be associated with them at first.
Sorry but students do not come out of Harvard with massive debt. Harvard is very generous with their financial aid. Look it up. Students leave Harvard with much less debt than most college students.
This comment has been removed.
Looks like Lizzy needs to circle her wagons, hold a moonbat pow-wow and send up some smoke signals to voters that she is not a fraud. Trouble is....she is a fraud...and a big time one at that ! Brown will scalp her in November !
Reporting these attacks on Warren's legal career plays into an incredibly cynical campanign that counts on the inability of the voters to make a judgement about Brown's claim. Are you guys on Brown's staff?
Just reporting the facts and bringing them to the for front. Liberals hate to talk about facts; they simply don't get it.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Stevie Lynch and Mike Capuano must be thinking about printing stickers!!! Spreading Bull is done!
Now, Globe-tomorrow I want to see the article about Elizabeth Warren practicing law without a MA. license to practice such, as she herself stated on the Eagan and Braude show. THAT is illegal. This woman should be brought up on charges, and Harvard should be subpoenaed for her records.
For matters of federal law such as patent law, constitutional law, bankruptcy law etc, if you are licensed in one state, you may represent clients from any state. States do not have the power to restrict who practices law on federal matters before federal bodies. There are ample cases on this, including a very well-written NJ case involving patent law.
Since she's such a fighter for the little people, like coal miners, I think we should rename her "Norma Rea" Warren.
None of this really matters at all, the "takers" in this state will vote for Warren no matter WHAT is said (or proved) about her. Just watch the election results on TV, all the welfare cities will vote for her by a large margin because THEY DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING, things are good for them right now. All the cities and towns that have large populations of taxpayers will vote for Brown because they know he's the real deal (as far as any politician can go). May the lord help us if Warren pairs up with Kerry and Obama gets re-elected.
Noah, the article you supposedly wrote, with your name above it, is lifted from MIT's "The Tech." I think it is proper for news writers to footnote and give source info. Unfortunately, we can't all be Scott Brown and plagiarize at will. http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N40/wire1.html Now the objections. She helped to write a petition to the Supreme Court! That's all! It was rejected! That's all! Are you sure you want to cast her not only as the devil, but the creator of hell as well? I know the entire story and it is a replay, for the most part, of Warren's intentions in the Travelers' case. She remains one of the most vital proponents for consumers in America. Brown, as a lawyer, knows perfectly well what Warren does and her reputation for doing it. But his BS will persist through the next debate. Not every lawyer commands the respect, recognition, money and standing of an Elizabeth Warren. Certainly not Brown, the Accidental Senator. This was a very complicated case and what Brown is doing to the intent of the parties is wrong.
I apologize for sending the wrong post. I actually sent Bierman's Tech article! Bad mistake! Too involved. The rest of the post is what I intended to send. Mea Culpa.