The idea that a lawyer supports what they have to instead of what is right emerges. He pushes that a lawyer is founded from debaters that never choose a side of an argument until they are on one side of it or the other, making it not real. Anyone can see the illusion of what is presented here to be that possibly lawyers opinions in Congress are not standing on their own. That their litigation capabilities can make it a competitive advantage then compared to others in disagreements. That many of the arguments and conflicts arise partially due to their profession and are never resolved due to that same context and he asks for that diversity to resolve. .
It can see a piece of what is said in that segment that needed to be revisit and one of the biggest ideas know that maybe many viewers didn't see was to "MAKE THE BOOKS WORK ". He is holding onto to this idea that having a diversity of opinions or simply business professions and utterly fix this issue of our debt. If this was big in 2011 then I know it is still not only a big issue but a reason to cause concern. The reversal of my idea can strongly be viewed upon his stance on this, however, without the standard of fax towards actual law and precedents. This is many wouldn't have considered many attorneys to be present due to the simple fact that many bills can consist of budgeting and taxes. However, certain bills are signed to laws and that is where there will be a certain level of understanding within congress. .
Looking at the profession itself can proven to be favorable. It could be seen extent for precise detail in the profession of law that might be needed within congress. Such precision can be said to slow down congress; however, regardless of the heavy legal background of Congress it does provide better laws. Lawyers are taught to question things from every angle possible, to look at it every way. By looking at things from all perspectives, politicians are usually indecisive, in fear of upsetting their constituents and party peers.