1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Firm defending Defense of Marriage Act withdraws from case

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Apr 25, 2011.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Cynthia Tucker

    I'm not against "gay marriage". It's inevitable. It doesn't affect me. And, even looking at it politically, it's a long term political loser for the Republican Party.

    That said and out of the way, I think this decision is chilling.

    Frankly, it is un-American (and this is not a term I use lightly or even ever) to harass, intimidate, or threaten a lawyer or law firm in such a manner as to scare them off of a case.

    It is cowardly of this firm to drop the case at this point and the judge should not have allowed it. They didn't have to take it in the first place, but they should honor their commitment.

    Finally, while the left may celebrate this as a victory, they have opened a new front in the political and ideological war. Once opened, it will not go without retaliation. Firms and lawyers that represent Guantánamo detainees or other unpopular clients can now expect to face this kind of pressure.

    That's unfortunate and it threatens our entire legal system.
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Did someone threaten them?
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Read the links. Still not seeing any threats.
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Define threat?

    What does "held accountable" mean?

    How would it "have gotten very ugly for them"? Would there have been a campaign to harass, intimidate, and/or stigmatize the firm and/or its prospective recruits?

    I don't think anyone threatened anyone with bodily harm, but it's pretty clear that a campaign to threaten their reputation, recruiting, and very livelihood was being readied.

    And that's still chilling.
  5. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Let's lock this like all the others. Might as well do it now.
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It's not chilling at all.

    And he answers your question about how it would have gotten "ugly" for them in the next sentence: "People no longer want to be associated with this kind of discrimination."

    I just can't, for the life of me, understand what the issue is here. King & Spalding chose to defend DOMA. People mobilized to protest that choice. I don't think Johnnie Cochran was speaking at too many women's shelters the last 15 years of his life, either. Is that "chilling," too?
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Holy crap, why?

    This isn't about the DOMA. I even said right off the bat that I'm not against gay marriage. There's no reason for anyone to get testy.
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I think it might have been more of a comment about draconian thread locks than your topic.
  9. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    Yf, lawyers and law firms for ages have avoided public, controversial cases, or cases whose politics weren't sympathetic to their views. I see nothing "chilling" about this, no new ground broken here. What I do see is a law firm that did not expect the shitstorm it was getting for defending DOMA, and not the least of criticisms being what they were going together paid to do this. The firm didn't take the case as a social crusade, or else it would have been immune to any criticism. I would guess the firm, being the good capitalists it's partners are, ran some numbers, looked at it's shot of winning, weighed it's name being associated in the long run, and decided it would be in its best interest to sit this out. The partner that quit clearly was the only one who saw it as more than a paycheck.
  10. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Looks to me like the system worked; the law firm was free to represent whatever client it wanted, and the public was free to complain, coerce and convince that firm to change its mind.
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    So what's next?

    What if the end result is that the "Ground Zero Mosque", Planned Parenthood, or Guantánamo detainees find themselves unable to find representation?

    Do we really want lawyers to have to way the popularity of their clients before deciding whether or not to represent them?
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Are you under the impression that it is easy for unpopular clients to find good lawyers? Ask death row inmates. Ask any inmate, for that matter. But I'm supposed to cry for some white shoe Atlanta firm that crawled out of "A Man in Full"? Please.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page