Firm defending Defense of Marriage Act withdraws from case

You know what would be a good defense of marriage?

Requiring couples to undergo counseling before getting married.

Forcing couples who want a divorce to pay a $5,000 fee per child involved in the absence of domestic assault, incest or extramarital sex.

Requiring potential couples to be at least 25 before getting hitched.

But worrying about the rights of gays don't mean a hill of beans to the heteros out there.

 

A right-leaning public interest firm will take the case.

You have a right to legal representation in this country. You don't have a right to Skadden Arps (or the southern equivalent).

 

Az, I'm leading no parades against gay marriage.

Sure, I noticed this case because it was in the news today and got a lot of press.

And, my criticism is directed as much at the firm for bowing out as it is at the people who pressured them.

And, admittedly, lawyers & firms make these decisions every day. Holder's former firm has received criticism for its representation of Guantánamo detainees.

I think that's wrong too.

And, what is chilling about this is that it will be responded to in ways that neither of us will like. The layers at the SPLC and the ACLU will be harassed and threatened as a result.

If people think that intimidating or threatening lawyers works, then lawyers will be intimidated and threatened.

As much as I'm against abortion, I think it's absolutely heinous that someone would murder an abortion doctor.

The inevitable conclusion to a campaign like this is for a lawyer of an unpopular litigant to one day be murdered. Or a judge.

And that will shake our entire country to its core.

 

And, he's already being called a bigot:

@markos -- Markos Moulitsas

Law firm drops House DOMA case, bigot lawyer resigns and will continue representing bigot Boehner. dailykos.com/story/2011/04/…

 

Journalists are too important to worry about frivolous things like this.

 

So it's your assertion John Boehner isn't bigoted against gays? What other reason would he have to defend DOMA?

 

Unpopular clients can still receive representation. Attorneys can be assigned to a client, and are required by law to provide the most vigorous defense possible. (Whether that actually happens, though, is a different issue).

But in this case, a law firm voluntarily chose to represent an unpopular client, and is facing the backlash. It's not like they were assigned to defend DOMA. They chose to.

 

I have no interest in debating the merits of DOMA with you or deciding who is or isn't a bigot.

I'm not against gay marriage. I'm also not going to judge the people who are against it.

Marriage has had one meaning for a couple of thousand years. I don't expect everyone to change their mind overnight about what that definition is even if I disagree with them.

 

But they did choose to argue this case.

Not choosing to represent a case/client because you disagree with it or because it is unpopular is one thing. It also does not grant those who would harass lawyers a victory and it is unlikely to lead to the further harassment of lawyers.

Abandoning it because of outside pressure is cowardly, unprincipled, and will lead to the further harassment of lawyers.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Do you honestly think being called a name constitutes "intimidation" or "outside pressure"?

Do you honestly think attorneys in this country have never been threatened before with violence or death because of the causes they took up?

All due respect, but you need to bone up on your American history.

http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2008/11/03/julius-chambers-firebombing/

 

Almost posted this on the baseball thread by mistake:

 

When I see the statement that the firm "erred in accepting this case," it does reek of ass-covering, but I also wonder whether Clement brought the case in, and it didn't go through much of a review by other partners. Any real lawyers on the board -- can you fill us in on how a firm would review a case like this? Would it need full partners' approval? From what the Post wrote, the House hired Clement -- it didn't hire the firm.

Anyway, looking at a bit of history of King and Spalding, it seems an odd choice to take the case. While it has a lot of political connections, its specialty is corporate law. You would hire it to create a merger, not prevent one. Or you would hire it if you were a corporation facing a class-action suit. Or if you were the Atlanta Hawks and Thrashers, you would be hiring someone else to sue it for legal malpractice. http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/01/kandsthrasherssuit.html

I'm sure, too, that King and Spalding has a lot of corporate clients that would rather it stay out of this. As we know, corporations don't like uncertainty -- and controversy.

I'm not crying crocodile tears over this one. The House Republicans could, and did, find quality representation within nanoseconds of the firm's decision. A lot of people don't have that luxury. Heck, they can't get people to take their case to begin with.