I have always been proud to be a lawyer, for one reason: even mediocre lawyers fight like hell for their clients. You may not have a friend in the world, but if you hire a lawyer you get his or her undivided loyalty. No matter what the rest of the world thinks of you, your lawyer is on your side. Period. And it is remarkable how often a lawyer's vigorous representation of a client who was despised, and whose position was thought hopeless, has carried the day. When a major law firm like King & Spalding puts politics above its duty of loyalty to its client, it is a sad day for our profession and for our country.Thus wrote John over at Powerline yesterday.
Remember John Adams, before he was the President, before the Declaration of Independence, represented eight British Soldiers involved in the 1770 Boston Massacre? Got six of them off and two charged with capital murder were found guilty of manslaughter.
Not quite the same thing, but we can say, as Americans, with some pride, that the former Solicitor General Paul Clements, who took the Republican controlled House of Representatives' case in defense of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). Actually, his firm, King & Spalding, of which he was a partner, took the case and then dropped it. Yesterday the Chairman of King & Spalding, Mr Robert Hays, Jr, pulled the plug for his firm, announcing:
"In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate," Hays wrote. "Ultimately, I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created."They were facing a protest by Human Rights Campaign and Equality Georgia and there was a full page ad set to run in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I am betting they would never touch a defense of anyone publishing the Muhammad Cartoons of Jyllands-Posten.
Mr Clements resigned from his firm.
"I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do... I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it."That is from Law Professor Ann Althouse at her eponymous blog, in which she quotes herself from a previous blog post:
I would like to see the Defense of Marriage Act go, and I encouraged the Obama administration to decline to defend it, but I don't think it's "indefensible," and in fact, it deserves to be defended, and the House Republicans did the right thing in hiring Clement. The country deserves a well-briefed, well-argued case presented to the Supreme Court. The other side is already represented by Theodore Olson, another former Solicitor General. I hope Olson wins, but not because he's the better lawyer. It is absolutely fitting that he be matched with a lawyer of equal stature, skill, and will to prevail.And Law Professor Glenn Reynolds is all over this subject, which is only right. It is the job of professors to teach and this is a "teachable moment".
Kudos to former Solicitor General Paul Clement. Win or lose, he is a standup guy.
Regards — Cliff
11 comments:
Also a case in point that representative bodies ought not to indulge themselves in poorly conceived legislation, the absence of which would have made all this nonsense moot.
I agree, but it falls under the "Seemed like a good idea at the time", category, sort of like the Eighteenth Amendment, and the Sixteenth, for that matter.
And, it passed with overwhelming numbers and was signed by President Bill Clinton
Senate—85-15
House of Representatives—342-67
Regards — Cliff
PS: Regarding alcohol, we weren't the only ones. For short periods of time parts of Canada, parts of Australia, the USSR, Iceland, Norway and Finland, and others.
Obama says fathers are important, the First Lady says babies should be breastfed, but an word/idea that brings them together because conception only exists with the fertilization of a female egg with sperm aroma male. How this happens? Heterosexual behavior. Science.
Sorry Cliff, I'm sick of being called a bigot, or ignorant, or people blaming my religion. It's crap. How dare we acknowledge individual come from a man and woman having sex. How dare we sight sex has something to do with children, and obligations to them.
I know we are close to those that disagree, if I get thrown underneath the bus later in life, because I'm on the wrong side of history. So be it.
For Renee, who is speaking from both her heart and her mind, I note that in a French Film my wife and I watched last night as part of this Class we are taking at UMass Lowell, the ending is one of the leads playing his flute in an ensemble and the tune is Non, je ne regrette rien, made popular by singer Édith Piaf. It turns out it is the unofficial song of the French Foreign Legion.
As to being on the wrong side of history, this is an issue that has swung back and forth for over 2,000 years and may well swing again in the other direction (or, in some nations, swing toward the Massachusetts common view).
Regards — Cliff
Well, it pains me. I realize those in favor of gay marriage, see it as a way to express that they oppose unjust discrimination. I sympathize, but it's the reproductive organs through evolution that's discriminating and the law needs to acknowledge that men don't get pregnant, but are just as responsible for it.
We need "a ball and chain" to keep men in their place with the mother of their children and not bail. OK, not a ball and chain, but a carrot and a stick.
I fail to see the causal link.
Gay love and reproductive responsibility.
I haven't met any gay men looking to dodge child support.
Is there some strange "gay by choice" logic I'm missing? Or is Renee suggesting the oppression of gays to coerce wayward stallions into being good daddies?
The evolutionary arguement is queer. As heterosexual, monogamous marriage is a fairly modern concept.
The idea of a monogamous marriage (married to one partner at a time) is not universal, but I am not sure it is "fairly modern". Well, I am not sure about the meaning of "fairly modern".
On the other hand, for this culture (being the US), men showing a commitment to their child and the child's mother seems important to avoiding large segments of the population failing to achieve their potential.
Now, what that has to do with evolution is to be determined. If society can sustain itself with a wide degree of freedom in the sexual realm, then fine, Reno Sweeney is right. However, if it can't then it either collapses or some restraints on freedom are imposed. Societal collapse is one of the more extreme ways of passing the problem on to one's children.
Frankly, I don't have any good insights into how this plays out. William Safire wrote that: "We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail."
I like the fact that Renee brought up the issue. The sociologists, who should be helping us here, are not conducting an open debate about all facets of this issue. The theologians are discounted. Frankly, I was not impressed with the science in the Goodwood decision.
Homosexuality has been with mankind for many thousands of years and we still know little about it. Every answer to every question is threatening to one side or the other.
Regards — Cliff
Jack, Stop being silly by dodging the obvious points you made in your comment. You made my point, the purpose of marriage is for men to NOT dodge the parental responsibilities and there is no casual link between gay love and parental responsibility, so why we forcing them to be lumped together under the same public policy?
Why did (past tense) the government has a vested interested in heterosexual relationships then? If there was a vested interest, then why is it not relevant now? What happened? Do individuals really need both a mom and dad under the same roof, plus the supportive collaterals of extended family?
Why didn't the Massachusetts SJC simply repeal all marriage laws if found to be unconstitutional? They had that power. That's what happens when something is unconstitutional. Courts repeal it.
And another thing.... (yeah in bold)
Where did I say that being gay is a choice? It's not. Marriage is simply acknowledging that even gay people have a mom and dad, created from heterosexual behavior.
The current theory of the homosexual orientation by evolutionary biologists is that they provide a supportive role for moms and dads. Gay uncles are more attentive to nieces and nephews, then straight single uncles. It's a positive collateral to biological kinship.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm
"Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction from Science Daily "
I will concur to some extent that marriage is a modern invention. There has been anthropological studies on mating that helps understand why some cultures move to a one man/one woman model. It prevents the hoarding of wives, and keeps the peace so men are less likely to fight over women.
Men can be competitive over women, not today when sex is easily assessable and the impressions that they're quite irrelevant to parenting. Why impress a young women with any positive characteristics, when she's so willing to supply the demand of sex? If she gets knocked up, she can have an abortion or raise it by herself with government support.
Men have become useless pathetic lumps now, so you really want to defend that Jack?
The diary is about a pending court case and who will or will not defend DOMA. The matter may not be limited to gay marriage, per se, but that is the hot potato.
The value of marriage, and I'll skip the litany, is not what I am arguing.
The point, for me, is those that use "marriage" as a cudgel to oppress the lives and love of others.
DOMA, as it exists, may have elements that are worthy of support. I'm not aware of every facet of this law. What is clear, the law, as it stands, facilitates the oppression of my gay family, friends and neighbors.
Nothing about that glaring wrong helps me to be a better husband or dad. What it does, is offends my sensibilities as an American. It spits on our Constitution. And I don't give a rat's ass about how you want to cobble your nuclear unit together. That is not my business. What is my business is the egregious assault on the civil liberties and human rights of others.
Holding together traditional families does not require the subjugation of a slice of our humanity. If it does, then we need to reassess the value of this "tradition."
h/t Ann Dunham Obama (Stanley)
A young Barry could have easily washed away in the sea of humanity. Her son is POTUS.
Post a Comment