John Aravosis is having another one of his patented fits, this time because Holder dared pointing out that attacking lawyers for the viewpoints and actions of their clients is antithetical the way our legal system operates:
“Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation–representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best,” Holder said during a roundtable with reporters at the Justice Department. “That criticism, I think, was very misplaced.”
Holder also compared the criticism of Clement to the attacks on Justice Department lawyers for their past work for detainees at Guantanamo. “It was something we dealt with here in the Department of Justice…The people who criticized our people here at the Justice Department were wrong then as are people who criticized Paul Clement for the representation that he’s going to continue,” Holder added.
The Americablog gay reaction to that:
What is Eric Holder doing freelancing in the defense of anti-gay bigots? Then again, Eric Holder is no friend of civil rights. He spent two years not only defending DOMA when he didn’t have to, he even had his agency outright lie to the entire world about that defense. We have no choice but to defend the law in court, Holder had his people lie to us repeatedly and publicly. Holder then had his people go to court and use one of George Bush’s own DOMA briefs to defend the law. Holder had his people invoke incest and pedophilia to justify anti-gay prejudice. And Holder claimed he knew nothing about the anti-gay anti-marriage effort in Maine, one week before the vote to repeal our rights, when he was in the state. With a track record like that against any other minority, Holder would have been out on his ass long ago. But because our attorney general keeps taking swipes at gays and lesbians, somehow it’s okay.
So with all due respect, no one cares what the Obama administration’s biggest defender of homophobia Eric Holder has to say about DOMA or its GOP defenders. Holder always had a special place in his heart for DOMA, so it’s no wonder that he’s yet again finding a way to defend its anti-gay bigotry.
Putting all that aside, what is wrong with the Obama administration that a cabinet secretary feels that he can just screw over a key Democratic constituency on probably the most important civil rights issue in our community, marriage?
How pointing out that both sides in the legal case over DOMA deserve legal representation is “screwing over a key Democratic constituency” is simply beyond me. OUTRAGE! I’M MAD! LOOK AT ME! RRARRARRGH! Look at me! Look at me!
There is a reason we came up with the term “Manic Progressive.”
eemom
hell, even Greenwald admits that.
James E Powell
Are gays a key Democratic constituency? I thought they (that’s right, all of them, acting as one mass) had been betrayed by Obama when he didn’t end DADT by executive order and had decided to stay home, vote Green or some such thing.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
The Nazis got lawyers at Nuremberg, but DOMA doesn’t deserve a defense?
Omnes Omnibus
Isn’t Aravosis a lawyer?
Anon
Between Aravosis and Chris whose writings on science make as much sense as Pat Robertson’s on anything, it’s no wonder that site is falling apart.
transmaniacon
Well, that and everything else.
Roger Moore
I’d be more inclined to accept that view if I thought the Supreme Court was going to apply the law fairly in this case. Instead, I strongly suspect that the pro-DOMA lawyer just has to show up and say “gay, gay, gay, gay” to get a 5-4 decision in his favor. I’d be pissed off and spitting at everyone within reach if I thought my rights could be taken away arbitrarily because of my sexual orientation.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yes, it’s because you’re moderate Republicans.
Maude
Didn’t the repeal of DADT help Holder stop defending DOMA?
That tantrum is boring.
Jay C
I see also that John Aravosis’ rant here tends to elide one significant fact: AG Holder is “freelancing” the DOMA defense because (AFAICT) he’s been given instructions by his boss (you know, the black guy with the big ears who sits in the Oval Office) not to use the resources of DoJ to do so: despite it still being an active law on the Federal books.
beergoggles
All I’m seeing on my facebook feed is gaga. No mention of this so I’m guessing it’s just John on this one; and I even checked out the political friends feed.
Although to be marginally fair to John – he is big on messaging; the guy obsesses over it enough to make me think he wants us all to march in lockstep like republicans and their 11th commandment; so I can somewhat understand why he flies off the handle like this.
R. Johnston
Sheesh, John: when did you decide to go all Sarah Palin on us? Just like the First Amendment right to free speech doesn’t mean that Palin’s rights are violated if someone criticizes her, the fact that a litigant has a right to hire a lawyer does not immunize that lawyer from criticism for taking up the client.
That’s especially true when you are volunteering to argue a repugnant cause in bad faith for a repugnant client. Often times lawyers must argue good causes for the benefit of repugnant clients, and it severely cheapens and degrades those who do such work to compare them to an imbecile who wanted to drag his law firm into the defense of DOMA.
Holder knows this, and so does Clement. They’re both disgraces to the legal profession.
mr. whipple
He’s the worst of the worst.
MikeJ
@R. Johnston: No, sometimes lawyers need to argue bad cases too. Otherwise those cases never get argued.
Lysana
Oh, him! I blocked his ass on Twitter for being just as stupid. If it’s not going to help his rich, white, cisgender gay male ass, he doesn’t want to hear it. This is why he and his ilk scream about same-sex marriage like they’re getting murdered. Meanwhile, when real people are being beaten and outright murdered, he says nothing. But the murder victims are trans women of color, so what does he care?
Lolis
I quit that site after their collective meltdown about the inaugural pastor Rick Warren. I actually despise Rick Warren but, come on, nobody even pays attention to the opening prayer. We all need a little perspective. Americablog has absolutely none. I am actually disappointed someone I went to college with blogs for them now.
I think gay rights activists have the right to pressure anyone not to take a case, and I am impressed they got the law firm to back out. But assuming the lawyer is a homophobic bigot who chooses to take the case is a stretch. Then by extension attacking Holder for saying the guy is a good lawyer and every position/person deserves legal representation, is pretty stupid.
gex
I used to read his blog. Now I don’t. Our system (what remains of it) demands that both sides receive legal representation. I really don’t see how undermining the rule of law *works* for gays. I’d really rather not go that route.
celticdragonchick
@Brian S (formerly Incertus):
The Nazis were people who were still due certain rights (that they denied to damned near everybody else).
Bad laws are not people, and I am not sure that they deserve the same level of defense.
dfarr
Aravosis is right on this one. Holder is in an administration that is pro gay rights. There is no reason for him to come to the defense of the anti’s. This is politics, not a seminar on constitutional law.
Loneoak
@MikeJ:
I think attacking Clement personally is very problematic. Gay groups threatening to not work with his firm if they take money to represent the case was entirely appropriate, on the other hand. Every case has the right to a lawyer, not every law firm has a right to not be criticized/fired by their other clients or related interest groups (like the LGBT law student group).
Odie Hugh Manatee
Oh fuck, the shit’s gonna hit the fan now…
/runs for popcorn
Sean
Paul Clement is a dick. But I respect his right to bill $600 an hour to any fucknut who wants to pay.
Representing the House means that this is taxpayer skrilla, but whatevs – it also makes Boehner and the GOP look like shit, so I am all for it. And I hope Clement loses. Badly.
Guster
That’s true, John, but are these things correct:
1) Holder spent two years not only defending DOMA when he didn’t have to, he even had his agency outright lie to the entire world about that defense.
2) We have no choice but to defend the law in court, Holder had his people lie to us repeatedly and publicly.
3) Holder had his people invoke incest and pedomoderationsphilia to justify anti-gay prejudice.
4) Holder claimed he knew nothing about the anti-gay anti-marriage effort in Maine, one week before the vote to repeal our rights, when he was in the state.
Not saying you’re wrong, but you’re being a jerkass. If 1-4 are true, then Holder’s been pissing on Aravosis for years. Having a ‘patented fit’ strikes me as not entirely unreasonable.
Guster
That’s true, John, but are these things correct:
1) Holder spent two years not only defending DOMA when he didn’t have to, he even had his agency outright lie to the entire world about that defense.
2) We have no choice but to defend the law in court, Holder had his people lie to us repeatedly and publicly.
3) Holder had his people invoke incest and pedophilia to justify anti-gay prejudice.
4) Holder claimed he knew nothing about the anti-gay anti-marriage effort in Maine, one week before the vote to repeal our rights, when he was in the state.
Not saying you’re wrong, but you’re being a jerkass. If 1-4 are true, then Holder’s been pissing on Aravosis for years. Having a ‘p-word fit’ strikes me as not entirely unreasonable.
Sly
As Jesus Christ once said, “There’s no pleasing some people.”
the fenian
It’s awfully easy for you to say this, JC. If the head law-enforcement officer of my country were to go out of his way to defend the lawyer who sought to defend a law that denied me my civil rights, my rhetoric might also be just a tad intemperate.
jeff
@James E Powell:
No, you are thinking, perhaps, of one gay person, not “tey gays”. We aren’t the Borg.
celticdragonchick
@Sean:
Most of us here do as well, but I am afraid that Roger Moore up above may be right. I am not inclined to cut any slack for people who want to argue in court that my marriage and my family are not legally valid.
Loneoak
@Lolis:
Agreed. That is pretty damned benign, regardless of the fact that Holder sometimes needs to be a better politician about this stuff. You can respect your enemy and their rights without hitting full on FREAK OUT mode. I think one of the reasons the Theodore Olson and David Boies anti-Prop 8 team has been so effective both in court and in public relations is avoiding this nonsense.
Omnes Omnibus
@jeff: I don’t know about that. I saw you guys assimilate Provincetown.
Sly
@Loneoak:
I’d prefer that the Attorney General of the United States not be a good politician, thanks. Mixing partisan ambitions with law enforcement has generally not ended with positive results.
It would help, however, if more of the left were good politicians. Then we’d have less obsession over this nonsense to begin with.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
@celticdragonchick: Can’t agree with you. I think the Obama administration did what it needed to do by getting out of the way, but we’re talking about criticizing someone for defending the law. Now don’t get me wrong–Clement sounds like a Grade-A jackhole on some other fronts, and criticizing him for that makes perfect sense. But going after him for taking on an unpopular client–because at its nub, that’s what this is–is not a good idea. The law, crap as it is, deserves a defense, because that’s the way we say we do things in this country, even if we fall short fairly often.
Mnemosyne
@Guster:
Sorry, not true. It’s Aravosis’ interpretation of the US later dropping the DOMA defense, but he doesn’t have actual facts to back it up, just his conviction that black people hate gay people.
Did you notice that DADT was repealed in December? Do you think that maybe, possibly, that just might have put the Dept. of Justice in a position where they could now refuse to defend DOMA where they didn’t have legal grounds to do it before?
Nah, it must be because Holder is a homophobe who hates gay people.
Ah, the zombie lie that will never die. I knew it would be coming back sooner rather than later.
And the Attorney General is supposed to be familiar every single ballot initiative in every single state before it’s voted on? You realize that’s not his job, right?
mb
John: you really have a way of thumbing your nose at outrage you dont share. Imagine if DOMA was about inter-racial marriage rather than same sex. Would you support defending a racist law? People, even bad ones, deserve representation. Bad laws do not.
Svensker
Aravosis lost me with his anti-Muslim bigotry. Now he’s crying because something affects him. So sad.
gex
@Omnes Omnibus: There are still some of us here in flyover land, waiting to destroy America with our super gayness.
4tehlulz
Isn’t nothing that John Avorosis is calling a black guy homophobic kinda like noting the sky is blue?
Midnight Marauder
@celticdragonchick:
A law may be bad, but it’s still a law, and that means that certain processes need to be followed in eliminating it from existence.
I’m pretty sure a lot of black people hated the state laws promoting segregation that led to Brown v. Board of Education, but I don’t ever recall reading about them attacking lawyers for doing their fucking job.
Served
A touch too cynical, leaning toward hippie-punching.
He’s passionate about a guy who was the lead on fighting against equal rights for gays complimenting a guy who essentially volunteered to take this case (it appears, without getting full partner support for accepting it).
There are so many comments on this blog saying “I’m sick and tired of Obama dealing with crazy fucktards civilly” and so on, and now Holder has done so toward a person who is outright hostile to LGBT equality.
Let the man have his anger for a bit, dude, instead of ramming up the “WHINY LIBERAL ALERT” flag immediately.
Omnes Omnibus
@gex: I have always assumed you guys/gals have targeted my marriage for destruction. Now I have confirmation.
beergoggles
@Mnemosyne:
#1. Ahh, I see we’re playing the reasonable people disagree.. yadda yadda game.
#2. Incorrect; it’s still in effect.
#3. true.
#4. whatever.
eemom
@Sly:
srsly. Sheeyit, how often is it that Glenn Greenwald and John Cole and I are in perfect agreement about something?
Y’all stay here and fight. I’m gonna go find me a horse to bet on.
gwangung
You know, I hate that term, given that I’m old enough to use the term non-anachronistically, and that most of the people are to the right of where I’m standing….
beergoggles
@Omnes Omnibus: Only if ur hot and don’t insist on wearing white after labor day. Or if some lesbian finds ur wife hot. Then when the gay rapture comes, we’ll be coming for ur marriage.
rdalin
@Lolis:
Agreed 100%. I stopped reading their site around the same time. They obviously have no perspective – a year ago, they were fomenting angry posts about how Obama had back stabbed gays, how his efforts to end DADT were nothing but show, or even worse, that he was sinisterly trying to undermine gay rights!
Omnes Omnibus
@beergoggles: My wife is hot. I, to be frank, am just barely good looking enough to have a hot wife. I always got by on my charm.
ETA: Weirdly, I do tend to follow the white between Memorial and Labor Days rule.
Mnemosyne
@beergoggles:
Actually, we’re playing the John Aravosis is a known racist asshole game. It makes it a little more suspicious when a known racist asshole insists that a black AG and a black president only take the actions that they do because hate gay people.
I don’t think you understood what I said — it has been ended legally. Through the legal system. The same legal system that DOMA is currently working its way through.
But I’m sure you’re right, having one prejudicial law legally ended couldn’t possibly influence the government to stop defending another law that’s prejudicial in the same way. The only possible explanation is that Holder is a homophobe who hates gay people.
True that it’s a zombie lie? ‘Cause it is. Don’t believe anything Aravosis tells you.
IOW, you’re going to continue to be pissed that he didn’t know about something that’s not his job. What’s next, being indignant that he didn’t prevent NASA’s funding from being cut?
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: I think this is what was predicted after the fifth seal is opened.
transmaniacon
@Omnes Omnibus:
Highly unlikely. I’ve seen the way you treat women.
Anya
@Served:
What’s your definition of a hippie?
gex
@Omnes Omnibus: The dirty secret is all we want to do is make your marriages more fabulous. THAT’S what they’re afraid of.
gex
@Omnes Omnibus: Hell, that makes you half gay already. This is going to be easy.
Shock Trooper in the War on Christmas
@celticdragonchick:
This.
Human beings have rights (including the right to legal representation in court), laws don’t.
Moreover, part of the reason why the right to legal representation is so important is because (in criminal cases) there needs to be a presumption of innocence. Laws, contrary to human beings, do not necessarily need the benefit of the doubt.
gwangung
I’m still having problems trying to parse what Holder did or what people think he did…
LT
There’s a big difference between “deserve” and require, as per the constitution. Holder can defend Clement all he likes, but to compare it to lawyers defending detainees is bizarre, and wrong. Aravosis is right.
As for putting it on Obama – if you put Bush DoJ on Bush then you have to do this. If not, you can argue against.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
Deep breaths, Cole.
I don’t really get going after attorneys simply because they’re representing a client. It’s their fucking job.
Attorneys who are just incompetent are fair game for mockery.
jeff
@Omnes Omnibus:
That was Andrew. I don’t even know where Provincetown is.
Omnes Omnibus
@transmaniacon: Excuse me?
@gex: We could use some fabulous right now. It’s nearing the end of the semester and many papers are due. At least, she isn’t TAing this semester.
@gex: I can’t dance.
JRon
Wait, Holder just delivered the best backhanded compliment if the year, and it’s so unappreciated.
Comparing DOMA supporters to terrorism defendants was bound to piss off wingnuts, but I expected liberals to see the bigger statements being made here: legal defense is important to have, even if you’re as vile as Maggie Gallagher.
Not very smart of me I know.
Omnes Omnibus
@jeff: Well, there is no parking there in August. I guess blaming Sullivan is reasonable.
LT
@mb: “People, even bad ones, deserve representation. Bad laws do not.”
Exactly right. Criticizing lawyers defending detainees is to criticize the constitution. Criticizing Clement is not, and entirely fair.
El Tiburon
I am no fan of Aravosis, but I think you whiffed on this one Cole.
Defending DOMA is not the same as defending Gitmo detainees. At all.
While I don’t think anyone, including Aravosis, would disagree with the idea that attorneys should take on reprehensible clients and cases, I think Aravosis (and by extension all of us) are correct in questioning the motives of the attorney who takes this case on.
Also, it goes without saying Obama’s stance on DOMA and gay marriage is less than ideal. As is the DOJs reasonings for defending it. So, if I were a gay man, I would continue to throw ‘patented fits’ at how I was being treated by this administration.
Oh, and I think ‘patented fits’ is code for “he is being so gay again”.
Served
@Anya: I’m going by the present-day definition of “Anyone to the Left of the person speaking is considered a hippie.”
Gian
@MikeJ: Sometimes the good lwyers write an anders brief about a frivolous case, rather than try to make something up.
doesn’t mean that the side of the bigots can’t hire a lawyer, and that lawyer might be able to come up with an argument.
I suppose the fight on the issue is whether one thinks that defending what was a popular act of congress when passed, despite the fact it’s repugnant is frivolous, or unlikely to win. Some of the anger, is probably redirected at the lawyer instead of the five in black robes who are GOP hacks
LT
@El Tiburon: You don’t need to ruin a good comment with this:
Lavocat
I whole-heartedly disagree. When the USAG (of all fucking people!) has to go out of his way to state the obvious, you really gotta wonder whether Holder is just playing Solitaire all fucking day. Cuz he sure ain’t prosecuting the mothers that brought this nation to its knees.
Citizen Alan
@Midnight Marauder:
What a bizarre comparison! IIRC, the “lawyers doing their fucking job” in that instance were generally the attorney generals in Southern states, most of whom were elected officials who ran for office on a platform of defending Jim Crow. “Segregation now, segregation forever!” and all that crap. I can’t imagine what a civil rights activist would have hoped to achieve by attacking those lawyers except possibly get sent to prison on some trumped up charges or possibly be murdered in the night by the local white sheets.
Paul Clements is not Atticus Finch, reluctantly taking a controversial case after a judge appointed him to it. He’s a high-profile Republican lawyer and a big part of the reason why the Bush DOJ was so awful, and in this instance, he’s planning on billing a cool $600 an hour, to be paid for by my tax dollars and yours. Frankly, I think the law firm should have been shunned by all right thinking people just for hiring his soulless degenerate ass in the first place.
transmaniacon
@Omnes Omnibus:
One can’t buy fabulous, but I can send you an invitation to the wedding of Prince William and Miss Catherine Middleton.
If you’re nice to me…
gwangung
Which is confusing on the (rather more frequent than you think) occasions where they’re actually to the right.
Doug Danger
As a gay man and a gay journalist, I wholeheartedly agree – With John Cole.
LT
@Citizen Alan:
A-fucking-men.
LT
And: This is COMPLETELY a political move by Boehner and the HoRs. They made the move to defend the law themselves – because the DoJ said they wouldn’t – and hired Clement.
Bizarre to say this is not open for criticism, and that such criticism = criticism of detainees’ lawyers.
Cacti
Paul Clement is auditioning for a spot on SCOTUS under a future Republican administration.
sfrefugee
All lawyers know that merely representing a client does not mean that one agrees with that client – on anything – including the case at hand.** There are all sorts of unsavory clients who get first class representation because the issue is important (e.g. First Amendment Rights in the Nazis marching in Skokie case or Fourth Amendment rights with the Guantanamo cases) or the client is so awful that someone has to step up (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).
I think it’s a shame that King & Spaulding got Mau-Maued into dropping the DOMA case. The attractiveness of their client is irrelevant. That said, apparently the client engagement letter demanded that all K&S lawyers and staff agree to take no private or public stances/make contributions that were pro-LGBT and/or prorepeal of DOMA for the duration of the case. K&S had no obligation (and should not have) agreed to such a restriction.
** Note that some advocacy groups specifically hire lawyers who support their programs and goals personally. So if one is a an in-house employee at the National Organization for Marriage – one may be credited with believing in the whole NOM agenda.
gex
@Omnes Omnibus: You get the not dancing thing from your inner lesbian.
Midnight Marauder
@Citizen Alan:
So… are you saying that civil rights activists attacked the platform those Southern attorney generals ran on–segregation–and not the office of the attorney general for carrying out the duly held responsibilities of an attorney general?
Cacti
I think it had little to do with this
And a lot to do with this.
Meanwhile, Bush appointee Clement gets to polish his wingnut bona fides and pretend to be the aggrieved party in the process.
Convenient that. One might almost think he took on this case on those terms, hoping for this exact result.
Shade Tail
@LT:
I’m not sure where to begin. Should I start with the implication that criticizing the Constitution is beyond the pale (because it isn’t)? Or should I start with the idea that a lawyer trying to push along the rule of law has nothing to do with the Constitution (even though it does)?
Seriously, you couldn’t have been more wrong if you’d tried. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the DOJ is obligated to defend a law that remains on the books. It is also perfectly reasonable to suggest that if the people’s lawyer won’t do his job, then the people themselves should pick up the slack.
I still don’t know whether or not I agree with that, and I’ve been thinking about it for months. That said, I’m certainly not convinced that Obama’s DOJ has the authority to unilaterally decide not to defend the law on the basis that they think it is unconstitutional. After all, isn’t determining Constitutionality the job of the courts?
Mnemosyne
@Citizen Alan:
Fix’d. You did know that Clement is not defending the case, right? He dropped it. He decided against it. He’s not doing it.
This is why people are astounded at Aravosis — you won. Seriously. The guy who was going to take the case backed down and refused to take it. The Republicans lost and we won.
Jesus, talk about sore winners. The AG says something vaguely nice about a guy after the guy does what you want and quits the case, and you’re still up in arms.
Why do I feel like you all had the same soccer coach who taught you to spit into your hand before shaking hands with your opponents after a game just to totally show them how much they suck?
maye
@Shade Tail: By what authority does the Speaker of the House appoint himself Attorney General? And what slush fund is being used to pay for outside counsel?
Midnight Marauder
@Citizen Alan:
Who are the people even arguing this? Is it No One?
Laertes
Aravosis:
IANAL, but doesn’t he sort of have a point here? If some defendant is so loathsome that nobody will defend him, justice can’t be served. If some law is so loathsome that nobody will defend it, who gives a shit?
The Moar You Know
A good percentage of this nation’s populance thinks that laws defending the rights of Guantanamo detainees are “bad laws”. You might want to keep that in mind before attacking Holder for defending what you consider to be a “bad law”.
LT
@Shade Tail:
Of course not. Maybe I should have added what hypocrisy this would have been for the “CONSTITUTION!!!” party.
He’s not in a vacuum. He was hired by Boehner.
That’s a different argument. The DoJ has *already* said they won’t defend it. You want to argue they shouldn’t have – fine. But that doesn’t speak to this compariosn – especially coming from Holder!
rea
Well, as a gay man and a lawyer, let me stand up and say that Holder is 100% right on this.
Let me further point out that it is important to the legitimacy of any decision striking down the law, that every opportunity be given to the supporters of the law to make their best arguments. You don’t legitimately win lawsuits by shutting your opponent up. That’s the whole bloody point of having this elaborate system of courts and judges, so that everyone gets a fair opportunity to present their case.
We’ll win, because we’re right.
LT
@Mnemosyne: Wrong. Clement is still defending the case. At least last I heard.
eemom
DOMA is not going to be repealed anytime soon. Therefore, the only option is to have it ruled unconstitutional. That requires a full blown adversarial court proceeding — with, yes, defenders of the law receiving zealous representation from competent attorneys.
Of course it’s going to be a wingnut asshole highly paid attorney who takes the gig. So fucking what? How is that any different from wingnut highly paid attorneys who represent corporations and entities like Citizens United? Never mind human criminals — I trust most of us here would agree that there are plenty of heinously criminal corporate entities fighting over shit in the courts — and no one can deny they’re entitled to their day in court, and to fair representation. (OTOH, considering there’s no position so batshit crazy that somebody on this blog won’t take it, I guess I’d better not say “no one.”)
Finally, has it occurred to any of you pious pearl-clutchers that it might be a GOOD thing to have this abomination of a law hashed out in a public courtroom for all the world to see?
Oh, I fergot. The right wing hacks on the S Ct are gonna fuck us over no matter what. Never mind.
LT
@Midnight Marauder: “Who are the people even arguing this? Is it No One?”
Everyone from Holder on down is implying it. Especially when he’s compared to lawyers defending detainees.
Put it this way: If no lawyer came forward to defend DOMA – would it have been guaranteed a public defender?
hamletta
@Shade Tail: They said they didn’t have an argument. The district where the latest case is happening was going to have to use a different standard to determine whether the law was unconstitutional, and they couldn’t honestly make that argument.
OzoneR
I wonder what he thinks of St. Glenn defending Holder in this situation?
LT
@Laertes: “If some defendant is so loathsome that nobody will defend him, justice can’t be served.”
He’ll get a public defender. Justice will be served.
John Cole
@rea: Well said.
maye
I just want to know where this is listed in Boehner’s job description, and how can he use taxpayer money on private legal representation.
Citizen Alan
@Midnight Marauder:
I think they attacked not just the platform those AGs ran on but the entire culture within which they operated, and they were right to do so. My point was simply that I thought it unlikely that civil rights activists would have pursued a policy of attacking state lawyers for defending segregation and attempting to shame them out of doing so when it was the unambiguous policy of the governments (and largely the voters) of those states to support desegregation. Such a strategy would have been at best fruitless and, given the violence perpetrated against civil rights workers in this states, possibly dangerous.
I bring this up only because of what I read as the suggestion that going after Clement’s firm was something I should be offended by and that it marked gay activists as somehow less … something (not really sure what) than AA civil rights campaigners of the 1950’s who did not cast aspersions on legal defenders of segregation. California in 2011 is not Mississippi of 1951, and if Clement is a lawyer at a high profile firm in a state that is rapidly moving towards embracing gay equality, he should be prepared for the negative consequences of embracing bigotry.
As a side note, I do not believe Clement is doing this out of some deep-seated sense of fidelity to our judicial system. He will be paid handsomely for his work, win or lose, and as others have said, this case is his audition for the Supreme Court. If he wins here, I think it likely he will be on the short list to be a future Supreme Court justice under a future Repuke administration. Frankly, in light of that, I support any and all efforts to paint him as the hateful bigot I’m sure he is.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
The law firm dropped the case, and Clement quit in protest. He is taking the case on personally, but who knows for how long.
So, really, you’re going to argue that losing all of the resources of a major law firm and getting kicked to the curb is a win for the Republicans here? What, exactly, have they won here by getting their guy to leave the law firm in a huff and have AG Holder say something vaguely nice about him?
Also, too, I always find it fascinating how the left and right can have absolutely opposite views of the same events. That same DOMA case that Holder is being accused of fiercely defending because he thinks gay people are pedophiles is seen by conservatives as something the Obama administration just pretended to defend when they were planning to drop it all along:
eemom
@maye:
it is not “private legal representation.” The law was passed, it’s on the books. It is a public issue.
Goddamn. I hate these people as much or more than the rest of you, but we do ourselves no service by making stupid-ass arguments that amount to nothing more than “the rule of law is sacred — when it’s on our side. Otherwise, fuck it.”
Karen
So what Arvorosis and some of you prefer is that Holder demonize Clement like the Birthers have demonized Obama. You want him to demand Clement’s disbarrment and call for Clement’s castration. Instead Holder committed the worst crime in the world by actually giving Clement respect as a lawyer for doing his job.
You realize that means that the Birthers in Congress are completely right to keep saying that Obama should be impeached. Since to them, it’s reprehensible to have a black President, they booed at John McCain when he said tht Obama was an honorable man during the election. Or is it only the case when it’s YOUR views?
Yet another example of how you same people screamed at the Bush Administration for trashing the Consitution for their own needs but screamed at Obama for not dictating by fiat. Again, when the views are yours, the story is different.
Arvorosis and the ones who agree with him are no better than the tea party.
It’s the same as when the ACLU defends the rights of Nazis to march or hold protests. As a Jewish and bisexual woman I think the Nazis are scum. But if you take away their rights under free speech to march then you must also take away my rights to protest at their march.
You can’t just pick and choose. There are always two sides. You don’t have to agree. But by your logic, prosecutors must be in favor of rape and murder if they say that defense lawyers are good lawyers.
maye
@eemom: Yes, but why is defending it now the purview of the Speaker of the House. And which committee authorizes the funding? It just seems unusual.
Nellcote
@Mnemosyne:
Unless something’s changed this afternoon, Clement is still on the case. But at a different law firm. He quit the original law firm when they decided they didn’t want to be involved with the case. Clement went to a “boutique” firm of like minded ex-Bush DOJ assholes.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: I pretty much agree with this. The only thing I would add is that the people who are pissed off that this law denies them equal civil rights with the rest of us have every right to be pissed off. If this means that they go off the rails once in a while, I can’t really blame them.
LT
@Mnemosyne:
They’re activists. They always have to push. I don’t blame them for this. And Clement already got hired by another firm.
And what you call “vaguely nice” probably sounds different to people who are personally affected by that horrible law. (Maybe you are, I don’t know.)
eemom
@Mnemosyne:
oh, believe me you, he’ll find another law firm, and/or an army of eager young Monica Goodling-esq. acolytes to do all the shit work. Hell, he’s probably being bombarded with offers as we speak.
Martin
So, simpler Aravosis: all defense attorneys are therefore criminals.
gwangung
@rea:
@eemom: Yeah, pretty much this.
@Laertes:
Hm. I thought that there are a LOT of people that want to defend this law. I think the position is loathesome, but arguing the law is indefensible is a political argument, not a legal one.
But at any rate, there’s not much here that rates raking Holder over the coals on.
Midnight Marauder
@LT:
How about you conflate a few more nebulously identified things in those sentences? Yikes!
I am pretty sure lots of people rejoiced when high-profile law firm, King and Spaulding, agreed to drop the case. I am pretty sure lots of people are equally enthused that Clement had to take up shop with a wingnut law firm in a scramble to find a home for the case.
Stop making things up.
LT
@gwangung:
Boehner hiring Clement was a political move.
Jay
Aravosis is a rare treat: a Pajamas Media Progressive, having appeared on their hideous “T.V. Network” once (maybe more). At this point, Aravosis is just looking for reasons to be pissed at POTUS, like everyone associated with PJM.
Midnight Marauder
@LT:
Is this seriously what your argument has come down to?
Surely, you jest.
eemom
@maye:
I have not researched it, but there must be something out there that gives Congress that right when the Admin. refuses to enforce a law. Otherwise, I assume we’d be hearing a shitstorm of actual legal arguments against the representation, instead of hissy fits from the Aravoses of the world.
LT
@Midnight Marauder:
I said:
You responded:
What in the fuck re you talking about? If you think “Atticus Finch” is too much – whatever – Holder said that criticizing Clement was like [Mary Fucking Cheney] criticizing lawyers for detainees. That’s fucking sick.
Little Boots
hate to say it, but I agree with Holder. There is no rule that says nobody may ever represent a homophobe. sorry, americablog. you do good work, but your fucked up on this one.
Citizen Alan
@Mnemosyne:
Actually, I did not know that. My understanding based on this was that Clement had left King & Spalding to move to a more conservative law firm and he took his $600 an hour case with him. If that turns out to be inaccurate and Clement is truly off the case, that may change things. As of right now, however, I stand by everything I said before.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
Why is the push “OMG Obama and Holder are homophobes!” and not “Ha-ha, Republicans got shown the door by their handpicked law firm! Even Republicans know this law can’t be defended!”
Why is the push against the people who are helping and not the people who are in opposition? It’s like the people who scream at customer service representatives because they’re convinced that they’ll get better service that way, but all they get is soup filled with the waiters’ loogies.
(Note to people who think screaming at the service workers helps: It doesn’t work. You get much better service by being polite but firm. Screaming abuse at the person trying to help you just makes them not want to help you.)
I’m not personally affected, just friends and family members like everyone else. Fortunately I live in a state where our new governor made the exact same decision not to defend Prop 8 when he was attorney general.
Weirdly, I haven’t heard Aravosis complain about how homophobic Brown is because he didn’t say that the people trying to take on the defense of the law are horrible monsters who should DIAF when he announced that the state of California was not going to waste time and money on the appeal.
maye
@eemom: Looks like Nancy Pelosi is asking a simimar question:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54011020/DOMA-Letter
LT
@Midnight Marauder:
No. But it’s true in this case.
My argument is that Holder comparing Clement – hired by John Boehner on a political binge – to detainees’ lawyers is wrong morally and factually. Nobody *had to* take DOMA. Someone *had to* take the detainees. You can argue that Holder was wrong to stop defending DOMA, but that is a different argument.
maye
similar
Mnemosyne
@Citizen Alan:
I was wrong — when I heard that the law firm had dropped the case, I assumed that Clement had dropped it as well. Instead, he decided to quit in a huff and defend it himself.
Again, I’m still not understanding how having AG Holder say something vaguely polite about Clement after the guy leaves his law firm under a cloud is a horrible loss for gay rights.
Little Boots
@Mnemosyne:
It isn’t. some of us are a tad oversensitive, and need to calm down. seriously.
Midnight Marauder
@LT:
You know who disagrees with you on the facts? The Speaker of the Motherfucking House of Representatives, that’s who. You can keep calling it political if you want to, but the fact remains the the Speaker of the House decided DOMA needed to be defended. Clement is just filling his role.
As to the false morality play you are creating, I think JRon said it best:
LT
@Mnemosyne:
They didn’t do what you would have done. Is that the case you’re making? Noted, I guess. The world often doesn’t make sense to me, too. (And you don’t think LGBT activists have more than a few reasons to have issues with Obama? And with what Holder said?)
Mnemosyne
@Little Boots:
I just don’t understand the refusal to accept a win when you get one. Seriously, Boehner’s hand-picked lawyer gets booted from his law firm for taking the DOMA case and his leaving the firm is somehow a win for the Republicans and a blow against DOMA? WTF?
Little Boots
@Mnemosyne:
I don’t think it’s a win or seems like a win. but the principle that even the worst get representation deserves some respect from the Attorney General. I really think so.
Little Boots
And in the end, they’ll lose anyway. Pathetic case, but they still deserve a lawyer. And that is actually an important principle.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
Since I literally spent months here arguing with people who swore up and down that Obama was a homophobe who was personally blocking DADT repeal and that there was no way, no how that Obama would sign any law repealing DADT — no, at this point, the vast majority of the “issues” that people have gotten the most pissed off about turned out to be phantoms.
And that still doesn’t explain why the Republicans are getting a free pass for trying to undo the repeal of DADT while activists are screaming about Holder saying something polite about Clement.
mythago
@Mnemosyne: He didn’t decide to ‘defend it himself’. As Citizen Alan noted, Clement moved to another law firm – presumably taking not only Boehner, but all of his other clients in his ‘book of business’ along with him.
Yes, it’s appropriate that somebody is defending a plainly unconstitutional and stupid law; that’s the adversarial system. But the “client” isn’t DOMA.
Little Boots
I’m totally arguing with someone I agree with, aren’t I? I think I’ll stop doing that now.
JD Rhoades
@Lolis:
I quit that site after their collective meltdown about the inaugural pastor Rick Warren. I actually despise Rick Warren but, come on, nobody even pays attention to the opening prayer. We all need a little perspective.
I quit reading them at about the same time. I can understand criticizing the choice of Warren but what was going on was OMG WE ARE BETRAYED OBAMA’S AS BAD AS BUSH NO HE’S WORSE I’M STAYING HOME FOR THE MIDTERMS! And god forbid you should try to argue for a little perspective, because that was concern trolling.
Mnemosyne
@mythago:
I’m still not getting why Clement’s running away from his law firm with his tail between his legs means that AG Holder is a homophobe who hates gay people for saying something sort of nice about Clement.
Because that’s what Aravosis is claiming here: he’s saying that Holder is the “Obama administration’s biggest defender of homophobia” and “he’s yet again finding a way to defend [the administration’s] anti-gay bigotry,” so therefore Holder’s pointing out that Clement isn’t the first lawyer to defend an unpopular position is yet another manifestation of Holder’s and the administration’s vast hatred for gay people.
Mnemosyne
@Little Boots:
Heh. Here at home, G and I often end up agreeing with each other at the top of our lungs.
Little Boots
@Mnemosyne:
It’s a problem. When the night is old. And the beer is flowing.
OzoneR
@Mnemosyne:
There’s nothing to understand. If Barack Obama came out and announced he left Michelle for Eric Holder and they were marrying in DC City Hall (where they can now), he would say they were mocking gay people and that shows how they’re both truly homophobic.
Dream On
Aravosis?
I think I almost remember him. Isn’t he a republican? He’s very 2007.
Little Boots
@Dream On:
well, I don’t know about that, but mostly he’s so one-sided. he can really miss the forest for the trees sometimes.
LT
@Midnight Marauder:
Again: You’re using “legal defense,” which you must know pushes all kinds of buttons regarding individuals’ rights (and even use the name of an individual to make the point) to defend this defense of DOMA. Are you saying that you equate in importance this defense of DOMA to right of individuals to legal defense?
Suffern ACE
@JD Rhoades: Basically, I quit reading Salon when they picked Avarosis to represent da gays on gay legal issues. I’m a gay Democrat, whatever that means, and I don’t have a use for this kind of interpretation of events as if Obama is about to put me in a FEMA camp himself. There is a segment of the gay community that is perpetually unhappy in outlook and those people have Avarosis as their opinion leader. He makes certain that they remain unhappy every day of their lives. Perhaps because I wasn’t raised Catholic or Calvinist, that kind of gay holy roller inspired outrage machine will never motivate me to do more than click through to someplace else.
Little Boots
I dunno. I hate the all or nothing mentality. Aravosis can go overboard, but he is generally on the right side of things. I just wish he’d rein it in once in a while.
Citizen Alan
@LT:
Agreed. I mean, ya’ll do realize, don’t you, that this case will probably have upwards of 50 or more amicus briefs by the time it gets to the Supremes and Kennedy gets to decide the issue. Every conceivable issue on both sides will be thoroughly presented to every appellate court at least 5 times. So you can stop worrying about whether the pro-bigotry position will be fully represented.
Personally, I think Aravosis’ post on this topic was ridiculous and over-the-top. That said, I also think this was an unforced error on Holder’s part. I think he could have gotten away with saying something noncommittal like “Paul Clement is an excellent lawyer and I’m sure he will represent the pro-DOMA position ably” and nothing more. Going out of his way to undermine gay rights advocates by defending the rights of bigots to advocate against them and bill the taxpayers for it was unnecessary and counterproductive. As far as I’m concerned, Paul Clement is the enemy and not just on gay rights issues, and I consider it a misstep for Holder to say anything which legitimizes either his position or his reputation. And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, just wait until Clement is up for an appellate judgeship or even an SC appointment and every Repuke outlet trumpets Holder’s kind words as an endorsement by Obama’s AG.
Tom Hilton
@Dream On: Former staffer for Ted Stevens. And 2007 is generous–my recollection is that he had become a caricature of himself by 2005.
I had an hilarious exchange with Aravosis on Twitter when he was talking about how if Obama only tried, he could actually accomplish stuff…just like Aravosis. Yeah, he really did, without a hint of irony or humor or any consciousness at all of his own ridiculousness, compare his own achievements favorably to those of the President.
JR
The principle that everyone deserves zealous legal representation in court is a great one that I admire. It protects the powerless and the weak from being railroaded. But remind me again how that applies to the Congress, the single most powerful governmental entity in the world?
Moreover, the principle doesn’t mean that every lawyer is supposed to take the case of every client who walks in the door. If someone cannot find representation anywhere else, then an attorney has an ethical duty to take the case (often through an obligation imposed by the court to undertake representation). Barring that, accepting a client is a regular business decision, and a firm or attorney may of course be held accountable for the decision it makes in any case. The real issue is whether King & Spalding should have backed out of the deal once contracted. Protesting their original decision is acceptable and warranted (as is protesting their withdrawal, for that matter).
Keith G
@Mnemosyne:
For the love of the gods will you please bone up on the facts of this issue before any more comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/gay-rights-group-youre-damn-right-we-pressured-law-firm-on-doma/2011/03/03/AFii9bqE_blog.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54011020/DOMA-Letter
gwangung
@LT:
It’s primarily a legal move, I think, given that this was a law passed by the legislative branch. It’s silly to me to condemn Boehner for that.
Generally, in law, both sides make legal defences. That happens no matter how abhorrent one side is, in any type of law, from criminal to corporate to civil.
Little Boots
@Tom Hilton:
and again, he does what he can, and what he should, but he’s gotta rein it in sometimes. as do we all.
bago
You know what makes me happiest about this post? The fact that the phrase “Rage Quit” is entering the lexicon of olds.
Bloix
“both sides in the legal case over DOMA deserve legal representation”
Actually, no. No, both sides don’t deserve representation.
Every criminal defendant is entitled to a lawyer. Civil litigants have no such right.
As for the lawyers representing the Guantanamo inmates, those men have been deprived of their liberty without due process, and their constitutional right h to due process has been violated. All honor to the lawyers who protect the liberty of all Americans by representing the prisoners at Guantanamo.
But no civil litigant is entitled to a lawyer, and every lawyer has a right to decline to defend a civil litigant if he or she disagrees with that litigant’s position.
There are lawyers, like those in the ACLU, who are willing to represent very unpopular litigants for the greater good of defending the First Amendment. And although I don’t always agree with them, I honor them for their principles.
But Clement’s principles are – what? That discrimination is okay? That’s all I can come up with. I see no reason to honor him.
gwangung
@JR:
Really? That doesn’t strike me as being the case.
Rihilism
@rea:
Agreed. But as a gay man it sickens me to have to pay to defend a law which denies my civil rights. It makes me angry enough that I might have a fit which, while it may be unproductive, is perhaps understandable. I don’t defend Aravosis, but I can understand his anger.
Agreed. But I don’t see any indication that the proponents of DOMA are going to allow themselves to be shut up. The gay community push pressure on the original law firm, but as I understand it, the law firm itself was not very happy with the conditions Clement agreed to. I believe that Clement is with a new law firm now. I have little doubt that they will have their day in court.
Ideally, everyone get a fair opportunity, but the first thing that popped into my head when I read that was “Yeah, Let’s get DOMA it’s own underpaid, overworked public defender”.
I wish I could share your optimism, but right now I’m looking a five justices that may or may not choose to constitutionalize the denial of my civil rights. Doesn’t seem to me that “right” always wins in our judicial system, so perhaps you can understand why I’m a tad bit nervous about the prospect…
Little Boots
@Bloix:
I don’t think you have to honor him. just accept that he’s a lawyer representing a client without demonizing him or trying to hound him out of doing that. really, that is all.
gwangung
@Bloix:
This isn’t the case with Clement, though. Not sure why this is a relevant argument.
JR
@gwangung: From a legal ethics perspective, I think that’s exactly the issue. The firm made a business decision to withdraw from representing a current client, which is fundamentally different than making a decision to decline to undertake representation at the outset. Did they owe it to their client, Congress, to suffer through the repercussions of their decision to accept the case, or is it okay for them to have withdrawn upon realizing that taking the case could potentially cost the firm millions of dollars from other clients?
LT
@Little Boots:
Would there be any law that he chose to defend that would make it alright in your eyes to “demonize” him or “try to hound him out of doing that”?
Little Boots
@Rihilism:
if he’s talking long term, yes, the fight is really over. gay rights are coming, full gay rights, no matter what the makeup of the Supreme Court or the Congress or any other entity. the American People have moved on, and though they fuck up a lot, when the American People are done with bigotry they are done. end of story. and they are done with homophobia. every poll tells us that story.
gwangung
I think what outside observers think of Clement is one thing. Trying to paint Holder as equivalent to him is another.
gwangung
@JR: Hm. Interesting. Now that I think about it, there’s an issue there…though it’s not the one that initially caught my eye.
Bloix
“Just accept that he’s a lawyer representing a client without demonizing him”
Why shouldn’t I demonize him? There is no positive principle in what he’s doing, no right that he’s protecting, no social, constitutional, or legal benefit to the work he’s going to do.
I understand that the House of Representatives has a right to hire a lawyer to argue that this repulsive and discriminatory law is not barred by the Constitution. I’m not arguing that they don’t have that right.
But I have no obligation to do anything other than condemn the lawyer who takes the case.
And the contention that what he’s doing – making $900/hr for taking a high-profile case that’s extremely popular with a large segment of the population – has any moral comparison with the Guantanamo lawyers, who volunteer their time in defense of the Constitution and are harassed and pilloried by the government and the press for it – makes me want to puke.
Little Boots
@LT:
honestly, it depends. if he chose to defend some absolute scumbag, in Guantanamo, some real Islamist asshole, would I hate him and try to hound him out of doing that? No, I don’t think I would. this is like that. the mere fact that the assholes he is defending are homophobes does not change that. it really doesn’t.
Bloix
“Did they owe it to their client, Congress, to suffer through the repercussions of their decision to accept the case, or is it okay for them to have withdrawn upon realizing that taking the case could potentially cost the firm millions of dollars from other clients?”
As a matter of legal ethics, they had no obligation to stay with the case so long as they assured themselves that their client had adequate continuing representation. Which it does.
A
Little Boots
@Bloix:
no, the principle is still the same. the people defending the Guantanimo defendents on behalf of the Constitution are defending a principle, regardless of the moral worth of their clients, so are people defending the idea of DOMA, regardless of the moral worth of the law or their clients. that is not to say the Guantanimo defendants can’t be innocent, but that is not the principle at stake in defending their right to representation. everyone gets a lawyer is a noble, progressive principle, and I don’t think Holder is wrong to uphold it.
Jay in Oregon
@bago:
If John Cole plays WoW, then he’s certainly encountered the term before. And I’m sure the pedigree of “rage quit” extends farther back than that…
LT
@Little Boots:
What if he was defending “anti-sodomy” laws, or a law prohibiting interracial marriage?
Little Boots
@LT:
again, can’t say I’d like him, can’t say I do like him, but the law is the problem, not the lawyer.
LT
@Little Boots:
Well, just to be clear – if a lawyer took a case today to defend prohibition of interracial marriage, you would not condone “demonizing” that lawyer.
(And: You act completely unaware that this is a choice that lawyer would be making, in regards to the DOMA defense we’re talking about now. That lawyer would have no constitutional mandate behind him, as in the case of taking the case of a violent Islamist.)
Nate
I can’t believe anyone is defending Clement and/or Holder on this one, especially other fucking lawyers, whether or not their gay (for the record, I’m a straight lawyer). Clement decided to take money to defend a law that expresses the United States’ hatred for gay people. He is a piece of shit for doing so. It is not anywhere near the same as a lawyer taking on the case of a Gitmo detainee. If a lawyer took money to defend a terrorist’s right to bomb a school bus, I would think that that lawyer is a piece of shit. Lawyers defending Gitmo detainees are not defending those detainees’ rights to bomb a school bus–those lawyers are defending the detainees’ rights to due process, i.e., to not have their liberty taken away without being afforded a certain amount of process. The ACLU is not defending Fred Phelps’s right to spew hateful rhetoric at the family and friends of dead soldiers; their defending a United States citizen’s right to say whatever they want on public property without the government in some way preventing them from speaking. What’s Clement defending? Congress’s right to codify the hatred of gays? Congress’s right to pass laws that discriminate against a discrete and insular minority?
If you can’t see the difference between what Gitmo detainees’ lawyers, or ACLU lawyers, are doing in those situations, and what Clement is doing, you’re not being fair or evenhanded or defending some great principle (which would be what, lawyers can’t be criticized for advocating on behalf of a cause someone, somewhere might consider repugnant? If so, that’s a worthless principle); you’re just demonstrating you’re inability to make meaningful distinctions. Fuck Clement, and fuck Holder for defending Clement with such a specious comparison. Apparently, Holder thinks that “that which lawyers do when we’re at our best” is being a whore for any John that will pay us.
Rihilism
@Little Boots:
I appreciate your optimism. But the nasty little pessimist in me keeps telling me that the fight for minority rights is never really over when it depends on the fickle nature of the majority…
Rihilism
Here’s a proposition. Let’s stop condemning Clement for defending a client and instead condemn him for being a POS republican.
Mike M
Every person deserves legal representation in criminal matters. We consider it to be such a fundamental right that an attorney will be appointed to represent you if you can’t afford it. The same cannot be said about civil cases. Laws are not people and every bad law does not deserve its day in court.
I think Holder should have remained neutral or kept his mouth shut. He didn’t need to rush to the defense of Clement. Still, I think amusing that he thinks working for the House of Representatives is roughly equivalent to defending accused terrorists.
The DOMA is a bad law and Clement is defending a bad cause. No one should be timid about criticizing him for taking the case. The House will not be deprived of representation, but perhaps they can be shamed into dropping the case. OK, maybe not.
gex
@Omnes Omnibus: Thanks for this. I can’t tell you how crazy, insanely angry I can get about all this crap – constantly being publicly attacked and demonized. I’m sure I’ve had many meltdowns in these comment sections. It is really nice to see someone express understanding about those meltdowns. Too often a harsh response follows.
Little Boots
Oh, Nate, now I have to rethink this shit, and I’m tired. oh, well. good night.
gex
@Mnemosyne: That sounds awfully familiar to me too.
Tim, Interrupted
This post is pretty rich, coming as it does from John “I just don’t know if I can take any more; I honestly don’t, I just don’t know how I can do it” Drama Queen Cole.
gex
@JR: I don’t think that contract was enforceable since it forbade all employees of that firm worldwide for advocating, even in private, for SSM.
FlipYrWhig
Jesus Fucking Crisco, this is the stupidest fucking shit ever. It’s been explained hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. (Short version: in trying to establish that some states have different definitions of marriage than others, and hence that what counts as legal marriage in one state might not be deemed legal marriage in another state, which is kinda relevant for any legal discussion of same-sex marriage, what do you think some key issues might be? Perhaps the age of consent? Perhaps the degree of consanguinity?)
Anyone who believes this might as well be saying some shit about long-form birth certificates. It’s stupid. You are stupid if you believe it, and you enjoy staying that way, because the explanation is totally motherfucking (in the spirit of consanguinity) obvious.
burnspbesq
@Little Boots:
If he did that, he wouldn’t be who he is.
gex
@Little Boots: The long arc of history really casts a shadow over the short span of my life. I’m kinda tired of hearing how great it’s going to be for future gays.
FlipYrWhig
@Nate:
Congress’s right to make policy on marriage?
I think it sucks, and it’s un-Constitutional, unethical, and abhorrent, but they might as well attempt to make a case for it. I mean, you’d think it’d be un-Constitutional, unethical, and abhorrent to allow employers to fire employees just for being gay, and yet that stands.
So, I see Holder’s point (and John’s) that lawyers should be able to advocate for unpopular and controversial causes and clients (see the ACLU and the KKK; wasn’t Greenwald himself involved in a similar free-speech case?). But also I feel like freedom of speech doesn’t mean protection from outrage provoked by that speech, so Clement should be able to do his thing, people should be able to pressure him about it, and whatever happens, happens.
FlipYrWhig
@gex:
Future Gays. Wasn’t that the Lost in Space spinoff starring Dr. Smith?
burnspbesq
@Rihilism:
Well, then, the problem isn’t Paul Clement. The problem is the choice of litigation as a strategy for getting DOMA off the books. That risk was inescapable from the day the complaint was filed. So don’t blame Clement. Blame the plaintiffs. They’re the one’s responsible for your heartburn.
LCinDC
Aravosis is kinda an idiot, but what can’t he get upset to the AG actually going out of his way to say nice things about Clement? Most people here seem to be arguing that Clement has a right to take the case. Who is denying this? It’s about whether he has a right to be complimented by the AG as though he was doing something heroic and if the AG can be criticized for making unnecessarily flattering statements about him.
It’s funny how easy most people here seem to find it to exalt the sacred duty of lawyers to defend homophobic discrimination. I’m sure everybody would take the same highly principled approach if this was, for instance, about SB1070 rather than DOMA, right? There would be no outrage at all …
Southern Beale
I dunno in this case. This isn’t the typical lawsuit with the typcial plaintiff and defendant. They weren’t representing a person or an organizaiton they were representing the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES to defend a law the President of the United States has said isn’t worth defending. Using taxpayer money which the House of Representatives claims to be so worried about.
I don’t think they deserve representation. If the bigots in the House want to defend DOMA there are any number of right wing “pro family” organizations who can step up to be the plaintiff in the case, aren’t there? Get pro bono representation from their right wing lawyers?
Maybe I don’t understand how this stuff works.
Bobby Thomson
I’ve agreed with Aravosis on many of his criticisms of the Obama administration, including that the DOJ’s hands were never really tied with respect to an unconstitutional law when there was no SCOTUS opinion directly on point.
But I tend to side more with Holder on this one. First, the judges ultimately looking at this issue will look askance at eny effort to deprive one side to the controversy of legal representation. Now, the United States actually does have representation without Clement. That representation is just saying that the law is unconstitutional. However, Congress, which adopted the law and arguably has standing to defend it, does not unless Clement or someone else does it. That brings me to my second point. You can argue that perhaps Congress should not have standing, but that’s an argument that’s best decided by a judge after full legal briefing, and not resolved by fiat.
That’s the legal argument. The crass political argument is that I want a potential escape hatch if President Willow Palin decides not to defend challenges to policy that I favor.
Bobby Thomson
One other point. Some of the comments upthread suggest that Clement is being sleazy by representing an unpopular cause for money. Now, I’m not privy to all the terms of this engagement, but if it’s true that there’s a cap of 500K, and that’s meant to cover all the cases out there in which the DOJ now will be abandoning any defense of the law, at the levels that Clement bills he effectively is doing this pro bono. That may not matter to you, but if it doesn’t, don’t pretend that the money is what bothers you.
Rihilism
@burnspbesq:
Well, I don’t recall saying Clement was the problem (other than snarking that we should condemn Clement for being a Republican rather than condemning him for defending DOMA). If it isn’t Clement, then it would be someone else. I was responding to Rea’s optimism that “we’ll win because we’re right”.
kay
It is impossible to understand Holder’s statement without looking first at Clement’s statement, in his resignation letter, because this is (essentially) a dialogue between two people.
Clements states that his position on DOMA is irrelevant.
The only thing that is relevant is the client’s position. Incidentally, Clements is consistent on this. He has represented ostensibly “liberal” causes and clients in the past.
That’s what Holder was responding to: Clement’s statement, so that’s the context. People can agree or disagree with Clements of Holder, but reading one side of what is an exchange just isn’t a way to get to anything near the truth.
kay
Turn it around. If you’re the client, and you want this advocate to defend your position (whatever your position is) would you feel it was fair for someone to pressure your chosen advocate (the person who speaks for you) to quit?
You want this lawyer, and this lawyer has agreed to represent you. Other people (actually, here, the other side) are saying “you can’t have that lawyer, sorry”.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
This is ridiculous. I am a lesbian. I would love my marriage to be a legal one. However, I want the opposition to get good representation, and LOSE badly. Attacking lawyers for defending unpopular laws or people IS an attack on our legal system. It is that legal system that guarantees the few rights we do have. I was angry when conservatives were going after the lawyers who were defending detainees. I am ticked that so called liberals are doing basically the same kind of thing. This is politics as total war, and it is wrong. You work within the system, you don’t attack everything and anything, even if it undermines our whole system, to win political battles. That poisonous and destructive. You are as bad as the worse sort of conservatives.
kay
Holder is saying that the criminal defendants wanted these lawyers. Because they’re great lawyers. Holder then wanted those same lawyers at the DOJ, which is why he hired them. Because they’re great lawyers.
He’s defending that idea.
Silver Owl
I don’t blame for Aravosis being angry. The U.S. sucks as a people when it comes to upholding freedom and equality for it’s own citizens. Americans just do not stand up for freedom. Not unless he’s a straight white conservative dude feeling weepy and insecure.
Senators and Reps will continue to do shitty things to other Americans, gays, women, hispanics. Gays, women are still animals in the U.S. After decades of fighting, you get tired of how your own nation is filled with liars that yammer endlessly about how great they are for doing nothing.
Yeah I get Aravosis’s anger. America isn’t all that great on a lot of things that count.
beergoggles
@Mnemosyne:
#1. Avrosis’ Republican roots are irrelevant to the actual point.
#2. When ur wrong, ur wrong: “A bill to repeal DADT was passed in 2010. However, the policy remains in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that repeal will not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADT)
#3. I was agreeing with u on this one.
#4. I said whatever cuz I didn’t care one way or another. I don’t blame a guy for being clueless about something that’s not his job.
LcinDC
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:
The issue is Holder praising Clement (as opposed, say, to making some neutral comment). Is not praising a lawyer for taking up a repugnant case the same as attacking him/her? Is there somewhere a right to be treated as a hero for defending gross discrimination that I missed somehow?
This line of reasoning strikes me as very similar to those complaints about folks in CA boycotting businesses that gave money to the anti-gay marriage campaign. You’d think one has some sort of moral duty to support folks that try to take one’s rights away and that doing otherwise is undermining the consitution, democracy, motherhood, and apple pie.
Criticizing and taking one’s business elsewhere is working within the system, not undermining it. Being all supportive and “civil” to people who are trying to screw you is being a dolt.
celticdragonchick
@Citizen Alan:
Perfection.
Nathanael
Thing is, when your client has no good case — and it’s a CIVIL case — your duty as a lawyer is to tell them “You have no case. Give it up. I’m not trying to win THAT case.”
The people trying to defend DOMA are really in that position. And it is a civil case.
The Republicans are definitely losing on this. I see no point in Holder’s defense of Clement, though a simple “I’m not going to argue about what cases lawyers choose to take” would have been fine.
Nathanael
@FlipYrWhig: No. New York State courts compared the differing statutes of different states and the variations in the definition of marriage… and concluded that out-of-state marriages had to be recognized unless they were inherently full of moral turpitude, basically, finding only child marriage and polygamy to be in those categories.
Obama/Holder’s Justice Department, in defending DOMA, faced these precedents, and therefore, in using this argument, had to claim that same-sex marriage was full of moral turpitude, while claiming that it was like child marriage and polygamy. It’s an false, evil and nasty argument to make, and should not have been made.
Nathanael
@Mnemosyne: When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. DADT is not only still in effect, it’s still in effect indefinitely and it’s still on the books.
A law allowing it to be repealed after a sequence of potential actions happens is very very far from a repeal. We have not one, but lots of laws which take effect upon a pronouncement from the President, only he hasn’t done it yet.
Dr. Squid
@Silver Owl: Oh please. Since when do black people count to Aravosis?
JR
@gex: That provision would likely go unenforced (depending on how broadly the duty to not disadvantage a client’s case is read, but I doubt it would be controlling in this matter), but the attorney-client relationship wouldn’t depend on the contract being proper so much as the acceptance of K&S to undertake the case and Congress to be represented by them. Once there was a meeting of the minds on that question, new duties attached to the firm’s conduct irrespective of the contract’s terms. The lawyer’s duty of representation is the heart of this question.
@Bloix: Mostly agreed: it’s not like the client in this case is unable to procure other, equally effective counsel, and continuing to represent Congress in this case would likely have led to an unreasonable financial burden for the firm (one of the acceptable grounds for withdrawal under Rule 1.16, IIRC – IANAL…yet).
FlipYrWhig
@Nathanael:
Absolutely, categorically false. No such argument was made. An argument was made that states _now_ have different standards on marriage, and as such, having some states recognizing same-sex marriage and others not recognizing it would not be introducing additional confusion. That’s where “pedophilia” and “inçest” were supposedly adduced. But there was no moral argument offered about same-sex marriage in that spot. Frankly, there was no moral argument offered about child marriage or consanguinity, either.
I think it’s bad logic because it would also justify some states maintaining laws against interracial marriage. But that _kind_ of bad logic is _not the same thing_ as saying that gay people are morally objectionable like other classes of sex offenders, which is what Aravosis and people who read Aravosis habitually mislead people into believing. Stop.
uptown
Another ex-republican (they sure like to blog). The difference is John Aravosis has really only one issue difference with the GOP. It just happens to be a big deal for him personally.
MNP
Wow. I agree with you Cole, but do I ever hate the way you write. I think I’ll rage quite right now! Alt-F4