California Republican Dan Lungren is chairman of the House Committee on House Administration. He just issued this statement regarding King and Spalding and Paul Clement:
“I want to express my gratitude to former Solicitor General Clement. I admire his unwavering commitment to his clients and his dedication to uphold the law – qualities that appear to be inconsequential at King and Spalding where politics and profit now appear to come first.
“King and Spalding’s cut and run approach is inexcusable and an insult to the legal profession. Less than one week after the contract was approved engaging the firm, they buckled under political pressure and bailed with little regard for their ethical and legal obligations. Fortunately, Clement does not share the same principles. I’m confident that with him at the helm, we will fight to ensure the courts – not the President – determine DOMA’s constitutionality.”
Nice, but sadly inadequate. I looked at the except from Clement's letter over at Bench Memos.
First, he notes that his own feelings regarding DOMA are not relevant. Can't the House find a top-level attorney who actually believes DOMA is valid, and will say so?
Look, when criminal attorneys defend their clients in high-profile cases, do they tell the press, "I am defending my client whether or not I think he's guilty," or do they tell the press, "My client is absolutely not guilty, and I'll prove it!"
Second, Clement refers to DOMA as "unpopular." Say what? Last time I checked, some 30 states had passed their own defense of traditional marriage, with NO state ever approving of same-gender marriage by popular referendum. In what way would DOMA be "unpopular"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's another bad - and embarrassing - day for the Obama administration. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the President's supporters from his opponents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna,
Evidently the firm hired by Mr. Boehner completely mishandled this. How is this in any way a bad day or an embarrassment for the Obama Administration? Since Clement has left the firm and remains committed to representing the pro-DOMA position. What has changed through this debacle as far as Obama goes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA law firm is a business, so it’s a bit hyperbolic to claim this is an insult to the legal profession before the case really got underway. K&S should have known it would have faced pressure and not taken the case, it’s mistake was underestimating the political blowback and we don’t know what sort of pressure K&S got from wealthy clients. The good news is that there are very good law firms out there who can and will take the case. The Speaker needs to do a bit more due diligence when choosing a firm.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In what way would DOMA be "unpopular"?" --Never_Outraged
Never_Outraged: The answer to your question is "in some quarters." This is what the Clement statement said: unpopular in some quarters.
I agree, however, with the other poster's observation that Clemnent need not have made any disclaimers about his own position on DOMA; it is simply extraneous, superfluous. Too much info, as the saying goes.
He need not make the opposite profession of principle, either: he's resigned, he's taking on the case as an honorable course and that should speak for itself. Why provide fodder for those who would maliciously read his disclaimer as a wink to the knowing. (And why would he take on a case that is essentially a matter of principle if he doesn't believe in its merits but mereley believes in a legalistic follow-through with his client once the commitment by his former firm had been made?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNearly all of the major law firms have internalized the homosexual agenda, as they now compete with each other in recruiting law students and lateral hires based on offering the most pro-homosexual environment within the firm. It is somewhat surprising K&S approved the representation in the first place. Clement deserves respect for resigning, and in any event he is on a short list for appointments by any Republican administration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, a law firm is a business -- in the worst sense of a state-protected guild that will defend the prerogatives of its political benefactors.
Modern "liberals" vigorously enforce an orthodoxy that is anything but liberal. Thus it is considered heroic to invent habeas rights for non-citizen unlawful combatants -- but treasonous to articulate the CiC powers established in Article II. That's recent history, folks; the memories should be fresh.
Do not misunderstand their intent: they so want to marginalize competing orthodoxies that they will abuse their monopoly to prevent other Americans from obtaining representation. Or, as in CA, deny them standing to defend their side of the argument. Yeah, judges too. So don't be so fast to excuse the groupthink that infects the legal industry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fundamental problem is that there is a price to be paid when one upsets the left, and no price to be paid when one upsets the right. They are motivated. We are not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDarn, I thought Dolph was getting in on the action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Speaker needs to do a bit more due diligence when choosing a firm."
I don't understand that. He hired a firm. Was he supposed to guess that the firm would renege on its agreement?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDropping the client was the right decision for the firm. Had they kept the case, a disgruntled employee would have just wikileaked confidential attorney work product to the other side at some point claiming to be some heroic whistleblower. That would lead to discipline for the firm or, more likely, unprecedented distortion of the rules of ethics. Better that they contain the damage now, for all concerned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShould Clement's new firm drop the case as well, shadowtax?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse