Then:
Sometime after he’s sworn in as president, Barack Obama is expected to follow through on a campaign promise to close the controversial U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
It can’t come a moment too soon for King & Spalding LLP partners John Chandler and Beth Tanis, a husband-and-wife tandem who have represented six of the Guantanamo detainees since 2004. The two lawyers, who recently joined Atlanta’s second-largest law firm (as measured by Atlanta Business Chronicle’s 2008-2009 Book of Lists) have spent countless pro bono hours on a cause they believe fundamentally erodes Americans’ basic rights.
Now:
Today, the law firm of King & Spalding announced — only 11 days after taking on the representation of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in its defense of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act — that it was dropping its representation because the vetting process had been “inadequate.” The move prompted the lead King & Spalding lawyer in the case, Paul Clement, to resign from his position at King & Spalding, according to a letter obtained by Politico’s Josh Gerstein.
In my own work defending life, religious liberty, and the family, I’ve often faced leading attorneys at major law firms. They defend ideas and actions that I sometimes find reprehensible, yet never once have I resented their representation decisions and have in fact enjoyed the challenge of responding to the best arguments the other side can offer.
Arguments should be tested, not suppressed, and bravo to Paul Clement for representing the highest ideals of the legal profession.
>"The two lawyers, who recently joined Atlanta’s second-largest law firm have spent countless pro bono hours on a cause they believe fundamentally erodes Americans’ basic rights."
And by "Americans" they mean "foreign terrorists".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpeaking as a former partner in two BigLaw mega-firms, my opinion is that King & Spaulding should be ashamed, and its partnership leaders are gutless embarrassments.
It's particularly ironic because among those in a litigation practice, K&S was traditionally known for its fierce loyalty to unpopular clients like the tobacco industry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDEAR DAVID FRENCH:
Maybe the law firm of King & Spalding simply came to the realization that there was no point in defending something as transparently unconstitutional as the Defense of Marriage Act?
Can you think of a purely constitutional justification for DOMA? I can't. You might make the argument that marriage is a "States Rights" issue, but that argument has already been made moot by the fact that it is the federal government that provides the overwhelming number of legal benefits to married couples.
DOMA violates the 14th Amendment in providing differing legal standards for married Gay couples and married Straight couples. It violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause, under which legal marriages are honored in all 50 states, not just the one in which the marriage license was secured.
Procreation is irrelevant, since couples don't need to marry to have kids, nor is the ability or even desire to have kids a requirement for getting a marriage license.
And it goes without saying that the defenders of DOMA have YET to illustrate how allowing Gay couples to marry harms the marriages of Straight couples.
Isn't it time to get over it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Anziulewicz - "Maybe the law firm of King & Spalding simply came to the realization that there was no point in defending something as transparently unconstitutional as the Defense of Marriage Act?"
If only OJ's lawyers would have came to the same patently obvious conclusion when defending him in his first felony case. In fact, I'm sure at least of few of them felt that their client was "transparently" guilty either before they accepted the case, or while they were preparing for trial or even at trial. However, none of them quit. Why? Because of the commitment they made to the client when they initially accepted the client in the first place.
If we have attorneys who leave clients at the first sign that those clients can't win, we won't have much of a judicial system left, now would we?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with you entirely on the moral value of defending even clients or ideas you find reprehensible. You defend it very succinctly, and you are absolutely correct.
Unfortunately, I think you're in a minority here. Anyone want to do a roundup of how The Corner felt on this matter as it related to, say, lawyers who have defended terror suspects? Didn't hear a lot of respect for the value of open argumentation, rule or law, defending unpopular positions, or outcry over intimidation of lawyers and firms then.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't it supposed to be a big deal for lawyers to continue to represent their clients once they take the case, baring some new discovery of a conflict of interest, or of couse the client running out of money? What, did this spineless law firm just get around to reading the law they were going to defend, and suddenly changed their mind?
Now if say, this same firm had had the pressure applied to them when they decided to help a bunch of Yemeni's caught in Afganistan (I know, they were there to build a school, or a road, or a road to a school, or a school about building roads), it would have been:
THE WORST THING EVER
Evil, un-americans were trying to pressure a noble set of lawyer, who felt that everyone deserved to have their case hear, blah blah blah.
But here, since they were dropping a conservative case, it's OK.
PS - I love the Then section about Barry's utter lie to close Gitmo. Too bad this set of spineless mouthpieces weren't holding their breath for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Chuck Anziulewicz:
The key to your idiocy of your "Full Faith & Credit" argument is the phrase "legal marriages are honored in all 50 states".
Gay marriage is ILLEGAL in most states.
To follow your doctrine would force such inanities as the legalization of murder in the US if one state were insane enough to legalize it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a surprise! King & Spalding decided it was unwilling to lose clients and recruiting opportunities defending a statute that will likely be irrelevant in ten years. I thought conservatives generally supported prudent business decisions?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Chuck: No, DOMA does not provide for different standards for homos**uals and heteros**uals desiring to marry - they are both allowed to marry a single representative of the opposite s**. That is sort of the definition of marriage down through several millenia (with the two exceptions being polygamy - which is still a heteros**ual combination - and Caligula).
(Sheesh... the filter is really getting annoying with some of its "objectionable language.")
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, let me get this straight (no offense intended). It's noble to defend terrorists who want to destroy our nation (and who would likely, due to their "religion," also support the beheading of homosexuals), but it's not somehow abhorrent to support the institution of "regular" marriage (I tried to use the term h**eros**ual marriage, but the system wouldn't let me!!!!!), which has been the foundation of the family and recognized by societies for many thousands of years? Typical liberal values--condemn anything, and anyone, who doesn't support your twisted view of the world. The constant destruction of our nation's traditional values will eventually destroy our nation. But I guess the lawyers at K&S don't care, unless it fits with their twisted views.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo Chuck A. -- DOMA does not violate equal protection because the two groups are not similarly situated. Gays have never had the right to marry each other, so there can be no discrimination by not allowing them to marry. And allowing gays to marry harms my marriage in the same way allowing illegal aliens to have citizenship privileges harms my citizenship!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would King & Spalding take the heat for blatantly deferring to the Obama administration's position on the DOMA when the Obama administration effectively thumbed its nose at the firm's devotion to closing GITMO? Championing suspected terrorists, but not the traditional institution of marriage, is not something most law firms would highlight in their client portfolios. Then again, perhaps King & Spalding isn't interested in attracting legal business from traditional Americans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI invite Chuck A to answer this simple question.
You are allowed to have a 'marriage' recognized by the state as long as you meet the qualifications of the state of residence.
How is that discriminatory?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKing & Spalding is probably made up of real conservatives who don't want to get involved in making someone pay a higher estate tax. I salute their true conservatism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do not understand why the proponents of same gender marriage seek to achieve their ends through the least legitimate means possible. If we are to ignore all semblances of democratic and republican institutions and change society through judicial process, should not at the very least, there be a strong and vigorous presentation of both sides of the argument?
Marriage laws and customs are ancient traditions within cultures. The roots are very deep. Often they precede both church and state. Do they really want to effectuate change or is this about pride after all - a vanity project? It sure doesn't seem like they want to persuade opponents by reason, because clearly they deign opponents without reason and motivated only by animus.
The trajectory is for this issue to be with us for a very long time. That happens when social change is instituted by illegitimate means. After all Roe v Wade is still an issue even though it denied my personal right to be born alive during the Ford Administration, so why exactly would the marriage issue go away whether 2012's newly weds are celebrating silver anniversaries or divorced?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you're right shadowtax,
The issue isn't if we're going to get there, it's how.
SSM activists aren't content using the proper and correct methods. They're wanting judges to invent rights out of thin air, hiding behind Baker v Nelson when it supports them (Iowa) and ignoring it when it doesn't. (California) While I oppose expanding marriage to include same secs partners, I'd live (reluctantly) with a legislative victory. Judicial malfaence I won't stand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDEAR LIVEWIRE:
You write, "SSM activists aren't content using the proper and correct methods. They're wanting judges to invent rights out of thin air."
Out of thin air? Not quite. The rights already exist for Straight (i.e. heteros*xual) couples. And as taxpayers, Gay couples are forced to subsidize them without being able to enjoy them. Since the only difference between a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa and a Straight couple that is legal married in Iowa is the gender (and, presumably, the se*ual orientation) of the two people who have made the commitment to one another, there is no Constitutional justification for denying the Gay couple the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that the federal government provides to the Straight couple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDEAR LIVEWIRE:
You write, "You are allowed to have a 'marriage' recognized by the state as long as you meet the qualifications of the state of residence. How is that discriminatory?"
What you call a simple question is actually more complicated that it seems. If marriage was purely a "States Rights" issue, the federal government would take a hands-off approach and not provide 1,138 legal benefits (according to the GAO) to married couples. Furthermore, a married couple would have to re-apply for a new marriage license any time they moved to another state. Thanks to the "Full Faith & Credit" clause, that isn't necessary. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes UN-married as soon as they cross into an adjacent state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna,
What is a "traditional American"? New buzzword for "real American"? Your comments never fail to amuse me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShorter Chuck.
"I can't answer your question without undermining my own argument, so I won't."
Thank you Chuck. My point stands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse