BREAKING: Obama admin. defends anti-gay DOMA lawyers

[Bluebear]

"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.

Never doubt the Obama administration's ability to screw things up, yet again, with a key Democratic constituency:

ATLANTA (AP) — The former Bush administration lawyer under fire for defending the federal ban on gay marriage is getting support from an unexpected source — Attorney General Eric Holder.

Former solicitor general Paul Clement quit his law firm after it announced Monday that it was withdrawing from the case amid criticism from gay rights advocacy groups. Clement is moving to another firm to continue the work.

Holder told reporters Tuesday that Clement is a great lawyer and criticism of him is misplaced. He said Clement is "doing that which lawyers do" in representing legislators who wrote the law.

President Barack Obama ordered Holder's Justice Department in February to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. That led House Republicans to hire Clement.

http://www.americablog.com/2011/04/breaking-obama-admin-defends-anti-gay.html

[pnwmom]

1. Yeah, that was a dumb thing to say. It's true that lawyers are supposed to take on

cases regardless of their personal opinion about the issues involved -- that IS what lawyers do. But this was still a dumb thing for Holder to say. It just hurts Obama and doesn't help anyone else.

[tritsofme]

5. How does it in any way hurt Obama?

His administration has washed it's hands of DOMA.

Holder didn't do anything wrong here, or bolster the pro-DOMA legal argument in any way.

[Tx4obama]

12. It only looks dumb when the full context and quotes of what Holder said is not fully presented. n/t

Edited to fix typo (changed 'it' to 'is').

[pnwmom]

13. It's unfortunate, but we always have to be prepared to have remarks

taken out of context and twisted. And that's exactly what happened right here.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Someone who supports discriminatory laws is someone to be admired?

I think this administration is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

[Tx4obama]

8. Holder does NOT support discriminatory laws - see comment #7 n/t

[Old and In the Way]

14. I didn't say he did. I just don't know why Holder needed to make the statement to begin with.

This is about defending the indefensible. I see no great principle Clement is undertaking by defending a law whose only purpose is to discriminate and holdback rights to a certain segment of the population. Why did Holder feel compelled to defend Clement? All it does is send a confusing message to Obama's base. Maybe Holder was asked directly for his opinion and this is his response...if this was a volunteered response, I just don't know why he felt the need to offer up a testimonial to a lawyer that's being paid handsomely to defend this POS DOMA legislation.

[BzaDem]

16. The reason Holder made the statement was because he was getting a significant amount of crap for

having lawyers work for the DOJ who previously defended Guantanamo detainees. Right wingers berated Holder for ever hiring such lawyers. "How could you hire lawyers that in the past defended the indefensible Guantanamo detainees?"

Holder was defending the principle that advocating for a side as an attorney does not in any way signal agreement with that side. One might agree with the side, or they might not, but one needs more evidence of agreement with the side than merely agreeing to defend that side in court. For example, as solicitor general under Bush, Clement vigorously defended many statutes that he almost certainly disagreed with (such as McCain-Feingold). In fact, another solicitor general once advocated for the Constitutionality of a bill as solicitor general, and then advocated against the Constitutionality of the same bill as a private lawyer. The solicitor general in question was Ted Olson, who successfully defended McCain-Feingold in 2003 and then successfully attacked McCain-Feingold in Citizens United in 2010.

If Clement agrees with DOMA, then he deserves no praise and much criticism and protest. But Holder's point was that Clement's decision to defend DOMA does not in any way signal that he agrees with DOMA. Clement might agree with DOMA, or might not. But Holder did not want others to accuse Clement for agreeing with DOMA solely because he (or his previous firm) decided to defend the statute as an attorney. Holder wanted to show that he does not believe the cases a lawyer takes should be hold against the lawyer in any situation.

[FLAprogressive]

19. People have a right/obligation to be defended. Laws do not. Laws are not people.

Clement is under no obligation -- legal or moral -- to defend DOMA.

[BzaDem]

21. I am not claiming Clement is under any such obligation.

I'm just saying that now that Clement (for whatever reason) has taken the case, one shouldn't assume Clement agrees with DOMA solely because he took the case. That was Holder's point.

If there is any other evidence that Clement agrees with DOMA, then he should be criticized and protested. But a general legal principle is that one shouldn't assume a lawyer agrees with a side just because they are an attorney for that side (no matter what the side is or what type of "side" we are talking about).

[FLAprogressive]

22. what other reason would he have to take the case other than that he agrees with it?

[Tx4obama]

25. Many attorneys take cases that they don't agree with when it comes to getting to plead ....

a case in front of The SCOTUS.
They like to rack up the notches on their belt.

[FLAprogressive]

28. Well then he is a selfish jerkoff and he should face the wrath and scorn of the people.

[BzaDem]

26. There are many reasons lawyers take cases even though they don't personally agree with what they are

arguing.

Obviously, a lawyer defending an obviously guilty client is one example, but there are plenty of others (from lawyers defending companies to lawyers challenging laws to lawyers defending laws).

For example, current solicitor generals defend laws all the time, even if they don't agree personally with the result they are arguing for.

Clement is a former solicitor general, but he might simply believe that every law deserves a defender before it is struck from the books by a court -- even laws where the arguments against Constitutionality are significant and overwhelming. In the case of people, if we start making exceptions to the right to a lawyer for people who are obviously guilty (i.e. confess multiple times, crime on video, etc), that is a dangerous slippery slope to taking away the right to a lawyer for someone who might very well be innocent. Similarly, if we start saying that probable-unconstitutional laws don't deserve a defense, that is a slippery slope to saying that unpopular laws that are actually Constitutional don't deserve a defense. The tables could be turned in the future, where in the case of a different law, you are very happy that there is a lawyer to defend it.

That is one possible reason (the general principle that applies to all sides in all legal conflicts). Another is that he was originally asked by the firm, and that he felt that once he signed committing to defending it, it would be a bad idea to withdraw.

Or maybe it is all about the money.

Or maybe he supports DOMA and is against gay marriage (which would mean criticism and protest of his views would be entirely justified).

I have no idea which is correct. All I'm saying is that while the last reason might or might not be the real reason, it does not follow immediately and solely from the fact that he took the case.

[FLAprogressive]

27. Well if he believes that bigoted laws deserve defense I believe that he should face the wrath of the

people.

Laws are not people and are not innocent until proven guilty.

[Bluebear]

20. Holder had his people invoke incest and pedophilia to justify anti-gay prejudice.

http://gay.americablog.com/

This is no surprise.

[FLAprogressive]

23. +1

[Tx4obama]

24. Wow, that author John Aravosis dude sounds like a real asshole. n/t

[tritsofme]

3. Holder is 100% right here.

Lawyers defend unpopular clients and positions. Beat them on the merits.

[Ian David]

6. Agreed. I, too, saw that episode of Star Trek where Riker has to prosecute Commander Data. n/t

[tritsofme]

9. That was my favorite Star Trek series.

I wish that crew still made movies!

[backscatter712]

10. I remember that episode.

And yes, Holder's right - even douchebags have the right to lawyers. Granted, I wish the House would just use the lawyers they already have on staff instead of forking over hundreds of dollars of tax money per hour for a private firm.

[Capitalocracy]

4. Facepalm.

By the way, is a congressman hiring lawyers to fight lawsuits for tha guvment umm... normal? prudent? legal? constitutional?

something smells fishy

[Tx4obama]

7. Here's a BETTER article on the link below that is 'more fair' and tells the FULL STORY

Holder Defends Clement; Compares Attacks Over DOMA Defense To Smears Of Gitmo Attorneys

While he believes the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric Holder is defending former Solicitor General Paul Clement's decision to leave a prominent law firm over its decision to abandon its agreement to defend the statute in court on behalf of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

"Paul Clement's a great lawyer. He's done a lot of great things for this nation," Holder said in remarks to reporters today, as reported by NPR's Carrie Johnson. "I think he was doing that which lawyers do when we are at our best."

It was Holder's decision to no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA that set in motion the chain of events that ultimately led to Clement's involvement in the case. House Republicans were incensed by Holder's decision and decided that the House would defend the law in court, hiring Clement to handle the defense.

Holder compared the criticism of Clement over his decision to defend DOMA to criticism of Justice Department lawyers who had defended Guantanamo Bay detainees in habeas cases while in private practice.

Full article and the last two paragraphs containing quotes here: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/holder_defends_clement_compares_attacks_over_doma.php?ref=fpblg

===============================


Everyone Deserves a Lawyer

Attorney General Eric Holder is defending former Solicitor General Paul Clement who resigned yesterday from the law firm of King & Spalding over their decision to pull out of the DOMA defense. Holder compares the move to the smears attorneys suffered for defending Gitmo detainees.

--Josh Marshal
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[pnwmom]

11. Thanks -- and you're right, this is a better article. n/t

[FLAprogressive]

15. DOMA is not a person, but a piece of bigoted legislation and does not deserve a lawyer.

[Bluebear]

17. As usual, any thread like this seems to be an "ignored" magnet.

[FLAprogressive]

18. Some people will go to any length to defend this administration.