Wait, is this thread about pressuring a law firm to abandon a client or not?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this. Is it proper to do? How would you feel if the tables were turned?
It's the free market.
People can express their displeasure all they want about business decisions. As long as there isn't any illegal speech (death threats etc.) then I don't see the problem with it. The firm or lawyer is going to have to decide whether the legal fees are worth the bad PR.
Is there any evidence of actual credible threats, or even semi-credible threats, yet? Did I miss a link? I've heard this is a "pogrom" and the law firm faced "intimidation," would love to see something resembling evidence of that.
Nope. If that did happen then the firm would just sue the responsible parties.
But, who knows, they might try to sue someone over this deal, but I think they'll cut their losses and count the fat stacks of cash we gave them to do next to nothing.
Wait, is this thread about pressuring a law firm to abandon a client or not?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this. Is it proper to do? How would you feel if the tables were turned?
My thoughts are on the previous page, but to sum up: yes, it's fine to do this, law firms are not sacred. Threats of violence obviously are never okay but there's nothing wrong with bringing economic or populist pressure against a company acting in a manner I find unpleasant.
Actually, if the executive genuinely feels that lower court decisions are incorrect the constitutionally appropriate course is to seek appeal, isn't it?
Incorrect != legally flawed. Which is the point spool keeps missing.
Long answer: Yes, mostly I would. I think questions of Constitutionality ought to be reviewed by the SCOTUS, especially in cases where there's a larger social question the country is relatively split on. Legislating this at the state level is not working - it's failing over and over. I'd prefer to see the DoJ bring every decent argument available before the appellate courts, and ultimately the SCOTUS, where they can be stomped into oblivion once and for all. American history shows us that popular sentiment lags behind defense of a minority's rights more often than not, and we're well versed in warnings about the tyranny of the majority. Throwing up your hands in surrender is not the way to put the exclamation point on the arguments against DOMA - only the Supreme Court can do that for us and they need to address any conceivable legitimate disagreement. otherwise, we'll still be arguing about this insanity in 2030.
But here's the thing; there's no guarantee the Supreme Court will ever take up a case that struck a law down as unconstitutional. It is the court's purview to do so, but there isn't a requirement that they exercise that right.
So if a law has been struck down in a lower court, would you have the DoJ defend that law in courts that are concurrent with the striking court in other states? At what point does the law become legitimately unconstitutional in your eyes, and does the DoJ have a stake in defending that law to the bitter end until it meets your personal test for that?
It's not my test! Until the SCOTUS reviews and declines to take up the case, no one is going to be satisfied. Recall here that my wish is for the question to be definitively answered and I don't believe supporters of the law should be left with a leg to stand on here. All possible appeals should be exhausted, and the DoJ ought not miss an opportunity to defend the law when it can, so as to eliminate all the possible avenues.
It is your test, though. It's certainly not the actual test as outlined in our founding documents. Because once a law is declared unconstitutional, it's unenforceable under the constitution. So unless an actual appeal can be brought, the DoJ is violating the constitution by defending the law in court.
I know you've said that you're in favor of a strong executive branch, but does that extend to the exercise of extra-constitutional authority by the DoJ? Because that's what you're pushing for here.
It doesn't extend that far, no. However, we've got what... 9 cases pending in various venues and an appeal already filed by the DoJ back in October, one they no longer want to pursue. This isn't settled yet, unfortunately. Moreover, we're not talking about enforcing here, we're talking about defending it in court. That doesn't strike me as extra-constitutional authority.
Actually, if the executive genuinely feels that lower court decisions are incorrect the constitutionally appropriate course is to seek appeal, isn't it?
Incorrect != legally flawed. Which is the point spool keeps missing.
Whoops. Yes, appeals are based on incorrect application of the law or legal process not the correctness of the decision itself.
The correctness of a decision and correctness of the process of arriving at the decision are two different things in the world of our courts, and appeals must be based on the process of arriving at the legal decision. That'd be things like the original judge allowing or disallowing too much evidence, right?
Edit: However, judges, not us or the DoJ, decide whether an appeal is valid, so I still don't see how the DoJ is violating their constitutional powers by asking for an appeal (not that they are anymore).
Is there any evidence of actual credible threats, or even semi-credible threats, yet? Did I miss a link? I've heard this is a "pogrom" and the law firm faced "intimidation," would love to see something resembling evidence of that.
Links at the bottom of the OP. Pogrom is a bit strong, I suppose, but they have faced economic threats in the form of becoming persona non grata on some college campuses and having their relationship with clients attacked by pressure groups.
My view is that this was, in fact, another huge waste of money initiated by the Republicans despite their hypocritical claims of being fiscally conservative.
Is there such a thing as over-paying for preventing reasonable progress against prejudice and injustice in this country? Apparently not for the conservatives of this nation.
Too bad they didn't spend that money employed in more useful ways of "protecting marriage" like repealing all divorce laws, but since the real goal was to further marginalize an oppressed and hated minority, I guess I can't really criticize their hypocrisy and waste, just their ethics and inhuman treatment of homosexual people.
Therefore, I state without equivocation, that DOMA is wrong and is an extremely immoral law deserving not only of repeal, but also complete and utter destruction by space lasers from God (let those who are free from sin cast the first stone - biblical paraphrase).
If the House of Representatives can hire a proxy for the Department of Justice if they don't approve of the work they do, does that mean the White House can hire a proxy for, say, the House Appropriations Committee? NRC? The Oversight committee? Actually that last one's not a terrible idea.
I don't really see anything even resembling a scandal or issue here.
Private law firm decides not to take a case due to client conflicts and public relations issues and some concerns regarding contract language specifically related to DOMA.
That's..... pretty normal. Law firms refuse cases all the time for any number of reasons. There's no intimidation, there's no physical threats, no conspiracy, just a firm deciding that their best business strategy is to avoid taking this case.
Wait, is this thread about pressuring a law firm to abandon a client or not?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this. Is it proper to do? How would you feel if the tables were turned?
My thoughts are on the previous page, but to sum up: yes, it's fine to do this, law firms are not sacred. Threats of violence obviously are never okay but there's nothing wrong with bringing economic or populist pressure against a company acting in a manner I find unpleasant.
You don't feel that a competent defense is a worthy cause to support?
If the House of Representatives can hire a proxy for the Department of Justice if they don't approve of the work they do, does that mean the White House can hire a proxy for, say, the House Appropriations Committee? NRC? The Oversight committee? Actually that last one's not a terrible idea.
Your if is incorrect - it's not about whether they approve of the work the DoJ is doing. Scroll up to my reply to enlightenedbum for the particulars.
Wait, is this thread about pressuring a law firm to abandon a client or not?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this. Is it proper to do? How would you feel if the tables were turned?
My thoughts are on the previous page, but to sum up: yes, it's fine to do this, law firms are not sacred. Threats of violence obviously are never okay but there's nothing wrong with bringing economic or populist pressure against a company acting in a manner I find unpleasant.
You don't feel that a competent defense is a worthy cause to support?
Against individuals in a criminal case, absolutely!
Against individuals in a civil case, absolutely depends on the cause.
Is there any evidence of actual credible threats, or even semi-credible threats, yet? Did I miss a link? I've heard this is a "pogrom" and the law firm faced "intimidation," would love to see something resembling evidence of that.
Links at the bottom of the OP. Pogrom is a bit strong, I suppose, but they have faced economic threats in the form of becoming persona non grata on some college campuses and having their relationship with clients attacked by pressure groups.
This happens to corporations all the time because of their political stances and economic decisions. Why should law firms be exempt? People boycotted businesses that were involved in South Africa during the 80s, or people not buying from Walmart because they think that Walmart eats small businesses for breakfast. In a free society, people and corporations can make any legal choice they want, but they must also suffer the consequences for that. If this law firm's decision has angered a particular community (people who like equality for everybody), and those people want to boycott the firm or try to encourage others to do so, how is this immoral or 'a problem'? Scanning the articles mentioned in the links it seems as if the "Human Rights Committee" is merely trying to encourage law students to not apply to this firm and to heckle their reps on campus. All and all, fairly innocuous. Calling it a 'pogrom' seems a little silly. Until the liberals start sending their cossacks to burn down the law offices, it doesn't quite meet the description of a pogrom.
I don't really see anything even resembling a scandal or issue here.
Private law firm decides not to take a case due to client conflicts and public relations issues and some concerns regarding contract language specifically related to DOMA.
That's..... pretty normal. Law firms refuse cases all the time for any number of reasons. There's no intimidation, there's no physical threats, no conspiracy, just a firm deciding that their best business strategy is to avoid taking this case.
Would you feel the same way if anti-gay pressure groups had convinced the plaintiff's lawyers to drop their lawsuits?
Wait, is this thread about pressuring a law firm to abandon a client or not?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this. Is it proper to do? How would you feel if the tables were turned?
My thoughts are on the previous page, but to sum up: yes, it's fine to do this, law firms are not sacred. Threats of violence obviously are never okay but there's nothing wrong with bringing economic or populist pressure against a company acting in a manner I find unpleasant.
You don't feel that a competent defense is a worthy cause to support?
Yes, a competent defense is worth supporting. The thing is, absent any evidence to the contrary, one has already been provided on this case, and lost. The DoJ has decided that there are no legal grounds for appeal, and as such has chosen to abide by the ruling. There is no ground for Congress to step in on, and their attempt to do so is an attempt to overstep their constitutional boundaries.
Wait, is this thread about pressuring a law firm to abandon a client or not?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this. Is it proper to do? How would you feel if the tables were turned?
My thoughts are on the previous page, but to sum up: yes, it's fine to do this, law firms are not sacred. Threats of violence obviously are never okay but there's nothing wrong with bringing economic or populist pressure against a company acting in a manner I find unpleasant.
You don't feel that a competent defense is a worthy cause to support?
Against individuals in a criminal case, absolutely!
Against individuals in a civil case, absolutely depends on the cause.
So you're in favor of a strong defense for the idea you like, but if you don't like the idea it's OK to try and screw things up out of court or punish your opponent. What happens when you're on the downside fo that equation?
Wait, is this thread about pressuring a law firm to abandon a client or not?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this. Is it proper to do? How would you feel if the tables were turned?
My thoughts are on the previous page, but to sum up: yes, it's fine to do this, law firms are not sacred. Threats of violence obviously are never okay but there's nothing wrong with bringing economic or populist pressure against a company acting in a manner I find unpleasant.
You don't feel that a competent defense is a worthy cause to support?
Is a $Texas / hour attorney the bar for a competent defense? Because if it is, public defenders are seriously lacking.
For the record, no just because an idea exists does not mean that the idea merits an expensive and high-profile defense. People who want to donate money towards finding a law firm to defend DOMA are free to do so, much like any other group is free to apply political pressure, within the allowable realms of discourse protected by our First Amendment, to discourage law firms, corporations, and individuals from participating in the defense of DOMA.
Are you familiar with the limitations law firms deal with regarding their clients? There's a reason law firms tend to focus not only on one area of law, but one type of client.
People deserve to be defended to the utmost, no matter the charge. Causes are not covered by the Constitution.
Also, I am going to agree that the legislative needs to get the fuck out of the Executive wheelhouse.
When the house first started making noises about taking up the cause of the pro-DOMA faction, I went and looked to see where the House got the authority to do this. And the Supreme Court seems to believe that they do, at least in the fairly well-known case INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court allowed the House to appeal lower court's decision. Even though the Supreme Court eventually upheld the decision and smacked down Congress's unconstitutional attempt at circumventing the constitutional process for law-making.
I don't really see anything even resembling a scandal or issue here.
Private law firm decides not to take a case due to client conflicts and public relations issues and some concerns regarding contract language specifically related to DOMA.
That's..... pretty normal. Law firms refuse cases all the time for any number of reasons. There's no intimidation, there's no physical threats, no conspiracy, just a firm deciding that their best business strategy is to avoid taking this case.
Would you feel the same way if anti-gay pressure groups had convinced the plaintiff's lawyers to drop their lawsuits?
Taking sides in a political opinion can cause blowback. Frankly, I'll let Justice Scalia say it better from Doe V. Reed.
...the fact is that running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate or to take part in the legislative process.
Wait, is this thread about pressuring a law firm to abandon a client or not?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this. Is it proper to do? How would you feel if the tables were turned?
My thoughts are on the previous page, but to sum up: yes, it's fine to do this, law firms are not sacred. Threats of violence obviously are never okay but there's nothing wrong with bringing economic or populist pressure against a company acting in a manner I find unpleasant.
You don't feel that a competent defense is a worthy cause to support?
Yes, a competent defense is worth supporting. The thing is, absent any evidence to the contrary, one has already been provided on this case, and lost. The DoJ has decided that there are no legal grounds for appeal, and as such has chosen to abide by the ruling. There is no ground for Congress to step in on, and their attempt to do so is an attempt to overstep their constitutional boundaries.
The DoJ already filed their appeal... they're declining to pursue it now, and I've already shown the grounds on which Congress can step in.
Your opinion of Congress's standing is meaningless without citation.
I don't really see anything even resembling a scandal or issue here.
Private law firm decides not to take a case due to client conflicts and public relations issues and some concerns regarding contract language specifically related to DOMA.
That's..... pretty normal. Law firms refuse cases all the time for any number of reasons. There's no intimidation, there's no physical threats, no conspiracy, just a firm deciding that their best business strategy is to avoid taking this case.
Would you feel the same way if anti-gay pressure groups had convinced the plaintiff's lawyers to drop their lawsuits?
I don't really see anything even resembling a scandal or issue here.
Private law firm decides not to take a case due to client conflicts and public relations issues and some concerns regarding contract language specifically related to DOMA.
That's..... pretty normal. Law firms refuse cases all the time for any number of reasons. There's no intimidation, there's no physical threats, no conspiracy, just a firm deciding that their best business strategy is to avoid taking this case.
Would you feel the same way if anti-gay pressure groups had convinced the plaintiff's lawyers to drop their lawsuits?
First of all, lawyers don't drop lawsuits, plaintiffs drop them. So if anti-gay pressure convinced the plaintiff's lawyers to withdraw from representation, it wouldn't stop the lawsuit from going forward.
Second, it depends on what sort of pressure it was. Boycott of the firm from their conservative clientele? Fine. Protests outside the law offices? Sure, why not. Death/injury/other criminal threats? Not fine.
The same goes for the law firm on the anti-gay side. Economic boycotts and protests are all acceptable actions in political discourse.
So you're in favor of a strong defense for the idea you like, but if you don't like the idea it's OK to try and screw things up out of court or punish your opponent. What happens when you're on the downside fo that equation?
Other people use the same tactics and you hope your arguments in favor of your position combined with strong public opinion and smart PR win the day?
Sounds like business as usual. The system is working as intended, this is a feature not a bug.
I'm in favor of individuals having protected constitutional freedoms and I'm in favor of those freedoms being extended to everyone possible. No First Amendment rights are being trampled here, this is a non-issue.
I don't really see anything even resembling a scandal or issue here.
Private law firm decides not to take a case due to client conflicts and public relations issues and some concerns regarding contract language specifically related to DOMA.
That's..... pretty normal. Law firms refuse cases all the time for any number of reasons. There's no intimidation, there's no physical threats, no conspiracy, just a firm deciding that their best business strategy is to avoid taking this case.
Would you feel the same way if anti-gay pressure groups had convinced the plaintiff's lawyers to drop their lawsuits?
Which is an apples to unicorns comparison.
Appeal to ridicule is no substitute for the citation you apparently lack.
I'm not sure what rights will be fucked over if a competent defense of a bigoted law is not provided. If the law is popular, there are obvious remedies in replacing the elected officials who refuse to defend the law. If the law is unpopular, not defending it is just allowing it to die because no one gives a shit anymore. The civil rights of those affected won't be injure as there is no personal right to force the government to defend a law.
I don't really see anything even resembling a scandal or issue here.
Private law firm decides not to take a case due to client conflicts and public relations issues and some concerns regarding contract language specifically related to DOMA.
That's..... pretty normal. Law firms refuse cases all the time for any number of reasons. There's no intimidation, there's no physical threats, no conspiracy, just a firm deciding that their best business strategy is to avoid taking this case.
Would you feel the same way if anti-gay pressure groups had convinced the plaintiff's lawyers to drop their lawsuits?
I would say "I guess that law firm decided that their public relationship with anti-gay pressure groups is more important than that particular case and that particular client."
If I was a plaintiff in the case, I wouldn't do business with that firm again and would find a different firm to work with.
Still not seeing anything even resembling a controversy here.
Should I be offended if the law firm working with the National Organization of Marriage refuses to work for plaintiffs in the DOMA case? What if lawyers for Coca Cola refuse to represent somebody who works for Pepsi in a discrimination lawsuit? What if a lawyer just really hates me personally, can I force them to represent me is a divorce case?
This entire faux-controversy strikes me as either an intentional attempt to muddy and confuse an issue in an effort to cry about "gay intimidation" or some other nonsense
-or-
an incredible failure to understand the basic dynamics of legal representation and free speech in America.
You don't feel that a competent defense is a worthy cause to support?
Against individuals in a criminal case, absolutely!
Against individuals in a civil case, absolutely depends on the cause.
So you're in favor of a strong defense for the idea you like, but if you don't like the idea it's OK to try and screw things up out of court or punish your opponent. What happens when you're on the downside fo that equation?
Here's the two things it all comes down to: Money and the market of ideas. For example, take school desegregation. The NAACP and like groups believed in their cause, but they needed money to support continued legal action. They entered the marketplace of ideas and were able (rightly so in my opinion) to convince others of the correctness of their stance. Should they have lost in Brown vs. Board of Education, they would have probably continued to work towards social change, once again by encouraging people to support them through contributions, until they either won their day in court, or the market place of ideas had firmly rejected their opinion and decided to no longer support their cause.
So what happens when you're on the downside of the equation? The short answer is "Tough Fucking Luck." It means that you didn't win in court, and it means that not enough people believe in your cause to continue supporting you so that you can keep fighting.
The ideas of the batshit insane only matter so long as they can gather tangible support. In the absence of tangible support, we in no way, morally or legally, owe them any credence to their civil argument just because.
Who decides what viewpoint is worthy? How do we identify Wrong and Terrible? Public opinion ran strongly against desegregation both before and after Brown, and I'd be willing to bet that a good 50% of the population believes the act involved in Lawrence is wrong, terrible, or both.
Then the issue was that public opinion was wrong.
If a person, or a group of people, failed to defend an idea that was good put unpopular, the issue was that they held wrong beliefs... not that they failed to defend beliefs that they disliked. I do not expect anybody to defend an idea that they consider wrong.
If the House of Representatives can hire a proxy for the Department of Justice if they don't approve of the work they do, does that mean the White House can hire a proxy for, say, the House Appropriations Committee? NRC? The Oversight committee? Actually that last one's not a terrible idea.
Your if is incorrect - it's not about whether they approve of the work the DoJ is doing. Scroll up to my reply to enlightenedbum for the particulars.
Yeah, that was more of a goof at the weird loopholes in our legal system than a reasoned opinion. The fact that they're allowed to do this is as dumb as it is legal.
My thoughts are on the previous page, but to sum up: yes, it's fine to do this, law firms are not sacred. Threats of violence obviously are never okay but there's nothing wrong with bringing economic or populist pressure against a company acting in a manner I find unpleasant.
You don't feel that a competent defense is a worthy cause to support?
Not in this case. That's the point. I'm happy to light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks to protest any business that does something I don't like. Law firms don't get a special pass from public criticism because they sometimes represent the defense in criminal trials.
In this matter they're no different than, say, my local grocery store donating money to the NOM or any of the other anti-gay-marriage organizations. I would refuse to shop there, and encourage everyone I know to do the same.
Wait, is this thread about pressuring a law firm to abandon a client or not?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this. Is it proper to do? How would you feel if the tables were turned?
I have no problems with it, so long as the pressuring tactics are legal, non-violent, etc.
If anything, I find it more ethical for the K&S lawyers to drop out in this case. If this is the extent of their belief in the side they were to represent, then I'd rather they were out and replaced by a "true believer."
That goes for the pro-gay marriage lawyers too. A true believer will provide a more rigorous defense than a lawyer chasing billable hours, all else being equal.
And it goes for private criminal defense attorneys too.
So you're in favor of a strong defense for the idea you like, but if you don't like the idea it's OK to try and screw things up out of court or punish your opponent. What happens when you're on the downside of that equation?
If I'm on the downside of that equation, then I expect a lot of good people are already getting screwed by an unjust law, and adding the lawyers is just a drop in the bucket.
My primary concern is that if it is appropriate to attack law firms and attorneys based upon the identities or positions of their clients, and if major law firms can be dissuaded from maintaining representation of unpopular clients or causes, then those groups which are truly “marginalized” have the most to fear. While there is little doubt the House could obtain capable representation without King & Spalding or Paul Clement, other groups might not be so fortunate. That is what is ultimately at stake here.
That whole post is worth a read through, as is his link to commentary by Steve Sanders, former Indiana state coordinator for the Human Rights Campaign from 1998–2002 and a member of the Obama campaign’s national LGBT steering and policy committee.
Edit: The end is nigh, I've found myself in agreement with the L. A. Times:
But the suggestion that it's shameful for Clement or his firm to do so misunderstands the adversarial process. For one thing, with sharp-witted counsel on both sides making the strongest possible arguments, it is more likely that justice will be done. For another, a lawyer who defends an individual or a law, no matter how unpopular or distasteful, helps ensure that the outcome is viewed as fair. If DOMA is struck down, the fact that it was defended effectively will make the victory for its opponents more credible.
spool32 on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
So what you're saying is that Republicans should shut the fuck up about how evil the ACLU is.
My primary concern is that if it is appropriate to attack law firms and attorneys based upon the identities or positions of their clients, and if major law firms can be dissuaded from maintaining representation of unpopular clients or causes, then those groups which are truly “marginalized” have the most to fear. While there is little doubt the House could obtain capable representation without King & Spalding or Paul Clement, other groups might not be so fortunate. That is what is ultimately at stake here.
That whole post is worth a read through, as is his link to commentary by Steve Sanders, former Indiana state coordinator for the Human Rights Campaign from 1998–2002 and a member of the Obama campaign’s national LGBT steering and policy committee.
Edit: The end is nigh, I've found myself in agreement with the L. A. Times:
But the suggestion that it's shameful for Clement or his firm to do so misunderstands the adversarial process. For one thing, with sharp-witted counsel on both sides making the strongest possible arguments, it is more likely that justice will be done. For another, a lawyer who defends an individual or a law, no matter how unpopular or distasteful, helps ensure that the outcome is viewed as fair. If DOMA is struck down, the fact that it was defended effectively will make the victory for its opponents more credible.
Really? I would say that a law stands or falls on its own merits and validity, regardless of any 'sharp-wittedness' on the part of the lawyer advocating for it.
Posts
It's the free market.
People can express their displeasure all they want about business decisions. As long as there isn't any illegal speech (death threats etc.) then I don't see the problem with it. The firm or lawyer is going to have to decide whether the legal fees are worth the bad PR.
Nope. If that did happen then the firm would just sue the responsible parties.
But, who knows, they might try to sue someone over this deal, but I think they'll cut their losses and count the fat stacks of cash we gave them to do next to nothing.
My thoughts are on the previous page, but to sum up: yes, it's fine to do this, law firms are not sacred. Threats of violence obviously are never okay but there's nothing wrong with bringing economic or populist pressure against a company acting in a manner I find unpleasant.
Incorrect != legally flawed. Which is the point spool keeps missing.
It doesn't extend that far, no. However, we've got what... 9 cases pending in various venues and an appeal already filed by the DoJ back in October, one they no longer want to pursue. This isn't settled yet, unfortunately. Moreover, we're not talking about enforcing here, we're talking about defending it in court. That doesn't strike me as extra-constitutional authority.
Also, I am going to agree that the legislative needs to get the fuck out of the Executive wheelhouse.
The correctness of a decision and correctness of the process of arriving at the decision are two different things in the world of our courts, and appeals must be based on the process of arriving at the legal decision. That'd be things like the original judge allowing or disallowing too much evidence, right?
Edit: However, judges, not us or the DoJ, decide whether an appeal is valid, so I still don't see how the DoJ is violating their constitutional powers by asking for an appeal (not that they are anymore).
Links at the bottom of the OP. Pogrom is a bit strong, I suppose, but they have faced economic threats in the form of becoming persona non grata on some college campuses and having their relationship with clients attacked by pressure groups.
What sort of bizzaro world have I stumbled into?
Is there such a thing as over-paying for preventing reasonable progress against prejudice and injustice in this country? Apparently not for the conservatives of this nation.
Too bad they didn't spend that money employed in more useful ways of "protecting marriage" like repealing all divorce laws, but since the real goal was to further marginalize an oppressed and hated minority, I guess I can't really criticize their hypocrisy and waste, just their ethics and inhuman treatment of homosexual people.
Therefore, I state without equivocation, that DOMA is wrong and is an extremely immoral law deserving not only of repeal, but also complete and utter destruction by space lasers from God (let those who are free from sin cast the first stone - biblical paraphrase).
Private law firm decides not to take a case due to client conflicts and public relations issues and some concerns regarding contract language specifically related to DOMA.
That's..... pretty normal. Law firms refuse cases all the time for any number of reasons. There's no intimidation, there's no physical threats, no conspiracy, just a firm deciding that their best business strategy is to avoid taking this case.
You don't feel that a competent defense is a worthy cause to support?
Your if is incorrect - it's not about whether they approve of the work the DoJ is doing. Scroll up to my reply to enlightenedbum for the particulars.
Against individuals in a criminal case, absolutely!
Against individuals in a civil case, absolutely depends on the cause.
This happens to corporations all the time because of their political stances and economic decisions. Why should law firms be exempt? People boycotted businesses that were involved in South Africa during the 80s, or people not buying from Walmart because they think that Walmart eats small businesses for breakfast. In a free society, people and corporations can make any legal choice they want, but they must also suffer the consequences for that. If this law firm's decision has angered a particular community (people who like equality for everybody), and those people want to boycott the firm or try to encourage others to do so, how is this immoral or 'a problem'? Scanning the articles mentioned in the links it seems as if the "Human Rights Committee" is merely trying to encourage law students to not apply to this firm and to heckle their reps on campus. All and all, fairly innocuous. Calling it a 'pogrom' seems a little silly. Until the liberals start sending their cossacks to burn down the law offices, it doesn't quite meet the description of a pogrom.
Would you feel the same way if anti-gay pressure groups had convinced the plaintiff's lawyers to drop their lawsuits?
Yes, a competent defense is worth supporting. The thing is, absent any evidence to the contrary, one has already been provided on this case, and lost. The DoJ has decided that there are no legal grounds for appeal, and as such has chosen to abide by the ruling. There is no ground for Congress to step in on, and their attempt to do so is an attempt to overstep their constitutional boundaries.
So you're in favor of a strong defense for the idea you like, but if you don't like the idea it's OK to try and screw things up out of court or punish your opponent. What happens when you're on the downside fo that equation?
Is a $Texas / hour attorney the bar for a competent defense? Because if it is, public defenders are seriously lacking.
For the record, no just because an idea exists does not mean that the idea merits an expensive and high-profile defense. People who want to donate money towards finding a law firm to defend DOMA are free to do so, much like any other group is free to apply political pressure, within the allowable realms of discourse protected by our First Amendment, to discourage law firms, corporations, and individuals from participating in the defense of DOMA.
Are you familiar with the limitations law firms deal with regarding their clients? There's a reason law firms tend to focus not only on one area of law, but one type of client.
When the house first started making noises about taking up the cause of the pro-DOMA faction, I went and looked to see where the House got the authority to do this. And the Supreme Court seems to believe that they do, at least in the fairly well-known case INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court allowed the House to appeal lower court's decision. Even though the Supreme Court eventually upheld the decision and smacked down Congress's unconstitutional attempt at circumventing the constitutional process for law-making.
Taking sides in a political opinion can cause blowback. Frankly, I'll let Justice Scalia say it better from Doe V. Reed.
The DoJ already filed their appeal... they're declining to pursue it now, and I've already shown the grounds on which Congress can step in.
Your opinion of Congress's standing is meaningless without citation.
Which is an apples to unicorns comparison.
First of all, lawyers don't drop lawsuits, plaintiffs drop them. So if anti-gay pressure convinced the plaintiff's lawyers to withdraw from representation, it wouldn't stop the lawsuit from going forward.
Second, it depends on what sort of pressure it was. Boycott of the firm from their conservative clientele? Fine. Protests outside the law offices? Sure, why not. Death/injury/other criminal threats? Not fine.
The same goes for the law firm on the anti-gay side. Economic boycotts and protests are all acceptable actions in political discourse.
Other people use the same tactics and you hope your arguments in favor of your position combined with strong public opinion and smart PR win the day?
Sounds like business as usual. The system is working as intended, this is a feature not a bug.
I'm in favor of individuals having protected constitutional freedoms and I'm in favor of those freedoms being extended to everyone possible. No First Amendment rights are being trampled here, this is a non-issue.
Appeal to ridicule is no substitute for the citation you apparently lack.
I would say "I guess that law firm decided that their public relationship with anti-gay pressure groups is more important than that particular case and that particular client."
If I was a plaintiff in the case, I wouldn't do business with that firm again and would find a different firm to work with.
Still not seeing anything even resembling a controversy here.
This entire faux-controversy strikes me as either an intentional attempt to muddy and confuse an issue in an effort to cry about "gay intimidation" or some other nonsense
-or-
an incredible failure to understand the basic dynamics of legal representation and free speech in America.
Here's the two things it all comes down to: Money and the market of ideas. For example, take school desegregation. The NAACP and like groups believed in their cause, but they needed money to support continued legal action. They entered the marketplace of ideas and were able (rightly so in my opinion) to convince others of the correctness of their stance. Should they have lost in Brown vs. Board of Education, they would have probably continued to work towards social change, once again by encouraging people to support them through contributions, until they either won their day in court, or the market place of ideas had firmly rejected their opinion and decided to no longer support their cause.
So what happens when you're on the downside of the equation? The short answer is "Tough Fucking Luck." It means that you didn't win in court, and it means that not enough people believe in your cause to continue supporting you so that you can keep fighting.
The ideas of the batshit insane only matter so long as they can gather tangible support. In the absence of tangible support, we in no way, morally or legally, owe them any credence to their civil argument just because.
Then the issue was that public opinion was wrong.
If a person, or a group of people, failed to defend an idea that was good put unpopular, the issue was that they held wrong beliefs... not that they failed to defend beliefs that they disliked. I do not expect anybody to defend an idea that they consider wrong.
Skepticism does not invite relativism.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, that was more of a goof at the weird loopholes in our legal system than a reasoned opinion. The fact that they're allowed to do this is as dumb as it is legal.
Not in this case. That's the point. I'm happy to light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks to protest any business that does something I don't like. Law firms don't get a special pass from public criticism because they sometimes represent the defense in criminal trials.
In this matter they're no different than, say, my local grocery store donating money to the NOM or any of the other anti-gay-marriage organizations. I would refuse to shop there, and encourage everyone I know to do the same.
I have no problems with it, so long as the pressuring tactics are legal, non-violent, etc.
If anything, I find it more ethical for the K&S lawyers to drop out in this case. If this is the extent of their belief in the side they were to represent, then I'd rather they were out and replaced by a "true believer."
That goes for the pro-gay marriage lawyers too. A true believer will provide a more rigorous defense than a lawyer chasing billable hours, all else being equal.
And it goes for private criminal defense attorneys too.
If I'm on the downside of that equation, then I expect a lot of good people are already getting screwed by an unjust law, and adding the lawyers is just a drop in the bucket.
That whole post is worth a read through, as is his link to commentary by Steve Sanders, former Indiana state coordinator for the Human Rights Campaign from 1998–2002 and a member of the Obama campaign’s national LGBT steering and policy committee.
Edit: The end is nigh, I've found myself in agreement with the L. A. Times:
Really? I would say that a law stands or falls on its own merits and validity, regardless of any 'sharp-wittedness' on the part of the lawyer advocating for it.
What was that image somebody threw at me when I first joined, interpreting arguments that start with phrases like "So what you're saying is..."?