NOM BLOG

Breaking News: Paul Clement Refuses to Bow Down Under HRC Pressure, Leaves Law Firm to Defend DOMA

 

Ed Whelan at NRO's Bench Memos with the breaking news:

According to Politico, the King & Spalding law firm, which had agreed to serve as counsel to the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, is now backing out of the representation. Its about-face is a craven caving to pressure from gay-rights groups. King & Spalding chairman Robert Hays deserves special recognition as a profile in cowardice.

In response to the King & Spalding decision, superstar lawyer (and former Solicitor General) Paul D. Clement has just resigned from the firm "effective immediately."

Here is Clement’s resignation letter.

...Clement will continue representing the House of Representatives in his new capacity with Bancroft PLLC.

We have been noting the harassment and intimidation tactics used by gay rights groups (particularly the Human Rights Campaign) against King & Spalding over the previous days. More from us soon.

11 Comments

  1. Don
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Human beings always deserve representation. Odious laws are not people. What law firm would make the case that the Nuremberg laws deserved the best defense?

  2. Lefty
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Making a blue-chip law firm drop the federal government as a client? Oppressed groups don't usually have that kind of clout.

  3. catholicdad
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    It is becoming more and more apparent that our legal system is- perhaps even fatally- compromised, and has surrendered even the pretense of fairness and balance, in the face of this highly organized and strategized campaign to destroy marriage over and against any impediment of law, of justice, of democratic consent of the people.

    This is getting quite serious indeed. More than marriage is at stake now. Our freedom itself is directly at risk.

    The good news is the fascist tactics of the opposition are now so extreme, so cynical, so "up front", that the outcome will now reflect whether we as a people have indeed lost the moral fitness to survive.

    If HRC prevails with these tactics, then we will have.

    I suggest we triple- no, quadruple- our efforts.

    Now.

  4. Mike P.
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    This serves as a reminder that the law profession is dominated by lefties, although you'd have to be a non-sentient being to be unaware of that fact. It is also a reminder of the increasingly thuggish tactics proponents of same-sex marriage are willing to employ.

  5. Don
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    The question which must be asked is what is the nature of an entity or entities which seek to prevent free speech in court and which seek to obstruct a lawful legal process while using the same legal processes, to the fullest extent, to further their own ends?

    Are such entities American? Are such entities democratic? Do they reflect the rights and liberties which are the hallmark of our great nation or do they remind us of the methods used by countless tyrants abroad who sought to establish dictatorial regimes?

    What we are witnessing is an act of extreme desperation by the liberal left homosexual activists. They know that if DOMA has it's day before the Supreme Court of The United States that their cause is lost. Thus they seek to prevent a decision regarding DOMA by the highest court in the land.

    They shall not prevail and the fact remains that former Solicitor General Clement still remains the attorney representing the U. S. House of Representatives which body was duly elected to represent the people of The United States of America.

  6. Barb
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Kudos to Mr. Clement. It's so refreshing to find a person of principles.

  7. Erica M cook
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    When its your rites its something that all people should have, but when its our rites it’s a matter of the bible. You're entitled to your beliefs, but this nation is supposed to have a suppuration of church and state. DOMA is unconstitutional. I don’t want a church to be forced to marry people who they don’t see fit, I don’t want your rites of religion infringed on. I just want my rights. It’s sat when that idea is considered unamacan

  8. John N.
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Erica: Get real you activists always play the religion card and use the seperation of church and state excuse. Their have been numerous blogs here by NOM discussing the merits of marriage without reference to religion. There is so much more to this than just religion.

    CatholicDad: Awesome post!!! What he is really asking is are we still a democracy? Does the Bill of Rights and the Constitution still apply? Do we want to forsake the we the people for the new order. A judicial dictactorship. Far leftits cannot win the people over in elections but because they control the courthouse they call the shots.

    Think about it people.

  9. Erica M cook
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Oh yeah, the "marriage procreation thing." So when are you going to ban menopausal women, sterile men, infertile women, and couples that marry with no intention of ever having children?

  10. Don
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Erica M cook:

    Fortunately, the determination of whether DOMA is constitutional or not doesn't rest with you. You simply aren't that powerful. Suck it up!

    What other user names have you posted under in this blog, LOL!

  11. Don
    Posted April 26, 2011 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    Oh, now this is interesting, The comment at the top of the page is not mine. Apparently we now have someone posting under the same name I am. Don't you screen that out, NOM?