Attorney General Eric Holder defends Paul Clement

April 26, 2011 at 5:35 pm 77 comments

No, really:

“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 during a roundtable with reporters at the Justice Department. “That criticism, I think, was very misplaced.”

Holder also compared the criticism of Clement to the attacks on Justice Department lawyers for their past work for detentainees at Guantanamo. “It was something we dealt with here in the Department of Justice…The people who criticized our people here at the Justice Department were wrong then as are people who criticized Paul Clement for the representation that he’s going to continue,” Holder added.

I’m not exactly thrilled to be compared to anti-Muslim zealots who thought Guantanamo detainees should be held forever on an island without right to trial by jury under a fiat issued by the Bush Administration. And it’s unclear to me what exactly are the great things that Paul Clement, a former Bush Solicitor General and all-around conservative, has done for this country. The cases he’s argued the United States Supreme Court on which he’s argued for the wrong side include McConnell v. FEC (campaign finance) Rumsfeld v. Padilla (trial by jury), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (right to challenge detention), Rumsfeld v. FAIR (law schools have the right to freedom of speech in refusing military recruiters on campus excuse of DADT) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (military commissions), and Gonzales v. Carhart (woman’s right to choose). I suppose Holder would defend all of those by saying Clement was “assigned” the cases, rather than noting where the man’s heart is. There’s also McDonald v. Chicago in which he, in private practice, carried water for the NRA in striking down sensible gun restrictions that protect urban residents like me.

Of course, this is the same Eric Holder who authorized a DOMA brief comparing gay rights to incest and pedophilia in the summer of 2009, and the same Eric Holder who claimed he was unaware of the vote in Maine when present in the state a week prior to the election. So I’m not sure why I should bother listening to Eric Holder’s opinion anyway.

There is a lot more I feel like saying, but John Aravosis pretty much said it for me.

Entry filed under: DOMA trials.

Marc Mutty all like, ‘No — by ‘dangerous’ and ‘hyperbole’ and ‘not completely accurate’ I meant ‘AWESOME!” Serving jury duty today

77 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Reply
    • 2. Ann S.  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:40 pm

      §

      Reply
      • 3. Ronnie  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:41 pm

        = …….<3….Ronnie

        Reply
        • 4. Alan E.  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:23 pm

          check. reading later.

          Reply
    • 5. mike  |  April 28, 2011 at 6:44 am

      As the Supreme Court ruled that CORPORATIONS now have rights !

      It will follow that a LAW….a few words (albeit with the power to discriminate, torture and denigrate a group of individulas)…also have RIGHTS

      In the eyes of our “Supreme” Court…..DOMA has the same rights as you, me, and every other “fag” in the USA !

      Now….isn’t that “fairness”….yeap, the “fairness” that precisely our founding fathers and Bill O’Reilley were thinking about for our country.

      Blah !

      Reply
  • 6. Steve  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Again the BS comparison between people and laws or causes.

    People have rights. They deserve representation and a defense. The government isn’t people and doesn’t have the same rights (at least until corporations literally become the government). And not all laws deserve to be defended. Also, the right for a defense only applies to criminal cases.

    Reply
  • 7. Cat  |  April 26, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Brian BrownSuit is at it again: “The actions of King & Spalding would suggest that they believe an accused murderer is entitled to a vigorous defense, but the thousands-year old understanding of marriage is not, even though our marriage law was passed with overwhelming bi-partisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton.”

    Thousands-year old understanding? Really? Where was this guy during the Prop.8 trial? Does BB even read his holy book? Polygamy? Arranged marriages? Wives owning property? Interracial marriage? Divorce? What about non-Christians? And even if so, a thousands-year old belief is automatically good?

    And DOMA is an extremely ugly compromise made by the Clinton administration that should have been repealed years ago. Kill the beast already!

    I’m so sick of all these meta-arguments, that don’t say anything intelligent about the real matter at hand. Oh no, they’re trying to change the definition of marriage!! Of course we are changing it: we’re making it more inclusive, we’re making it MUCH BETTER.

    I know I’m preaching to the choir, but I just had to vent a little…

    Reply
    • 8. Tig  |  April 27, 2011 at 1:20 am

      DOMA was enacted before there was marriage equality anywhere therefore there was no “harm in fact” at the time. There is now, therefore, out it goes. What’s so hard for him to understand?

      Reply
      • 9. Chris in Lathrop  |  April 27, 2011 at 12:34 pm

        What’s so hard for him to understand?” Compassion; humanity; change; the United States Constitution; etc.

        Reply
  • 10. Sagesse  |  April 26, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    Scribin’.

    Reply
  • 11. Michelle Evans  |  April 26, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    People can always find ways to spin things to their own purpose. A great example is that Eugene Delgaudio just sent out an email where he tries to capitalize on the horrendous attack on the transgender women at McDonalds in Maryland last week.

    He actually goes so far as to blame America’s distance from god as the reason for the attack, because the trans woman, or as he put it, “a man dressed as a woman,” was obviously responsible for her own attack by being who she is. If she, and America as a whole, were to embrace Delgaudio’s view of life, the trans woman never would have done this abhorrent thing of thinking she was anything other than a man, then the two women who attacked her would never have had reason to do so. What kind of sick reasoning goes through that twisted brain of his?

    Sort of like the idea of blaming a woman who is raped for the attack, instead of the rapist. Insane!

    I’ve seen some crap from this guy before, but this one really takes the cake. And it is because of people like him that Eric Holder is able to say it’s okay for Clement to continue to defend the indefensible.

    In case you can’t tell, I’m pissed! Sorry for the rude language, but too many people have died or been seriously hurt (mentally and physically) because of this garbage. I’ve been attacked, and I’ve been raped, and I’m tired of it happening to me, and everyone else who suffers from this.

    People like Brian, Maggie, and Mutty, all talk of how their lives have been harmed by LGBT people. BS! Step into our shoes for a day and see how it’s like to live with the constant harassment, threats, and real attacks–not the imagined ones they keep talking about.

    Enough is enough with the idea that they can have their say, too. They are wrong, and it must end.

    Sorry for the rant.

    Reply
    • 12. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm

      There is nothing to apologize for. I understand the hurt and frustration.

      Reply
    • 13. AnonyGrl  |  April 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm

      I am so sorry… I wish I could just hug you and make all that crap go away.

      Hang in there, Michelle… we are all working towards making it better.

      Reply
      • 14. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  April 26, 2011 at 8:45 pm

        What Kathleen and AnonyGrl said. ((HUGS)) Michelle!

        Reply
        • 15. Peterplumber  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm

          More hugs from San Diego

          Reply
          • 16. Ann S.  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:05 pm

            And from Marin County.

          • 17. DazedWheels  |  April 27, 2011 at 2:32 am

            and from West Virginia. ((hugs))

          • 18. Ed Cortes  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:50 am

            And Hugzz from Contra Costa County!

    • 19. Bob  |  April 26, 2011 at 7:53 pm

      you got to the point Michelle when you said “Enough is enough with the idea that they can have their say, too. They are wrong, and it must end.”

      that is the breaking point that everyone must reach,, particularily here on this site,, (the choir) stop defending their right to free speech,,, and work at making them shut the fuck up, already!!!!!

      they are wrong, their beliefs are misguided, and their fears misfounded,,, when will science , and facts, take centre stage,,,, and garner the attention it deserves…..

      we’re working on transgendered acceptance here in Canada,,,, last week in the local news they told the story of a local persons journey, through sex reassignment surgery,,, I liked the way it was done,, simple facts, on the daily news in everyones homes,,, this is a reality of life,,

      her Vancouver doctor said he still faces problems, but the joy for him is that he is preforming the surgery on younger people, due to awareness, people are transitioning earlier saving themselves a lot of trauma, and parents are more educated and accepting,,,,

      It was jus the facts,, and the persons joy, and it felt like the message behind the news story was, this is how it is, and no one has the right to judge,,,,

      and of course there’s always that Canadian smugness about the fact that if anyone does choose to make an issue of it, they are on the wrong side of the law,,, they are the ones who will be targeted not the person telling her story,,,,,

      and definetly the Churches dare not speak evil , we’re so done with them,,,, I feel in this situation the laws do help people find ways to cope with things they do not understand, they may think those things, but they are learning that their opinion is not lawfull,,, and does not enhance equality and acceptance , so keep it to yourself..

      also their was the story in the Vancouver paper about a lesbian couple at a comedy club,,, long story short,,, they exchanged a kiss, and the comedian made a spectacle of them,,, The Canadian Human Rights Commission found the comedian guilty of uttering homophobic slurs,,, and the comedian was fined and the comedy club was held accountable to pay half the fine,,,, bottom line, the person gound guilty of uttering the homophobic slurs was the one who was called out , not the lesbians enjoying a nite out,,,

      it takes a lot to get a case to the court like that, and very hard for the person laying the charge, but that women is breaking ground for everyone,,,

      eventually people will get it, (they can’t continue dehumanizaing LGBT’s ,,, )

      what I am always amazaed at is how in the States, people stopped using the n word,,, without the assistance of laws,, that I am aware of,,,

      Reply
      • 20. Fluffyskunk  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:07 pm

        I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. –Evelyn Beatrice Hall, often misattributed to Voltaire.

        Reply
        • 21. Michelle Evans  |  April 26, 2011 at 10:16 pm

          You are right that everyone has the right of their opinion in this case. However, the difference is when someone actively works to force their opinion onto someone else.

          That is what happened with Prop 8, and is still something the proponents of that grotesque law do not understand. They are trampling on the rights of a lot of good and decent people. They are also touting their religious liberty is being threatened while taking away the religious liberty of people of faith who believe in equality for all.

          I would never think for a second that I had a right to vote someone else’s rights away. This truly is a time when there is a very clear right and a very bad wrong. There is no middle ground as far as the law is concerned. Either we are all free and equal or no one is free and equal.

          This quote should be used by the proponents of Prop 8. They have the right to disagree and disapprove, but they should be standing up and defending our rights just like we would defend theirs.

          Huge difference between our side and theirs in that regard.

          Reply
          • 22. Fluffyskunk  |  April 26, 2011 at 10:57 pm

            My response was to Bob ridiculing freedom of speech, which I see as the fundamental freedom from which all other freedoms flow. If we start restricting that one fundamental freedom, we have no freedom. Australia and Europe have already followed China in setting up internet filtering to protect their citizens from the wrong kind of speech. Our friend Bob evidently approves. It appears that he wants to put a muzzle on our opponents. You said it yourself: Either we are all free and equal or no one is free and equal. Who’s to say they wouldn’t put a muzzle on us if they had the chance? Who’s going to decide what kind of speech is allowed and what isn’t? A majority vote?

            They have no right to vote our rights away, no, but they do have the right to disagree and disapprove, they do have the right to voice their beliefs, however ridiculous, however vile, and we should be defending that right, not attacking it. We have to be better than them.

          • 23. Rhie  |  April 27, 2011 at 1:54 am

            Oh I agree completely. I think the reason I hear so much about nonsensical possible outcomes of Prop8 going away is just shear projection. They are so scared of pastors not being able to say what they like about gay marriage in a church because that is EXACTLY what they would seek to disrupt should the tables be turned.

          • 24. Rhie  |  April 27, 2011 at 1:56 am

            Fluffyskunk, I agree with you completely. I have a lot of problems with the things Westboro says. Any rational, caring person does. However, I would have a lot more problems with any attempt to shut them down or shut them off completely. Whether they have the right to go on private property and spew their vile is definitely a fight worth having. The fight about whether they have the right to say it at all happened in 1776.

          • 25. Bob  |  April 27, 2011 at 11:53 am

            excellent quote Michelle,,, they should be defending our rights just like we would defend theirs….

            free speech is the only right LGBT’s presently have that is equal to your opponents in the U.S. I can see why there is so much value placed on it,,,,

            Either we are all fee and equal or no one is free and eqaul… is also important when you think of it,,, presently no one is free and equal…

            LGBT’s are fighting hard to loose the muzzle that is presently holding them back,,,

            Opponents of equality are using their right to disagree and disapprove, but go well beyond voicing it,, they poliiticize it, and effectively are voting our rights away……so back to Michelles statement, the goal would be to find some way to get them to seperate voicing opinions, from acting on them,,,,,

            I don’t believe in the fear factor that pastors won’t be able to preach what they want in their churches,,,, there alteady is clear evidence and proof from other countries, that there is no restricions on preaching personal beliefs in the sanctuaries set up for that purpose… that’s an irrational fear fueled by the likes of Glenn Beck…..

            A church, which is divinely inspired, and that inspiriation is lived out in it’s congregation, has no need of , or want of protection from any secular or gov’t source,,, that is the fallacy of NOM,,, which needs to be called out…

            Using the argument that these folks are scared of further invasion of , and restrictions on their teachings, is soo ourtrageous,,, and backed by numerous events in history where that exact type of invasion on teachings has been attempted without success,,, shove that in NOM’s face,,, the only reason they use it, as an argument is because their source of inspiration is not divine but comes from a human source, which succumbs to fear, and uses that as it’s motivator…..

            if your interpretation of freedom of speech is the one from which all other freedom’s flow,,,, then why is their no freedom

            I knew after my post I had gone too far,,, ridicule was not my intent,,,

          • 26. Fluffyskunk  |  April 28, 2011 at 6:10 am

            It is only by exercising that one fundamental freedom that we can win those other freedoms, such as the freedom to marry, or the freedom not to be fired from our jobs because of an immutable characteristic. If we were not free to demand these other freedoms, how could we ever hope to gain them?

  • 27. Sagesse  |  April 26, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Minn. lawmakers push for vote on gay marriage ban

    Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Minn-lawmakers-push-for-vote-on-gay-marriage-ban-1353322.php#ixzz1KgfFEeMH

    Reply
  • 28. Sagesse  |  April 26, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    The NY marriage equality campaign gains support from the League of Women Voters

    Women Voters steps into behind same-sex marriage fight

    http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2011-04-26-76784.113122-Women-Voters-steps-into-behind-samesex-marriage-fight.html

    Reply
  • 29. Sagesse  |  April 26, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Courage Campaign’s role is front and centre in this article.

    Votes lined up in Senate committee for DOMA repeal

    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/04/26/votes-lined-up-in-senate-committee-for-doma-repeal/

    Reply
    • 30. Peterplumber  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:08 pm

      Herb Kohl…I wrote a letter to him before he was on board. My parents live in the Madison, WI area and I used their address thinking he would be more apt to read it from a constituent.
      Mom told me he wrote back, and she is sending the letter to me here. If he has anything cool to say, I will let everyone know.

      Reply
  • 31. AnonyGrl  |  April 26, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Says here things are looking much better for us in New York. Boy I hope so…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/opinion/26tue4.html

    Reply
  • 32. Rhie  |  April 26, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    Watching

    Reply
  • 33. AB  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    I love prop8trialtracker, and I agree with you on so much, but I have to respectfully and politely (unlike the anti-marriage equality plants that come on this website to stir trouble) disagree with you on this.

    Holder did us a big favor by not defending DOMA anymore. His comparisons were completely inappropriate, and I think they were wrong, but I still don’t think this is a big story. I think it is just a waste of our energies to be mad at him. He was just being diplomatic, and I just think that maybe we should let Holder’s defense of Clement go and focus more on the cases themselves.

    Reply
    • 34. adambink  |  April 27, 2011 at 8:14 am

      Like I said, I don’t know why I would bother to care about his opinions. I could be mad, but I have better things to worry and write about.

      Reply
  • 35. Michael Ejercito  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    There’s also McDonald v. Chicago in which he, in private practice, carried water for the NRA in striking down sensible gun restrictions that protect urban residents like me.

    There was nothing sensical about Chicago’s handgun ban.

    Reply
    • 36. AB  |  April 26, 2011 at 10:28 pm

      …and there is the disrespectful, contrarian, annoying plant to which I was referring.

      Reply
      • 37. Sheryl Carver  |  April 26, 2011 at 11:55 pm

        AB,

        If one gives plants attention, they thrive. On the other hand, If one ignores them, they tend to disappear.

        Reply
        • 38. AB  |  April 27, 2011 at 12:15 am

          I try so hard, Sheryl! But his analyses are always totally wrong. He is always advocating his support for arguments that no one ever made, and he is always citing wrong cases and statutes. It’s maddening!

          Reply
          • 39. Sheryl Carver  |  April 27, 2011 at 12:32 am

            I know, AB, I know. But when a person is totally committed to irrationality, it’s pretty unlikely they are going to change based on anything anyone posts here. Also remember that some children just seem to enjoy annoying others. Most outgrow this, but clearly not all do.

            Until we have an “ignore” feature, reduce your stress by skipping over this person’s comments. It takes a little practice, but I assure you, it is well worth it.

            Good luck!

    • 40. Gray Coyote  |  April 26, 2011 at 11:57 pm

      Dude, what the **** is wrong with you.

      There are those of us who believe in marriage equality and believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

      Go away. Seriously, go away.

      Adam Bink (you’re the one who posted the main thread):

      “There’s also McDonald v. Chicago in which he, in private practice, carried water for the NRA in striking down sensible gun restrictions that protect urban residents like me.”

      First, Adam you live in Washington DC, and Paul Clement in that case actually argued in favor of the DC handgun ban on behalf of the United States government. That case was District of Columbia v. Heller, not McDonald.

      Second, McDonald was NOT a National Rifle Association case. The NRA had it’s own case against Chicago, but the Supreme Court accepted cert of McDonald v. Chicago, not NRA v. Chicago, and it was filed by Alan Gura. Maybe you should ask him his opinion on marriage equality.

      Third, you’re mixing other politics on a site that’s geared towards marriage equality. Government should not restrict rights and civil liberties like they have been. For you to throw in “NRA in striking down sensible gun restrictions that protect urban residents like me” is a jarring turnabout that makes little to no sense in comparison to the other cases which you speak of. Our government doesn’t make itself individually liable or responsible for it’s actions, and never will.

      For you, Adam, to claim to be for civil liberties, but them try to smother an enumerated one, makes you look like you’re being hypocritical. To me it’s no different than you saying you’re anti-choice. I’m pro-choice to the core and I’m sure you are, too. It is a fundamental constitutional civil right for a woman to choose. The right to bear arms is just as fundamental and deserve as much protection. Not a huge fan of waiting periods either to have an abortion or for buying a handgun after an instant background check. They are both civil rights.

      Reply
      • 41. AB  |  April 27, 2011 at 12:13 am

        Who are you telling to go away? Me? If so, that isn’t very nice. What did I do? Lol. Or are you referring to Michael? Adam? I dunno.
        In any case, I agree with Adam that Clement is a schmuck. I agree with the site that Holder is wrong, I just don’t think that this is the right battle to pick. (And, I have totally lost ability to tell if this is relevant, but in case it is: I am pro gun rights–with limitations–and pro-choice.)

        Reply
        • 42. Gray Coyote  |  April 27, 2011 at 5:56 am

          I’m referring to Michael, of course. :)

          Reply
      • 43. adambink  |  April 27, 2011 at 8:23 am

        I’m quite familiar with DC v Heller and McDonald. First, you may not know this, but NRA v. Chicago was actually merged with McDonald at the 7th Circuit. Second, the NRA supported the ruling of SCOTUS in McDonald. Third, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion, and I’m entitled to mine. The 2nd Amendment affords a civil liberty, but like other civil liberties (the 1st Amendment and shouting fire in a crowded theater) is joined by reasonable restrictions, including handgun registration (the subject in McDonald).

        Reply
        • 44. Gray Coyote  |  April 27, 2011 at 2:29 pm

          “The 2nd Amendment affords a civil liberty, but like other civil liberties (the 1st Amendment and shouting fire in a crowded theater) is joined by reasonable restrictions, including handgun registration (the subject in McDonald).”

          The subject of McDonald was not handgun registration itself. It was a challenge to four parts of Chicago ordinances, including the provision that was exactly the same as Heller (Chicago’s refusal to register handguns after a date in 1982).

          Though there were challenges to registration post Heller and McDonald, none of those were done by the Heller and McDonald legal team, and the only case that *might* succeed will likely succeed on purely statutory grounds (the Heller II case in the DC Circuit).

          Every other challenge to registration itself by criminal defendant’s using 2A have failed.

          The point being is, you are trying to avoid responsibility for what you said by reframing the argument about registration. This was not challenged in Heller I or McDonald. What was challenged was the inability to register handguns for keeping in one’s home, and before Heller I, DC stated you couldn’t even have a functional firearm under any circumstances. DC Police and the DC attorney generals office actively prosecuted people for doing exactly that.

          Do you really support this?

          Even if you do or don’t particularly care, slamming Clement for that reason is opposite of the remaining reasons. We know he’s a hired gun, per se.

          This is a marriage equality site. I don’t believe tacitly slamming the NRA will gain friends for the equality movement. It pushes people away.

          Reply
          • 45. Rhie  |  April 27, 2011 at 2:47 pm

            I agree with your points completely.

            I find it interesting that Adam would bring up an unrelated issue when he has been harping on people for talking about issues that aren’t, in his opinion, directly related to equality.

            I also find it interesting that he only replies to accept thanks/congratulations/pats on the back or to argue with people.

    • 46. fiona64  |  April 27, 2011 at 8:21 am

      Michael, in what state(s) are you licensed to practice law?

      Reply
  • 47. TPAKyle  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:03 am

    President Obama just presented his “long form” birth certificate to the press. A Press conference at the White House will be held at 9:45amET this morning.

    My latest bumper sticker idea:

    Trump: Wrong about Obama, wrong about gay marriage!

    Reply
    • 48. AnonyGrl  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:19 am

      He did? What a shame. Obama needs to stop playing their game and just tell them to go away.

      Reply
      • 49. TPAKyle  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:42 am

        I think that was the plan – end the “distraction” and move on. Trump is currently on CNN bashing and saying he is honored and proud to get Obama to present the certificate.

        Now, no doubt, Trump will go after college transcripts. What a wanker!

        Reply
      • 50. Sagesse  |  April 27, 2011 at 7:34 am

        He just did. This issue will be long forgotten by Nov 2012.

        Reply
        • 51. Rhie  |  April 27, 2011 at 11:30 am

          Not unless people stop being racist a**hats by 2012.

          Reply
    • 52. Kate  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:45 am

      Anyone notice how George Romney (born in Mexico) and John McCain (born in the Canal Zone) never had to produce THEIR birth certificates while running for president?

      Reply
      • 53. TPAKyle  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:59 am

        Live on CNN this morning, Trump said that Obama should get off the BASKETBALL COURT and solve the rising fuel cost crisis.

        Really! Anyone else wish this racist would disappear?

        Reply
        • 54. AnonyGrl  |  April 27, 2011 at 7:06 am

          And you know how Trump would solve the problem? He has SAID that he would simply go invade and take over those oil producing countries in the mid-east and make them sell us their oil for less.

          Charming man. Truly what the world needs. /eye roll

          Reply
        • 55. Rhie  |  April 27, 2011 at 11:30 am

          Well, Obama actually does play basketball :). But, yea, in that context it’s definitely racist.

          Why can’t Trump et al realize that someone does not have to be white to be American?

          Oh right, they are racist idiots.

          Reply
      • 56. Sheryl Carver  |  April 27, 2011 at 7:59 am

        But Kate, Romney & McCain are white! Er, I mean, their birth certificates are white. Or, ah, their mothers were wearing white gowns when they delivered them. Or, er, something like that.

        Reply
        • 57. Kate  |  April 27, 2011 at 9:08 am

          Oh, er, yeah……… Does it count that Romney was from a polygamist family that fled to Mexico when Utah joined the Union and had to give up on polygamy? There are still several of those communes in northern Chihuahua, and Romney’s family was one of the most-prominent. I don’t think Mitt was born there, but quien sabe?

          Reply
          • 58. Michael Ejercito  |  April 27, 2011 at 9:15 am

            Does it count that Romney was from a polygamist family that fled to Mexico when Utah joined the Union and had to give up on polygamy?

            I did not know he was that old.

            He looks incredibly well-preserved.

          • 59. Kate  |  April 27, 2011 at 10:22 am

            Particularly, Michael, since he died in 1995.

        • 60. fiona64  |  April 27, 2011 at 9:19 am

          But, he should have to recuse himself, Michael … after all, his family might have some thoughts about something someday.

          For those who are serious about this discussion: we’ve all known for a long time that the birther business is a bunch of ticked-off racists. Nothing more, nothing less.

          Reply
  • 61. Michael Ejercito  |  April 27, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Of course, this is the same Eric Holder who authorized a DOMA brief comparing gay rights to incest and pedophilia in the summer of 2009, and the same Eric Holder who claimed he was unaware of the vote in Maine when present in the state a week prior to the election. So I’m not sure why I should bother listening to Eric Holder’s opinion anyway.

    I read that brief.

    With respect to “pedophilia” brief cited the case of Wilkins v. Zelichowski , 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) It involved a marriage in which one of the partners was sixteen at the time the marriage began. It was cited to point out that because some states recognize marriages that began when one or both partners are sixteen or under, that does not mean other states are required to recognize that marriage. Now, marriages involving partners sixteen and under is deeply rooted. And yet, not only is there no fundamental right for a sixteen-year-old person to get married (let alone for an adult to marry someone sixteen years of age), neither states nor the United States have to give recognition to such unions.

    Reply
    • 62. fiona64  |  April 27, 2011 at 10:01 am

      Why aren’t you dead yet?

      Reply
    • 63. fiona64  |  April 27, 2011 at 10:03 am

      Quelle surprise, Michael — you’re wrong. Again.

      http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmarriage/a/teenus.htm

      Reply
    • 64. AB  |  April 27, 2011 at 1:03 pm

      See Michael, this is why we so hostile to you. Yesterday you cited a provision in 28 USC 455 that Cooper did not apply in HIS brief, and now you are saying that states don’t allow 16 year olds to marry? Of course they do! MY state does! Arizona does! You are constantly wrong about things that you only need the Internet to know are matters of fact.

      And it is insulting to all of us who do our research and study up so we don’t waste each others’ time. Does having your facts straight really not mean that much to you? And if that is the case, then why are you even posting on here?

      Please, leave this site and don’t come back until you have done the very basic reading to make a coherent argument, regardless of whatever side that argument may take. Until then, you are just wasting our time and space on this blog.

      Reply
  • 65. Glenn I  |  April 27, 2011 at 10:45 am

    M. J. Cunningham, one of Atty Gen Holder’s Great American Heroes. American lawyering at its best!

    Reply
  • 66. Sagesse  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    Thoughtful musing on facts versus spin.

    News Analysis: What Actually Happened With King & Spalding?

    http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/04/news-analysis-what-actually-ha.html

    Reply
    • 67. Ann S.  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:12 pm

      Interesting article. I think it was the gag rule, myself. The outside pressure from clients (assuming it happened) and from other interested parties couldn’t have hurt, either.

      Reply
      • 68. Sagesse  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:51 pm

        I also think it was the gag order, in and of itself, and because it’s possibly illegal in some of the states where K&S operates. A person like Clement belongs in a boutique firm if he is going to take this kind of case. Not Big Law.

        Reply
        • 69. Ann S.  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:54 pm

          Exactly. I had wondered whether he would temporarily separate from K&S to do these cases — the gag provision is pretty much incompatible with a large firm.

          Reply
  • 70. Sagesse  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    White House Backs DOMA Defense By Paul Clement And House GOP

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/white-house-paul-clement-house-gop-doma_n_854345.html

    This won’t be popular here, but having acknowledged the right of Congress to take up the defence of DOMA, the President and the DOJ can’t very well criticize how they do it.

    Reply
  • 73. Sagesse  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    ‘Mayhem’ At Law Firm King & Spalding After Taking On Defense Of Marriage Act

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/26/doma-king-spalding-law-firm-mayhem_n_854077.html

    Reply
  • 74. Sagesse  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Quoting Brian Brown of NOM:

    “It also suggests that there are few limits on what gay marriage supporters will do to marginalize those with whom they disagree.”

    Maybe we could impeach a supreme court judge or four in Iowa?

    Law firm drops DOMA defense after gay activist pressure

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/law-firm-drops-doma-defense-after-gay-activist-pressure/

    Reply
  • 75. Sagesse  |  April 27, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    Now that the temperature of the debate has cooled a bit, some very thoughtful reactions are coming out. The comments are excellent.

    The Best Offense Is a Good Defense
    Why even opponents of DOMA should want it to get a vigorous defense.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2292224?wpisrc=newsletter_tis

    Reply
    • 76. Ann S.  |  April 27, 2011 at 9:42 pm

      You’re right — very good comments with interesting, thoughtful ideas.

      I still think it was the gag provision of the contract that they failed to properly vet. But it’s mere conjecture.

      Reply
  • 77. certified mold testing nassau county ny  |  April 30, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    Hello! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after checking through some of the post I realized it’s new to me. Anyhow, I’m definitely glad I found it and I’ll be book-marking and checking back frequently!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,303 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...