Intolerant Left Strikes Again

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

On April 25, gay-rights advocates -- led by the Human Rights Campaign -- scored a victory after the HRC applied pressure on a law firm hired to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman and denies federal benefits to same-sex partners. The firm fired its client. There are two reasons you should be outraged, no matter what your position is on DOMA.

One: Lawyers aren't supposed to cases -- it's called abandonment -- especially because of political pressure.
Two: In this country, everyone -- accused murderers, terrorists, you name it -- is entitled to representation in court. Unless, it now appears, you don't agree with the Human Rights Campaign.
Gay rights activists argue that DOMA is unconstitutional. If they're so sure, why are they trying to prevent good lawyers from defending the 1996 law?



www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/intolerant_left_strikes_again

[Shirina]

One: Lawyers aren't supposed to cases -- it's called abandonment -- especially because of political pressure.

So you're saying that private law firms are required to take every case put in front of them?

Two: In this country, everyone -- accused murderers, terrorists, you name it -- is entitled to representation in court.

This is a civil, not a criminal, case. Civil cases are not required to be heard. No one is "on trial" here.

[txbo]

Why does the rightwing care unless they are intolerant?

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

<<So you're saying that private law firms are required to take every case put in front of them?>>

Not at all, but if they do chose to take a case they are not supposed to abandon it, especially because of political pressure.

<<This is a civil, not a criminal, case. Civil cases are not required to be heard. No one is "on trial" here.>>

They may not be required to be heard, but if they are heard every party involved is entitled to legal representation.

[ed1066]

<<So you're saying that private law firms are required to take every case put in front of them?>>

Not at all, but if they do chose to take a case they are not supposed to abandon it, especially because of political pressure.

I was about to say that, too, because it seemed really, really obvious to me - that is, the difference between abandoning something you have already taken on, versus never taking it on in the first place.

[ugonow]

I think they need to take a poll on it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Much as I'm opposed to the farse that is gay marriage-- a leftist benefits / entitlements grab, and a boon to divorce lawyers everywhere-- I'm afraid the argument that DOMA is unConstitutional is probably correct. In a rare moment of accuracy in interpreting our Constitution-- no doubt purely because it suits them in this case-- the left has managed to perfectly illustrate one of the main purposes of the commerce clause. You can't have contracts in one state voided in another-- period. Anyone bank in Delaware? Got a credit card from South Dakota? A contract is a contract. If it's legal in one state, it can't be voided when you cross a state line. Conservatives are going to have to simply find another way to deal with this issue. One way would be to reform entitlements to remove the incentives, and de-regulate employers so that they aren't strapped into providing benefits-- and that includes especially public employee organizations.

[chiver78]

May 5, 2011 10:17:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Much as I'm opposed to the farse that is gay marriage-- a leftist benefits / entitlements grab, and a boon to divorce lawyers everywhere-- I'm afraid the argument that DOMA is unConstitutional is probably correct. In a rare moment of accuracy in interpreting our Constitution-- no doubt purely because it suits them in this case-- the left has managed to perfectly illustrate one of the main purposes of the commerce clause. You can't have contracts in one state voided in another-- period. Anyone bank in Delaware? Got a credit card from South Dakota? A contract is a contract. If it's legal in one state, it can't be voided when you cross a state line. Conservatives are going to have to simply find another way to deal with this issue. One way would be to reform entitlements to remove the incentives, and de-regulate employers so that they aren't strapped into providing benefits-- and that includes especially public employee organizations.

good to see that you view equal civil rights as laughable. perhaps conservatives need to find a way to pull their heads out of their arses, in order to deal with this issue.

[Shirina]

One way would be to reform entitlements to remove the incentives, and de-regulate employers so that they aren't strapped into providing benefits-- and that includes especially public employee organizations.

I suppose one way to prevent outsourcing of our jobs to China would be to "insource" Chinese working conditions. Let's roll the clock back to 1910!

[Deleted]

The way i understood it... it was one of the partners (associate?) who took on the case... and he did not drop the case... he will still be representing, its just that the firm severed ties with him, and he'll be doing it from another position from now on....

At least, that's how i understood it...

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

[Virgil Showlion]

No talking truth to hypocrisy, Dawg.

[mmhmm]

Here's an interesting take on this issue that offers a different view:

www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/05/articles/attorney/legal-malpractice-1/king-spalding-ethically-had-to-drop-the-doma-defense/