UPDATE: Read also: “DOMA: NOM On Law Firm That Refused To Defend DOMA, And Dumped The House.”
Dan Lungren (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on House Administration — the man who actually signed the contract with King and Spalding, in a statement issued today over K&S’s decision to withdraw as the House’s counsel, writes,
“I want to express my gratitude to former Solicitor General Clement. I admire his unwavering commitment to his clients and his dedication to uphold the law – qualities that appear to be inconsequential at King and Spalding where politics and profit now appear to come first.
“King and Spalding’s cut and run approach is inexcusable and an insult to the legal profession. Less than one week after the contract was approved engaging the firm, they buckled under political pressure and bailed with little regard for their ethical and legal obligations. Fortunately, Clement does not share the same principles. I’m confident that with him at the helm, we will fight to ensure the courts – not the President – determine DOMA’s constitutionality.â€
Note that Lungren signed the contract with King and Spalding just eleven days ago. If K&S had a “cut and run approach,” lack an “unwavering commitment,” and lack a “dedication to uphold the law,” and is a firm “where politics and profit come first,” why didn’t Lungren know this when he signed the contract? Due dilligence, anyone?
# # #
William C. Duncan, Director of The Marriage Law Foundation, which “works closely with other pro-family organizations to accomplish its mission of reaffirming the legal definition of marriage as the union of a husband and wife,” writing at the National Review,
“News reports this morning indicate that King & Spalding — the law firm whose partner, former solicitor general Paul Clement, was slated to defend the Defense of Marriage Act — has decided to withdraw. This follows a campaign of intimidation with threats from law schools and activist groups that retribution would follow if the firm continued to defend the law. This tantrum and its seeming success tell us that many on the left believe they have a veto on the principle that everybody deserves to be represented in court. It also suggests that there are few limits on what gay marriage supporters will do to marginalize those with whom they disagree. It’s worth remembering, as Maggie Gallagher says, that this is what “marriage equality†means. Paul Clement’s principled stand, which Kathryn has noted, is a much-needed grown-up decision and a very powerful rebuke to the intimidators.”
# # #
Via The Advocate,
“National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown, who last week praised Clement as a “legal eagle in this case who actually wants to win in court,” criticized the firm’s decision and said it was the result, he claims, of “harassing and punishing and intimidating to stop a debate.”
“HRC did what it enjoys doing, which is to launch a campaign of cultural intimidation. We see this time and time again,” Brown said.”
# # #
Speak of the House John Boehner released a statement via spokesman Brendan Buck:
“The speaker is disappointed in the firm’s decision and its careless disregard for its responsibilities to the House in this constitutional matter.
“At the same time, Mr. Clement has demonstrated legal integrity, and we are grateful for his decision to continue representing the House. This move will ensure the constitutionality of this law is appropriately determined by the courts, rather than by the president unilaterally.”
# # #
Â