“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.
That’s a good one. Now Eric Holder is suddenly the great defender of the eternally-incarcerated at Gitmo. But let’s talk about Holder’s offensive comparison of the American civil rights community to the anti-Muslim bigots and religious right filth who would let those detained at Gitmo rot on the vine because they’re dark-skinned. It seems our top law enforcement officer isn’t familiar with Constitution. Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to counsel. Causes do not. That’s the difference between the Gitmo defendants and DOMA. It’s offensive and embarrassing that Holder isn’t aware of the difference.
And let’s not forget what happened with this DOMA defense, and thus how it compares to the Gitmo trials. The lead Republican lawyer who Eric Holder is defending let the Republicans politicize the defense of DOMA and portray their move to hire him as a swipe at President Obama (funny that Obama’s own Attorney General had no problem with that). The lead Republican lawyer had no problem letting Boehner portray the DOMA defense as a favor Boehner was doing for the religious right. Again, not a word from Holder. The DOMA defense was already politicized long before the gays weighed in in their own defense, and President Obama’s Attorney General couldn’t have cared less.
Did Democrats politicize the terror trials, forcing the Republicans to respond in kind? No.
Clients of King & Spalding were disgusted by the firm taking on a case defending bigotry. Did the same thing happen with the terror trials? No.
One can assume that new recruits and current staff of King & Spalding were not exactly pleased about the nature of the case, nor the fact that the firm’s contract included a blatant effort to restrict the free speech rights of the firm’s employees, even those not working on the case (ordering them not to do anything, even on their free time, that might help overturn DOMA). Did all of that happen on the terror trials, forcing the Republicans to intervene? No.
The defense of the DOMA brief was politicized from the beginning by the GOP. The terror trials were politicized by the GOP. That’s the only thing these two issues have in common.
Perhaps it’s time someone explained to our Attorney General the difference between those who criticize you for defending the Bill of Rights versus those who criticize you for attacking the Bill of Rights.
There is a difference, Mr. Holder, between those who would, for example, oppose appointing a bigot as attorney general versus those who would oppose the appointment of someone because he’s black. Yes, both are opposing an attorney general appointee because they disagree with who he is, but does that really make the two opinions morally equal? Hint: No it doesn’t.
We are criticizing Paul Clement for making a fast buck off of the defense of bigotry and hate. The Republicans attacked the DOJ lawyers because GOP racists didn’t like them defending dark people who were M-u-s-l-i-m. Is it really that difficult for our Attorney General to understand the difference? Sadly, judging by Holder’s abominable past experience on gay issues, it just might be.
Not to mention, no one has a problem with the client, we have a problem with the case. And in American jurisprudence there is a difference. Every person has the right to a lawyer, every position does not. How sad that our attorney general is unaware of this concept, or his anti-gay animus, or at best obliviousness, would lead him to weigh in to this dispute to yet again screw the gay community.
What is Eric Holder doing freelancing in the defense of anti-gay bigots? Then again, Eric Holder is no friend of civil rights. He spent two years not only defending DOMA when he didn’t have to, he even had his agency outright lie to the entire world about that defense. We have no choice but to defend the law in court, Holder had his people lie to us repeatedly and publicly. Holder then had his people go to court and use one of George Bush’s own DOMA briefs to defend the law. Holder had his people invoke incest and pedophilia to justify anti-gay prejudice. And Holder claimed he knew nothing about the anti-gay anti-marriage effort in Maine, one week before the vote to repeal our rights, when he was in the state. With a track record like that against any other minority, Holder would have been out on his ass long ago. But because our attorney general keeps taking swipes at gays and lesbians, somehow it’s okay.
So with all due respect, no one cares what the Obama administration’s biggest defender of homophobia Eric Holder has to say about DOMA or its GOP defenders. Holder always had a special place in his heart for DOMA, so it’s no wonder that he’s yet again finding a way to defend its anti-gay bigotry.
Putting all that aside, what is wrong with the Obama administration that a cabinet secretary feels that he can just screw over a key Democratic constituency on probably the most important civil rights issue in our community, marriage?
And where is DOJ gay liaison Matt Nosanchuk? MIA yet again.
It really is sad how whenever this administration starts to mend fences with the gay community, some freelancing idiot at some agency takes it upon himself to screw things up all over again. If the White House cares about the gay vote, they will publicly rebuke the attorney general now.