Monday, September 26, 2011

Brody's Notes... House Democrats: Mr. Speaker Your DOMA Attorney Is Out Of Line

By Brody Levesque | WASHINGTON D.C. -- Six Democratic lawmakers today sent House Speaker John Boehner, (R-Ohio), a letter reiterating their request for a briefing on the efforts of the law firm hired by the Speaker to defend the Defence of Marriage Act in several ongoing federal cases. 
The lawmakers also criticised former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement's handling of the case, challenging some of the arguments he has offered in court as factually incorrect or a distortion of research.
Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), chief sponsor of the House DOMA repeal legislation along with fellow representatives John Conyers, (D-Michigan), Barney Frank, (D-Massachusetts), Tammy Baldwin, (D-Wisconsin), Jared Polis, (D-Colorado), and David Ciciiline, (D-Rhode Island), write that Clement does not represent their viewpoint and is misrepresenting scientists that he has cited in federal legal filings.
"It is incumbent upon all lawyers — especially those paid for by taxpayers and responsible for representing a branch of our government — to undertake representation in an objective manner that is factually and legally supportable. Unfortunately, the outside counsel that you have retained have filed pleadings containing arguments and assertions that are troubling and appear to fall short of this standard."  [...]
"As Members who believe that DOMA is unconstitutional and support the President’s decision to stop defending it, we believe that the law is not factually or legally justifiable and we're interested in hearing what arguments might possibly be made in its defense,” the six lawmakers wrote.
DOMA prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to independently refuse to recognise them even if legally performed in other states. Clement has also argued that gay & lesbians are inferior parents, being gay is a choice, and LGBT people aren't regularly victims of discrimination and thus they shouldn't be in a constitutionally protected class.

0 comments: