Home » Blogs »

April 18, 2011 Print

Great News: Paul Clement Picked to Defend DOMA

by Bruce Hausknecht

Ladies and gentlemen, it just doesn’t get any better on a Monday than to hear that the House of Representatives has selected Paul Clement as its outside counsel to take on the defense of DOMA after the President and the Department of Justice’s rather spectacular failure to do so.

In fact, since Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is no longer available as an appellate advocate, Clement is my top choice for any appellate argument, especially on a subject that will end up before the Supreme Court.

Clement’s resume’ reads like a lawyer’s fantasy: Georgetown, Cambridge, Harvard Law, Scalia law clerk, Solicitor General of the United States, even acting Attorney General of the United States – for a day!

Here’s his bio from the top-drawer law firm he currently works for, when he’s not busy teaching at Georgetown. And his Wikipedia entry. If you’re a legal geek like me, you’ll want to check out the list of high-profile cases he has under his belt. Wow.

One thing you’ll notice if you read his resume’ is that this fairly young (age 45) lawyer has already argued over 50 cases before the United States Supreme Court. I’ve not had the pleasure of watching him argue in person, but I’ve listened to the audio of a couple of his Supreme Court appearances, and I can tell you that this guy is not only the best around, but he has already been talked about as a future nominee to that court.

I’m breathing just a little bit easier today. This is really great news.

(Okay, it gets better. Speaker Boehner wants to take appropriations away from the Dept. of Justice to pay for Clement’s services. You’ve got to give a hat tip to Ed Whelan, who was the first person who suggested that course of action and also mentioned that the other day in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.)

 



Print



  • http://rfisheraz@hotmail.com Ruth Fisher

    Praise the Lord!
    Thank God for this leadership!

  • Andreas Blass

    This sounds great, but I got a little scared by three words: “Scalia law clerk.” I hope this doesn’t mean that Justice Scalia would have to recuse himself when the case reaches the Supreme Court.

    • Bruce Hausknecht

      Andrea – not to worry. Clement’s prior employment with the Justice is not grounds for recusal.

  • M/M Dave Kowalczyk

    Great news. My husband and I pray daily for lawyers.

  • Robert

    Why are we wasting money on this? Its ridiculous.

    • Bruce Hausknecht

      Interesting comment. A lot of people think that marriage is the biggest issue in the country other than abortion, as the impact of the legal attacks on marriage will far outlast the temporary economic issues that liberals are using right now as a supposed counter argument. And spending $500,000 over 3 years to defend DOMA probably doesn’t even match Nancy Pelosi’s office budget for paper clips.

  • Michael

    The idea that this is “really great news” is astonishing. Not only is Speaker Boehner violating the constitution by defending DOMA through the house, this is a huge waste of taxpayer money.

    If you like laws that create separate castes of people in our society and you like for elected representatives to completely ignore constitutional law, then I guess it is great news.

    • Bruce Hausknecht

      Michael, your argument is a typical one we hear, and here’s why it’s wrong: What you pejoratively call “castes” are simply the categories that laws can place people in who are not “similarly situated,” to use the constitutional phrase. For example, more “castes” that are perfectly constitutional:

      -18 and over vs. 17 and younger – one group can get married, the other is prohibited (without parental consent)

      - Unrelated persons vs. siblings, first cousins, parents, grandparents – one group can get married, the other can’t

      - two persons of opposite sex vs. two men and three women, or any combination or multiple thereof – one group can legally get married, the other cannot.

      It’s not just marriage law, but most laws in the nation draw rational lines between classes of people who are not “similarly situated.” The argument has always been whether two persons of the same sex who cannot reproduce sexually are similarly situated to a man and a woman who can produce a child through a sexual act. Marriage laws are designed for the latter. That’s a rational line to draw.

      If you ask me, “Cash for Clunkers” was a “huge waste of taxpayer money.” The defense of marriage is the most important cause I can think of, second only, perhaps, to the defense of preborn life.

NOTE: Referral to websites not produced by CitizenLink is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.