Hey little sister who's your Superman?

ANDREW SULLIVAN — STILL AN ASSHOLE

It really is a good thing that Sully is such a craven asswipe that he doesn’t dare allow comments on his blog because if he did. . . . . . well!   I just wouldn’t be able to contain myself.

Here’s the latest emanation from Sully’s blowhole titled Bullies in the Gay Rights Movement — it’s about the pressure that was brought to bear by gays and our supporters on King and Spalding, the law firm that initially chose to represent the congressional republicans in their defense of the Defense of Marriage Act and that yesterday decided to fire their client rather than take the heat for supporting an unconstitutional and immoral law.

“To put pressure on lawyers defending clients or laws because lobby groups don’t like them is deeply illiberal. It remains disgusting, for example, that rightwing groups targeted lawyers defending terror suspects and Gitmo prisoners. When the far right did this, it was despicable. Now that the left is doing it, it remains just as despicable.

“Memo to the gay rights leadership: the ends do not justify the means. Let DOMA have the most robust defense it can possibly muster and let us argue just as passionately for its unconstitutionality. When civil rights groups bully, they lose the moral high-ground. When you have men like David Brock leading the charge – and there are no means he has ever eschewed to achieve his ends – the danger is that we prove the far right’s point. We must be better than them.”

First of all Sully seems to be having trouble understanding the difference between a CRIMINAL case and a CIVIL case.

Under the Constitution every single person charged with a crime is entitled to legal representation as A RIGHT.

If you can’t afford a lawyer then one will be appointed for you and the taxpayers will pay for that representation.

Litigants in a civil trial have no such expectation or right.

If a lawyer wants to take the case of a civil litigant then fine.  And if the litigant can’t find a lawyer who wants to represent them — because there’s no case, or because they have no money, or because their cause {or they} are so deeply odious and despicable that no law firm wants to get its stink on them — then they’re just shit out of luck.

Litigants can proceed pro se if they wish {and if the court allows} but there is no right to legal counsel in a civil proceeding.

And a civil proceeding is what the congressional republicans attempt at defending DOMA is.  And they want to defend it because the Obama administration and the Justice Department have determined that DOMA is unconstitutional and therefore unworthy of a defense.

For Sully to draw some sort of moral equivalence, as he does, between the right wing seeking to deprive a person of their constitutional rights by attacking an attorney for defending someone who has been accused of a crime that may cost them their life if convicted and who, under our laws, is entitled to legal representation AS A RIGHT — with a law firm like King and Spalding being made to realize through lobbying pressure and bad PR that their representing a litigant in a civil suit is no less disgusting than the law firms in the 1960s that took the side of the KKK and the segregationists against civil rights for blacks, clearly demonstrates that Sully has learned absolutely nothing from his years spent here in the U.S.

Absolutely nothing.

Then there’s this line from Sully that made me practically have an aneurysm I was laughing so hard:

“When you have men like David Brock leading the charge – and there are no means he has ever eschewed to achieve his ends – the danger is that we prove the far right’s point. We must be better than them.”

“We” white man?  What is this “we”?

Because for someone as truly base as Sully claiming to posses, through what can only be osmosis, some sort of moral high ground for himself through the cause of gay equal rights, to then stoop to trying to slime the founder of Media Matters . . . . well, that’s just too fucking rich by half.

I mean Sully once accused opponents of the invasion of Iraq of treason and of being nothing more than “Fifth Columnists.” And over the years he has had his tongue so far up the asses of St. Ronnie of the Reagan {a man who stood by and did nothing while tens of thousands died of AIDS} and pretty much every conservative cause Reagan ever supported that I’m surprised he can taste anything.

And he’s the same Sully who spent years piously pontificating in the most pecksniffian manner imaginable about how depraved bareback sex is and how disgusting are those who engage in it — all the while having a Big Muscle profile advertising himself as seeking casual sexual partners for bareback sex.

And here he has the nerve to accuse David Brock of doing or saying anything to achieve his ends and in so doing implying some sort of moral failing to Brock!!??

Really????

David Brock?

David Brock has done more in the last week to advance the cause of open and honest democracy in this country than Sully will achieve in ten fucking lifetimes of being Andrew fucking Sullivan.

I gotta be honest with you here — each time I post one of these Andrew Sullivan is an asshole posts I say to myself, “There’s simply no way for him to top this.  Surely, with this, Sully has reached the pinnacle of douchebaggery.”

And yet each time his fat little sausage fingers hit that keyboard he somehow manages to find himself perched at an even higher plane on the scale of absolute douchebagism than before.

And I guess the explanation for his never ending climb up the douchebag ladder really is simply that he’s Andrew Sullivan, and he’s still an asshole.

Thanks to BIE reader Robert for the heads up on this Sully quote.

7 Responses to “ANDREW SULLIVAN — STILL AN ASSHOLE”

  1. Roy Says:

    While I’m not sure I agree with you that the distinction should be whether this is a civil or criminal matter, Sullivan is nonetheless completely wrong. The problems which caused pressure to bear on the firm were a) the conflict of interest the firm found itself in for representing parties on both sides of the issue and b) the requirement demanded by Congress that the firm limit its policies and practices regarding gay rights in exchange for taking the case. The former is definitely a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the latter probably is. In other words, the issue was not that the firm was taking the case, but rather that in doing so the firm acting in violation of rules of ethics. I think that this is also the most likely explanation for why the firm moved so quickly to withdraw. Of course, this still leaves open the interesting question of how a former attorney working for the Executive Branch can now take a stance directly contrary to the Executive Branch, which means that while the firm no longer has an ethical question, I think the attorney handling the case still does, regardless of where he ends up working. At any rate, demanding that attorneys act ethically has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative, it’s simply a matter of what choices are ethical and what choices are made merely for greed and/or political bias. But then Sullivan never lets an ethical argument get in the way of a pseudo-provocative pronouncement.

  2. Bob Says:

    The GOOD NEWS is that a reputable firm’s members do not want to be associated with a cause that reflects badly on them and their families. (at the PTA “So your husband is with that firm fighting against Gays”, at lunch, at the country club, etc). I think a smaller point is the Gay employees, recruiting, etc. If this took some Gay arm-twisting and shaming — hey, other groups do it.
    The tide has turned in the mainstream. The lawyer who agreed to the skanky terms jumped over to the Bush Fascist Law Firm.
    And MILLIONS of American got to hear that Boohoohooner was spending their money on fag-hating shit, not working on the economy.
    Sullivan would be asking the Nazis if he could do their hair before they put him into the ovens.

  3. Scott Says:

    Roy, try reading my post again and Sullivan’s quote and this time with a bit more care.

    Sully equated conservatives attacking the attorneys representing the Guantanamo accused with gay groups pressuring the King and Spalding law firm for their agreeing to handle the GOP’s defense of DOMA and he called the gay response “bullying”.

    The first example, the Gitmo detainees, is a criminal matter while the second is a civil matter.

    This is what I pointed out in my post.

    It really could not be any clearer.

    Criticizing a lawyer for representing someone accused of a crime goes to the heart of our criminal justice system and is an attempt to subvert justice that is injurious to all of us. Criticizing an attorney or law firm for the civil litigation clients they choose to represent amounts to nothing more than criticizing a business decision, and as such is wholly within bounds.

    Also, although you are absolutely correct when you talk about the law firm’s conflicts of interest and the onerous demands by congress that were made of the firm prior to being engaged — along with any possible violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility — None of these things had anything to do with what I wrote because they weren’t in the least bit germane to what Sully wrote.

    He didn’t mention them, so I didn’t mention them.

    His post was based solely upon a construction of false equivalencies, and my post was about exposing them.

    However, on the issues that you raised concerning King and Spalding, you seem to be implying that all of these things that you mentioned sort of came as a big surprise to all of the partners at the firm.

    What? Do you think that Paul Clement negotiated the retainer agreement with John Boehner in secret and without consulting with any of the firm’s other partners? Do you think for a second that he had the authority to do that?

    Especially an agreement so restrictive and that would need to have its terms circulated to EVERY member of the firm in order to guarantee compliance?

    Do you actually think that the retainer agreement was not fully vetted by all the partners AND the firm’s conduct committee before they agreed to enter into it?

    Really?

    That’s not how law firms like K and S work Roy.

    K and S knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed the contract to represent the house republicans. What they didn’t count on was the blowback they would get from it and the possible loss of clients like Coca-Cola because of it.

    And that’s why Clement told them that it was either abide by their retainer agreement or he’d resign. Because they all went into it with eyes wide open.

    And now Clement is gone and they’re free of the taint of both him and the agreement.

    To some degree.

  4. todd Says:

    Sorry Scott. Even if Sully allowed comments, everyone knows that you are a delicate man who is afraid to speak out. A calm demeanor, type B personality. You are quite frail and need hours of quiet contemplation before coming up with a response.

    It’s a pretty open secret.

    Hugs from DC.

  5. PERVERSATILE Says:

    “Uberdouche” just sorta rolls of the tongue, don’t it?
    – the biggest turd turd in the cat box, my ma would say.

    I almost didn’t finish highschool ’cause I was dick-dancin’ every weekend at the Chesapeake house, soooo I know all kinds of people, in all kinds of ways (you get me?) Boy did ms sullivan have a hissy ’cause I didn’t know who he was. well la de fuckin’ da

    “someone should stomp on his douche bag and blow his brains out!”

    Scott you are my Hero and if I grow up I want to be just like you
    (but still retain my basic identifying qualities)
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxxoxoxx

  6. Brock Says:

    Absolutely brilliant. I truly admire your passion. I had to share this.

  7. Travis Says:

    I hope you send these posts to Sully. He can be so full of shit!

Leave a Reply

Turn on pictures to see the captcha *