Compare and Contrast

From WaPo, as might be expected:

The group’s attack called to mind last year’s assault on Justice Department lawyers who had in private practice represented detainees at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “Who are these government officials? . . . Whose values do they share?” asked a video produced by the conservative group Keep America Safe, which questioned the patriotism and loyalty of the “al Qaeda 7 lawyers.” Never mind that these attorneys were acting in the best traditions of the country by representing even those accused of the most heinous acts. HRC similarly branded King & Spalding with the political views of its client and set out to make the firm pay. . . .

Not so long ago many lawyers would refuse to represent openly gay clients for fear of ruining their careers. It was wrong then to give in to pressure, and it’s wrong now. HRC and King & Spalding seem to have forgotten this.

So much for the "liberal" press. And, refreshingly, this from The Economist:

This is the way social justice happens. Not with a bang, but with white-shoe law firms becoming uncomfortable taking certain kinds of cases.

It seems that WaPo has once again gone for form over substance -- and equating criticism of attorneys defending constitutionally guaranteed rights with criticism of those seeking to deny those rights is pretty clueless, don't you think?