Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama is actually doing this in the precedented way. When G W Bush proclaimed in his signing statements how he wouldn't enforce certain laws or certain aspects of laws, he WAS doing something unprecedented.
This isn't about a signed law, that is completely different; we are talking about defending a law against court challenges.
True, and as a matter of fact DOMA well get defended by Congress now, something I don't think they've ever had to do because a President didn't and that may also be a first.
You do understand that previous Presidents, Obama's not the first, have taken similar stands on laws. Other Presidents have stated that the Department of Justice will not defend specific laws in the courts. Obama's decision is not a "first" in any possible interpretation.
This isn't about a signed law, that is completely different; we are talking about defending a law against court challenges.
Again, I think you are confused. It's not unusual for a President to decide that the Department of Justice, the President's Department of Justice (because the DOJ is part of the executive branch) should not waste resources defending a bad law. When the President does that, as they've done in the past, it falls to Congress (where there are no shortage of lawyers) to defend the law in the court systems, if they so choose. The law is not left defenseless. The law is still enforced.
As for completely different. Yes, it's different. Because the President's job is to ENFORCE the laws. So when GW Bush would say in one of his signing statements that he would NOT ENFORCE the law for whatever reason, he was actually the one failing to perform his duty.
Though the President is left Impeachable by that action, makes no difference in the end. Congress is sending lawyers to defend it in court after the President shunned his obligation. So don't worry, this goes forward and upward to court. :-)
Like I said the GOP is backed into a corner on this. They can choose to placate their current base at the risk of being seen by current moderates and entire generations of younger voters as the party that fought to uphold discriminatory practices and deny people their civil rights. There is no doubt that as time passes, the denial of marriage rights for gays will be viewed as a disgusting act of an earlier era, like segregated schools and laws against interracial marriage. The GOP Congress has decided that they want to take the George Wallace role in this fight for civil rights. We know that people that fought too hard to deny civil rights for blacks in the 60s became political pariahs - persona non grata in an electoral sense. The members of the GOP that take up this fight will end up the same way. It may take a few more years before enough older voters die for the shift to take place, but there is no doubt that it will happen eventually.
This isn't about a signed law, that is completely different; we are talking about defending a law against court challenges.
Here's a funny case involving the Reagan administration - Morrison v. Olson.
In this case, the Reagan administration went way beyond what Obama is doing - Reagan (and his assistant attorney general Ted Olson) refused to enforce a law they deemed unconstitutional, and were sued for not doing so. They went all the way to the Supreme Court actively attacking codified law.
Funny enough, Ted Olson is the head attorney for the legal drive to defend the right of homosexuals to marry and to repeal Prop 8 and DOMA (he personally argued the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 in California at the Federal Court).
Though the President is left Impeachable by that action, makes no difference in the end. Congress is sending lawyers to defend it in court after the President shunned his obligation. So don't worry, this goes forward and upward to court. :-)
You are willfully dense.
What is the difference between the Obama Justice Department refusing to defend DOMA in the court and the George H.W. Bush Justice Department refusing to defend this:
"In 1990, the Bush Justice Department refused to defend a rule requiring affirmative action when handing out licenses to broadcasters, so the Federal Communications Commission filed its own brief. The Supreme Court sided with the FCC. (Interestingly, the solicitor general who wouldn't defend the rule was John Roberts, the current Chief Justice.) On the other hand, President Clinton refused to defend a law that kicked people with HIV out of the military. The law was eventually repealed. Presumably, Obama hopes the issue plays out more like the latter example."
What is the difference between the Obama Justice Department refusing to defend DOMA in the court and the George H.W. Bush Justice Department refusing to defend this:
"In 1990, the Bush Justice Department refused to defend a rule requiring affirmative action when handing out licenses to broadcasters, so the Federal Communications Commission filed its own brief. The Supreme Court sided with the FCC. (Interestingly, the solicitor general who wouldn't defend the rule was John Roberts, the current Chief Justice.) On the other hand, President Clinton refused to defend a law that kicked people with HIV out of the military. The law was eventually repealed. Presumably, Obama hopes the issue plays out more like the latter example."
Like I said the GOP is backed into a corner on this. They can choose to placate their current base at the risk of being seen by current moderates and entire generations of younger voters as the party that fought to uphold discriminatory practices and deny people their civil rights. There is no doubt that as time passes, the denial of marriage rights for gays will be viewed as a disgusting act of an earlier era, like segregated schools and laws against interracial marriage. The GOP Congress has decided that they want to take the George Wallace role in this fight for civil rights. We know that people that fought too hard to deny civil rights for blacks in the 60s became political pariahs - persona non grata in an electoral sense. The members of the GOP that take up this fight will end up the same way. It may take a few more years before enough older voters die for the shift to take place, but there is no doubt that it will happen eventually.
Obama has just rope-a-doped the Rethuglicans.
Now, in addition to alienating Latinos over immigration, women by wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, they're going to give themselves their own knockout punch to the head by defending DOMA at the heightened scrutiny level.
I'll be sitting back and watching the clown car of regressive Neanderthals spilling out to recite the parade of horribles that will happen when the first legally married gay spouse of a fallen soldier files suit to be awarded the same benefits any other opposite sex spouse would receive if DOMA is repealed.
Obama's been playing the long game: first, repealing DADT and now declining to defend DOMA in court. He sees the handwriting on the wall that marriage equality is coming and he wants his administration to be on the right side of history.
True, and as a matter of fact DOMA well get defended by Congress now, something I don't think they've ever had to do because a President didn't and that may also be a first.
What do you mean, "also a first"? What Obama's doing is not a "first" in any way, shape or form. You've been duped.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
