Who does he think he is? Obama ruling a law unconstitutional. He is suppose to follow the law and uphold the Constitution. He was once a constitutional lawyer. He does have the right to rule a law or tell the justices to sway a certain way on the constitutionality of a law. That is for the Supreme court justices to do, not a self-apointed justice. This is a democracy not a monarchy.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
"Supreme Court Justice" Obama
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Reaganomics View PostWho does he think he is? Obama ruling a law unconstitutional. He is suppose to follow the law and uphold the Constitution. He was once a constitutional lawyer. He does have the right to rule a law or tell the justices to sway a certain way on the constitutionality of a law. That is for the Supreme court justices to do, not a self-apointed justice. This is a democracy not a monarchy.If I whisper my wicked marching orders into the ether with no regard to where or how they may bear fruit, I am blameless should a broken spirit carry those orders out upon the innocent, for it was not my hand that took the action merely my lips which let slip their darkest wish. ~Daniel Devereaux 2011
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
Originally posted by Lucky View PostYou joined today just to post this ill-informed, half-baked tripe, replete with grammatical errors? Is this really SharpTalons?
My vote is PGPIf I whisper my wicked marching orders into the ether with no regard to where or how they may bear fruit, I am blameless should a broken spirit carry those orders out upon the innocent, for it was not my hand that took the action merely my lips which let slip their darkest wish. ~Daniel Devereaux 2011
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Comment
-
-
Ruled it unconstitutional? Hmmm...I don't think so. Not defending is a whole different world.
B-Fly (I think) brought up the only legitimate concern on this issue - do we really want the executive branch picking and choosing which laws will be defended? I don't have a big problem with that, but I can understand the concern. For those on the left, remember that if this is OK for DOMA, then for the next conservative president, it's equally OK for abortion. Or school prayer. Or the Patriot Act.I'm just here for the baseball.
Comment
-
Originally posted by chancellor View PostRuled it unconstitutional? Hmmm...I don't think so. Not defending is a whole different world.
B-Fly (I think) brought up the only legitimate concern on this issue - do we really want the executive branch picking and choosing which laws will be defended? I don't have a big problem with that, but I can understand the concern. For those on the left, remember that if this is OK for DOMA, then for the next conservative president, it's equally OK for abortion. Or school prayer. Or the Patriot Act.
And if you're a DOMA supporter, I guess the question is this. Do you really want to rely on President Obama and Attorney General Holder to make the arguments in support of the law's constitutionality if they (i) don't believe the law is constitutional, and (ii) don't support the policy?
I would not trust, say, President Palin and Attorney General Santorum to be the folks briefing the federal courts on the constitutionality of the health care law or the Voting Rights Act.
So then the question is whether the law goes undefended in federal court, or whether the court can/should/must solicit and consider briefs from some other proxy in support of the law's constitutionality. I'm sure there are lots of organizations out there who believe strongly in the constitutionality and the moral 'rightness' of DOMA who would be happy to brief the matter for the courts. Wouldn't they presumably be better defenders of the law than Obama/Holder in any event?
Comment
-
Originally posted by B-Fly View PostAnd if you're a DOMA supporter, I guess the question is this. Do you really want to rely on President Obama and Attorney General Holder to make the arguments in support of the law's constitutionality if they (i) don't believe the law is constitutional, and (ii) don't support the policy?I'm just here for the baseball.
Comment
-
Originally posted by chancellor View PostWell, on this point, credit where it's due. I could be wrong here about the present administration's dislike of DADT, but I don't think Obama/Holder are supporters of DADT, and they defended it ferociously in court.
So on DADT, he basically said that as much as he'd like to see it repealed by Congress, he couldn't refuse to defend its essential constitutionality. On DOMA, however, he believes the law is unconstitutional and therefore he and his DOJ shouldn't be the ones briefing the courts to the contrary.
Comment
Comment