Tweet
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.
-
-
He's from Kenya, remember the rules don't apply to illegal aliens.Originally posted by Reaganomics View PostIf 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. -
Looks more like a "JackofallTrades" post. Or who was he before that - someone from Louisiana?Originally posted by Lucky View PostComment
-
doesn't match up with JimBobWaters account outside of the Nawlins angle.Originally posted by OaklandA's View PostComment
-
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.Comment
-
I actually put PGP first, then changed it. Sorry about the quote thing. With this cough syrup I'm not supposed to operate heavy machinery or post in the Bull Pen.Originally posted by GwynnInTheHall View PostWrong quote-- you need to lay off the NyQuil
My vote is PGPComment
-
I wholeheartedly agree. Who would ever create an identity to post such drivel?Originally posted by Lucky View PostComment
-
Yea, welcome back Sharp Talons. The review board has looked at your case and you're on parole.Originally posted by PaleoMan View PostComment
-
Well, Steve and the Anti-Jordon...Originally posted by PaleoMan View Post“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”
-Ralph Waldo EmersonComment
-
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
-
Exactly. He did not declare it unconstitutional. He did not order the IRS to accept joint filings from married couples. He did not order that Social Security spousal/survivorship benefits be granted to same-sex spouses. He simply decided that he can no longer ask his DOJ to draft, sign and submit arguments defending the constitutionality of the law.Originally posted by chancellor View Post
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
-
Well, 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.Originally posted by B-Fly View PostI'm just here for the baseball.Comment
-
Right, which pissed off a lot of liberals. It appears that the dividing line for the President is this, and I think it's not a bad one: I will instruct my DOJ to zealously advocate in defense of any federal law the constitutionality of which I believe can be defended, even if I find the law abhorrent from a policy/moral perspective, because I believe that to be the obligation of the executive branch of government. I can't, however, ask my DOJ to zealously advocate for a law's constitutionality if I can't make those constitutional arguments with a straight face because I believe the law to be unconstitutional.Originally posted by chancellor View Post
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
-
So is there anyone in the BullPen prepared to argue that DOMA does not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause?Comment
Comment