Obama no longer to defend DOMA

[Luna]

Phox has it, I believe.  This isn't, "don't enforce it," it's "that law is indefensable, so the next time it's challenged in court, sit down, shut up, tell the judge, "yep, they're right," and overturn it.

[AFK]

The more I think about this, if it is so unconstitutional (which I think DOMA is), why not overturn it instead of just stop enforcing it?

Because Obama is Mr. Cool President who is just gonna sit back and hope it changes all on its own. 

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

The more I think about this, if it is so unconstitutional (which I think DOMA is), why not overturn it instead of just stop enforcing it?

Because Obama is Mr. Cool President who is just gonna sit back and hope it changes all on its own. 

[Luna]

The more I think about this, if it is so unconstitutional (which I think DOMA is), why not overturn it instead of just stop enforcing it?

Because Obama is Mr. Cool President who is just gonna sit back and hope it changes all on its own. 

Because the executive branch can't do that.  Either Congress (currently loaded with people who are just happy as shit with the DOMA), or the Supreme Court has to do that.

Best chance of overturning it is to refuse to defend it against the next legal challenge, since the GoP ain't gonna do it.

[LMNO]

http://www.slate.com/id/2286200/pagenum/2

What's really changed since last fall, according to Holder's reasoning, is that since November 2010, two new lawsuits were filed challenging Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without any precedent indicating whether classifications based on sexual orientation would be subject to the lower "rational basis review" or something higher. Reflecting on the appropriate standard of review, the administration concluded that "the legislative record underlying DOMA's passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships—precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

Translation: Members of Congress can continue to say what they please to justify passing a law. But we can no longer stand up and make these sorts of arguments in front of a judge.

[Adios]

Would it be asking too much for every new law proposed to have to clear a constitutional review before it is passed?

[LMNO]

Yes.

[edit: That's something the Teabaggers proposed, in fact -- That each bill cite where in the Constitution it derives authority.]

[Adios]

Yes.

[edit: That's something the Teabaggers proposed, in fact -- That each bill cite where in the Constitution it derives authority.]

One can only dream.

[Requia ☣]

France does it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yes.

[edit: That's something the Teabaggers proposed, in fact -- That each bill cite where in the Constitution it derives authority.]

Broken clocks ....

[Requia ☣]

Eh, what the teabaggers want has no teeth, its pretty clear lawmakers can justify *anything* to themselves, and they'd be doing the review under the teabagger plan.

[LMNO]

Yeah, they more or less just have to say "Commerce Clause".

[Luna]

Yes.

[edit: That's something the Teabaggers proposed, in fact -- That each bill cite where in the Constitution it derives authority.]

One can only dream.

IIRC, the GoP actually put it in the rules for Congress that everything they do go to a committee to review it for Constitutionality... and promptly started doing stuff without bothering to send it for review.  Apparently, they think that the rules they put in place do not apply to them.

[Juana]

[Cain]

Obama only acted because his hand was forced.  I am now contractually obliged to laugh in the face of anyone who believes Obama did this out of some kind of principle, because he has none (equally, I'm laughing at idiots who think Obama is sticking up for unions for any other reason than to peel off working class Republican votes).

Basically, the Obama DOJ argued in favour of DOMA for two years and only stopped doing so because the DOJ was at the point where it would have to argue homosexuals are not a persecuted group and have never suffered discrimination.  Oh, and the Democrats are under pressure for 2012 elections and want the gay vote again.