http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20110223/US.Gay.Marriage/
QuoteIn a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
And, in case you wanted to hear a bit more GOP hypocrisy...
QuoteThe move quickly drew praise from some Democrats in Congress but a sharp response from the spokesman for Republican John Boehner, the House Speaker.
"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," said Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel.
An election year is coming right up.
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?
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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?
The way I'm reading it, the Justice Department isn't going to try to defend it in court, allowing it to be overturned.
ETA:
Possibly allowing it to be overturned.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJG75FJkjr8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJG75FJkjr8)
:|
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:13:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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?
The way I'm reading it, the Justice Department isn't going to try to defend it in court, allowing it to be overturned.
ETA: Possibly allowing it to be overturned.
*squirm*
Generally speaking, an unenforceable law is not a law. But here in The New West all things are possible.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:13:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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?
The way I'm reading it, the Justice Department isn't going to try to defend it in court, allowing it to be overturned.
ETA: Possibly allowing it to be overturned.
*squirm*
Generally speaking, an unenforceable law is not a law. But here in The New West all things are possible.
Well... I''m not sure what you mean by that, Charley.... I
think I agree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean, entirely.
Nothing is going to happen. This is all smoke and mirrors....
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:13:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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?
The way I'm reading it, the Justice Department isn't going to try to defend it in court, allowing it to be overturned.
ETA: Possibly allowing it to be overturned.
*squirm*
Generally speaking, an unenforceable law is not a law. But here in The New West all things are possible.
Well... I''m not sure what you mean by that, Charley.... I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean, entirely.
Well, if there is no punishment on the books or if it is unenforceable (see severability clause) then by definition the law can't exist.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:30:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:13:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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?
The way I'm reading it, the Justice Department isn't going to try to defend it in court, allowing it to be overturned.
ETA: Possibly allowing it to be overturned.
*squirm*
Generally speaking, an unenforceable law is not a law. But here in The New West all things are possible.
Well... I''m not sure what you mean by that, Charley.... I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean, entirely.
Well, if there is no punishment on the books or if it is unenforceable (see severability clause) then by definition the law can't exist.
But removing the law requires either the Court or the Congress. Congress is a hole of fail, so 'not defending' it is Obama's best bet to see it overturned.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:30:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:13:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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?
The way I'm reading it, the Justice Department isn't going to try to defend it in court, allowing it to be overturned.
ETA: Possibly allowing it to be overturned.
*squirm*
Generally speaking, an unenforceable law is not a law. But here in The New West all things are possible.
Well... I''m not sure what you mean by that, Charley.... I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean, entirely.
Well, if there is no punishment on the books or if it is unenforceable (see severability clause) then by definition the law can't exist.
Ah. Well, I'm not sure how one would go about enforcing this law anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:30:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:13:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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?
The way I'm reading it, the Justice Department isn't going to try to defend it in court, allowing it to be overturned.
ETA: Possibly allowing it to be overturned.
*squirm*
Generally speaking, an unenforceable law is not a law. But here in The New West all things are possible.
Well... I''m not sure what you mean by that, Charley.... I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean, entirely.
Well, if there is no punishment on the books or if it is unenforceable (see severability clause) then by definition the law can't exist.
Ah. Well, I'm not sure how one would go about enforcing this law anyway.
Who needs to enforce it? It's an excuse for companies run by conservatards to say "Fuck your family, they don't deserve Medical coverage because you all aren't righteous enough." and NOT have legal consequences for doing so.
Wouldn't you enforce it by just going 'neener neener' and not giving them the paperwork involved in marriage?
Basically. It legalizes discrimination (specific discriminations) of people based on sexual orientation, which is why Obama wised up and pulled the DOJ off the active defense.
Quote from: Telarus on February 23, 2011, 10:49:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:30:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 23, 2011, 09:13:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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?
The way I'm reading it, the Justice Department isn't going to try to defend it in court, allowing it to be overturned.
ETA: Possibly allowing it to be overturned.
*squirm*
Generally speaking, an unenforceable law is not a law. But here in The New West all things are possible.
Well... I''m not sure what you mean by that, Charley.... I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean, entirely.
Well, if there is no punishment on the books or if it is unenforceable (see severability clause) then by definition the law can't exist.
Ah. Well, I'm not sure how one would go about enforcing this law anyway.
Who needs to enforce it? It's an excuse for companies run by conservatards to say "Fuck your family, they don't deserve Medical coverage because you all aren't righteous enough." and NOT have legal consequences for doing so.
That is what I thought as well.
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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 24, 2011, 02:00:40 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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.
:lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 24, 2011, 02:00:40 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
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.
http://www.slate.com/id/2286200/pagenum/2
QuoteWhat'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.
Would it be asking too much for every new law proposed to have to clear a constitutional review before it is passed?
Yes.
[edit: That's something the Teabaggers proposed, in fact -- That each bill cite where in the Constitution it derives authority.]
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 24, 2011, 04:36:37 PM
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.
France does it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 24, 2011, 04:36:37 PM
Yes.
[edit: That's something the Teabaggers proposed, in fact -- That each bill cite where in the Constitution it derives authority.]
Broken clocks ....
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.
Yeah, they more or less just have to say "Commerce Clause".
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 24, 2011, 04:39:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 24, 2011, 04:36:37 PM
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.
:lulz:
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.
Quote from: Cain on February 25, 2011, 04:17:21 PM
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.
THIS.
As much as I would like to be optimistic...
Quote from: Cain on February 25, 2011, 04:17:21 PM
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.
Completely agree.