Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Administration wont Defend DOMA in court


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Administration wont Defend DOMA in court Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/23/2011 10:49:32 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:   In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court.   Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment.   While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.     Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated.   In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.   After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.   The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.   Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.   I fully concur with the President’s determination.


Thrilled absolutely bloody thrilled


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/23/2011 10:53:32 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Talk about the nutsuckers having a bad week, oh well...it's hump day.  Wonder if they are holding prayer vigils for divine intervention and a skip of thursday right to the weekend.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/23/2011 11:10:45 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
Things sure don't seem to be turning out quite as some hoped they would.

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/23/2011 1:21:01 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
An EXTREMELY interesting election season soon to come!

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to LaTigresse)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/23/2011 5:59:22 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
The divorce lawyers must be jumping for joy.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/24/2011 6:24:38 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

Someone in the Obama regime was very creative in coming up with this because prior to now it was assumed that it was the presidents job as chief law enforcement officer in the land is to enforce and defend the nations laws.

All of them.

Presumably, future presidents will only defend or enforce laws they agree with, which will be a significant departure from long held tradition.

The Black Panther voter intimidation case was similar in that one would assume that a president would uphold all laws, for all citizens (as in uphold THE law).

If this new tradition holds, from here on we shall have kings, rather than presidents.






< Message edited by Sanity -- 2/24/2011 6:31:51 AM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/24/2011 6:50:36 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Someone in the Obama regime was very creative in coming up with this because prior to now it was assumed that it was the presidents job as chief law enforcement officer in the land is to enforce and defend the nations laws.

All of them.

Presumably, future presidents will only defend or enforce laws they agree with, which will be a significant departure from long held tradition.

The Black Panther voter intimidation case was similar in that one would assume that a president would uphold all laws, for all citizens (as in uphold THE law).

If this new tradition holds, from here on we shall have kings, rather than presidents.


How many signing statements did former President George W. Bush authorized? Tell us Mr. Well-of-Knowledge, what are 'Signing Statements'?

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/24/2011 7:58:04 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Someone in the Obama regime was very creative in coming up with this because prior to now it was assumed that it was the presidents job as chief law enforcement officer in the land is to enforce and defend the nations laws.

All of them.

Presumably, future presidents will only defend or enforce laws they agree with, which will be a significant departure from long held tradition.

The Black Panther voter intimidation case was similar in that one would assume that a president would uphold all laws, for all citizens (as in uphold THE law).

If this new tradition holds, from here on we shall have kings, rather than presidents.



Can you possibly stray any further into fantasyland?

Document for me that the President is " the chief law enforcement officer in the land".

I guess we just do away with the judicial branch seeing how we have one sheriff in charge.





< Message edited by rulemylife -- 2/24/2011 8:08:50 AM >

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/24/2011 8:08:24 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
There's that scene at the end of Jonah Hex where Abe offers him the job as Sherfiff for the whole country. Maybe that's what In's thinking of?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/24/2011 8:22:23 AM   
flcouple2009


Posts: 2784
Joined: 1/8/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
How many signing statements did former President George W. Bush authorized? Tell us Mr. Well-of-Knowledge, what are 'Signing Statements'?


Facts?  You are trying to use facts with Sanity?

Good luck with that

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/24/2011 9:25:11 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Someone in the Obama regime was very creative in coming up with this because prior to now it was assumed that it was the presidents job as chief law enforcement officer in the land is to enforce and defend the nations laws.

Are you really claiming that this is the first time an administration has declined to defend a law in court?

quote:

The Black Panther voter intimidation case was similar in that one would assume that a president would uphold all laws, for all citizens (as in uphold THE law).

As has been pointed out to you many many times before your beloved Bush administration was the one who couldn't even make something up to prosecute in this matter.



< Message edited by DomKen -- 2/24/2011 9:26:45 AM >

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/24/2011 10:44:38 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Someone in the Obama regime was very creative in coming up with this because prior to now it was assumed that it was the presidents job as chief law enforcement officer in the land is to enforce and defend the nations laws.

All of them.

Presumably, future presidents will only defend or enforce laws they agree with, which will be a significant departure from long held tradition.

The Black Panther voter intimidation case was similar in that one would assume that a president would uphold all laws, for all citizens (as in uphold THE law).

If this new tradition holds, from here on we shall have kings, rather than presidents.







As I read this, I had unicorns dance across the page.



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/24/2011 11:05:16 AM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Someone in the Obama regime was very creative in coming up with this because prior to now it was assumed that it was the presidents job as chief law enforcement officer in the land is to enforce and defend the nations laws.

The administration will continue to enforce the law, just not defend it in judicial appeals.  This is an executive branch prerogative, even if rarely invoked.  And then there are those GWB signing statements...

"chief law enforcement officer" -- I thought that was the USAG.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Administration wont Defend DOMA in court - 2/24/2011 11:06:42 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

Who serves the president

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

"chief law enforcement officer" -- I thought that was the USAG.



_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Administration wont Defend DOMA in court Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094