NO, Obama is NOT defending DOMA!

[Political Tiger]

I make this post with some hesitation, as unfortunately, it's probably going to be mostly ignored. I hope I am wrong, but it appears most people have already got their minds made up.....the majority of posts on this subject have made that clear:

"Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget."
"This week I was punished on this board for calling Obama a failure. I feel vindicated."
"Progressive Puppy blog heartbreakingly covers Obama's defense for DOMA."
"There is no possible excuse for Obama's defending DOMA in Federal Court"
"My respect has grown for all DU'ers, straight and gay, who have stood up against Obama on DOMA"
"Hand picked Assist. Atty. Gen. Filed The Motion to Dismiss Today."
"Fuck him."

Despite all the hoopla, the assertion that "Obama defends DOMA" simply is NOT true.

You see, the Department of Justice has a legal obligation to defend the United States when it is a party to a criminal or civil action. This has already been pointed out by some people and promptly dismissed by those determined to lay all the blame on Obama, however, try to deny that truth as one might, it is the truth.

This is laid out under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. The United States Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

•the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the Federal government;
•the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party; and
•the collection of debts owed the Federal government which are administratively uncollectible.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/index.html

But....but....but it's still Obama's fault! It had to be cleared with Obama! Obama had to have OKed the brief! Obama's hand is all over this! Obama hates the gays........

WRONG!

You see, under The United States Department of Justice - United States Attorneys Manual, TITLE 1; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/title1.htm), there is a section titled "Department of Justice Communications with the White House" (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/doj00032.htm).

It reads, under Section 32:

It is imperative that there be public confidence that the laws of the United States are administered and enforced in an impartial manner. To that end, all components of the Department of Justice, including United States Attorneys' Offices, shall abide by the following procedures governing communication between the Department of Justice and the White House.

<...>

Pending Civil Investigations and Cases

The Department shall provide the White House with information about pending civil investigations or cases only when doing so is important for the performance of the President's duties and appropriate from a law enforcement or litigation perspective. Except with respect to national security matters, all initial communications that concern or may concern a pending civil investigation or a case pending at the trial level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President and either the Office of the Deputy Attorney General or the Office of the Associate Attorney General, All initial communications that concern or may concern a civil case pending at the appellate level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, or the Office of the Solicitor General. If appropriate with regard to a particular case or investigation, the Office of the Counsel to the President and the senior Justice Department official with whom the White House is dealing will design and monitor a process for ongoing contact between the White House and the Justice Department concerning that particular matter.

What does that mean? Well, it means pretty much what it says. In order to keep politics out of the process, the Department of Justice does NOT consult with the President, nor does it asks for the President's permission, nor does it brief the President in legal matters in which the United States is a party unless it "is important for the performance of the President's duties" or deals with "national security matters."

There is absolutely no concerted effort by President Obama or the Obama Administration to deny gay people anything, or to defend DOMA.

Simply put, it's just governmental business as usual, meaning the Department of Justice is simply doing what it is required BY LAW to do.

Now, I have made this post in good faith, and I hope it brings a better understanding to the issue at hand.

We can get mad or we can get educated.

I hope we choose to get educated.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

[TexasProgresive]

1. Thank you for your courage - K&R

The thing that perplexes me is that the left is just a culpable as the right in simplistic thinking. I had hopes that we were better then what I have been seeing lately.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

53. Probably not...however there was some justified anger---just not towards Obama.

That I could see in any event.

[WillParkinson]

332. Mr. "Fierce Advocate for Gays and Lesbians"..

Has done nothing to show them he's earned their respect or trust. I can understand why people are angry towards him.

He got our votes and then seems to act like we don't exist. Except for fluff pieces, of course.

[George II]

86. I fear that many DUers have become what Spiro Agnew described as.......

..."nattering nabobs of negativity"

Sad that so-called "democrats" prove a person like Spiro Agnew to be correct!

[NY_CJ]

102. "nattering nabobs of negativity" - magnificent!

[George II]

131. Spiro Agnew was actually very intelligent and well spoken, his only faults were his ideology and....

....greed. He would have been President (after Nixon resigned) if he didn't continue to take bribes from his Maryland connections even after becoming VP.

[NY_CJ]

138. "I apologize for lying to you. I promise I won't deceive you except in matters of this sort."

He sure had a fine line in quotes!

Thanks George, other than his resignation I knew very little about Agnew, so you have me interested now. Time to start reading!

[Cha]

284. Two biggies, huh?

"ideology and greed." Not the party of Eisenhower, anymore.

[radiclib]

298. William Safire wrote that speech.

Safire is still a jackass. Agnew was a boob.

[Zomby Woof]

306. The "nattering nabobs" line was written by William Safire

Safire wrote for Agnew, and often teamed up with Pat Buchanan writing for Nixon.

Agnew was a two-bit hustler - overrated in the brains department.

[depakid]

96. Isn't it amazing the extent to which people will rationalize?

Yep not so different than Rush, et al.

Though probably not in the way that you intended.

[NY_CJ]

140. Silly me, I thought rationale required facts, reason and honesty. Seems not.

[cwydro]

141. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[sam kane]

139. "It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice"

Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.


http://www.americablog.com/

[youngharry]

158. DOJ had no choice

Please understand that the DOJ is full of Bushes that never left. They need to be weeded out. To me this is a Bushie trying to embarrass Obama and drive a wedge between him and his supporters--

THINK ABOUT IT!!!

[Ms. Toad]

173. The top name on the motion to dismiss was Tony West

Hand picked by Obama. A motion bearing his name would not have been filed without his consent, absent malpractice.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

220. No, that's not so .......

Just as letters routinely go out from companies bearing a CEO's name, that doesn't mean that the CEO ever read the letter, let alone wrote it.

As such, in the DOJ, where this response was legally mandated, the name of Tony West would routinely appear on filings of this sort because he is the head of the department.

Your idea of "malpractice" is woefully misinformed.

[Ms. Toad]

237. Corporations are different from the practice of law

There are different codes of ethics which apply. Get back to me after you have reviewed the applicable legal codes of conduct, the local cour rules, and the implications of permitting someone else to file a document in court with your name, as counsel of record.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

240. You misunderstood my example -

I was not stating that the corporate rules of ethics are comparable to the legal codes of ethics.

However, this is not an ethical matter. This is a procedural matter, a common and legitimate practice, and I would urge you to get back to me after you've read up on the way the rules work when the DOJ is a party to civil suits. If you understood how the system works, you perhaps wouldn't be so hampered by muddled thinking.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are a great place to start, and, here, I'll give you a helping hand:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/

[Ms. Toad]

244. The implications of allowing someone else

to sign a document being filed in court with your name is most certainly covered by the legal codes of ethics and the local court rules. As someone who has filed quite a few documents in federal court, and has had documents filed with my name on them as counsel of record, I have NEVER filed a document without the express consent of anyone whose name was on it nor have I EVER allowed anyone else to file a document with my name on it without my express consent.

I am legally and ethically responsible for every document filed in court with my name on it as counsel of record, as is Tony West.

If you are an attorney who follows a different practice, you are risking your license - and if you are speaking off the top of you head, get back to me after you have reviewed the relevant documents that govern the practice of law.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

249. That's correct -

Tony West is responsible.

As he is for every document filed under his name.

So?

Where on earth are you coming up with "malpractice" in this matter? This was a standard brief in a DOJ matter. There are thousands of them every year, and they go out with a lot of names attached to them. No one ever has time to read them all - that's what staffs are for.

My license is solid, in good standing, but your lack of knowledge of the workings of the DOJ is stunning...................

[Ms. Toad]

My my you're condescending

If you don't have a clue about how malpractice might be involved in submitting a document to court on behalf of other counsel of record without their express consent (the subject of the post to which you responded), I can't help you.

Have fun tossing insults around - I won't be responding anymore.

[JDPriestly]

430. In California, you can face sanctions for filing frivolous motions

in bad faith. DOMA is not defensible in the light of the 14th Amendment. To argue that DOMA is good law is, in my opinion, frivolous.

[konnichi wa]

241. Here is the problem with "Obama didn't know":

If that IS the case, aside from the fact it shows a terrible disconnect in DOJ -that an issue of this import wouldn't get a vet from the highest echelons in the organizatiion, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect him (assuming he doesn't support/agree) to just SAY so, publicly...by now at least?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

246. Do you know how many people sue the government

every year? The government, via the Department of Justice, is legally obligated to respond to those suits, and there is no "connect" between the White House and the Department of Justice.

There is not supposed to be any connection between the White House and the Department of Justice. The George W. Bush years were a perfect example of how it is NOT supposed to work, and that's why there are screams for their prosecution.

The White House and the Department of Justice operate independently of each other, as the forefathers intended.

Obama has NOTHING to do with this, or with any other briefs that come out of the Justice Department. You simply don't know how government works if you're asking that question. The last thing in the world we should have - and, again, George W. Bush's tenure proved this to be so true - is a White House involved in Department of Justice matters, and vice versa.

Obama's silence on this matter is perfectly appropriate, and the hysteria over that brief is being fueled by people who

1. don't know how government works, and
2. didn't read the brief.

Obama has had nothing to do with this brief........................

[konnichi wa]

259. Excuse me but that is absolute HORSE SHIT

You didn't even address my point...if (IF) he knew nothing about it, are you suggesting he STILL doesn't???
Hell, nobody I know thinks he's THAT out of the loop. :eyes:

He has plenty of time to go out for hamburgers but not 5 minutes to make a public statement in his own defense in this matter? Sell that crap to someone who just fell off the turnip truck.

Now here is another IMPORTANT point: DOJ as attorney-in-fact for the USA is, as some have mentioned, obligated to uphold and support "the law of the land", but it is NOT required to do that to any greater degree than is requested by their clients - the administration in particular and in this case, and is most definitely in error to do it by filing documents full of half-truths, innuendos, insults and ugliness.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

444. I think you nailed it

Regardless of what the mechanics of the law is, all Obama has to do is make a public statement either for or against. It would settle it, instead we have people like the OPer making what amounts to a really long justifiable (at least in his or her's mind) "excuse" for the silence on the matter.

[George II]

175. Thank you! But, at least what we see here.......

....this issue isn't driving a wedege between Obama and his supporters, those posting here are NOT Obama supporters and never were. They're just a bunch of whiners who will never stop until their own selfish interests are served. Pathetic.

[LooseWilly]

392. You, sir and/or madam, are speaking out of your ass.

"... those posting here are NOT Obama supporters and never were." ??
Incorrect.
Many of us are... and many others of us were... Obama supporters. As Obama continues to ignore/fail in every way to address the issues important to one of the constituencies of his base, however... that support erodes more and more each week. In response to his utter silence as the DoJ files hateful defenses of DOMA, some of which are based on the ravings of Michael Steele, and many more of which are even more offensive... I actually unsubscribed from the O(bama) F(or) A(merica) mailing list.

And as for your insistence that it is a matter of selfish interests... firstly, all interests are selfish... including interest in Healthcare Reform and fixing the Economy.... secondly, to the extent that any interest can be anything but selfish- for many of us this isn't selfish. Not all of us are part of the GLBT community... some of us just find ourselves incapable of supporting a politician who seems to unconcerned with Equal Rights for a portion of his own constituency.

I suspect your criticism of those critical of Obama is more firmly rooted in selfish interests than that of any Obama critics.

Pshah...

[George II]

Obama has been president for less than five months...if he's already lost your "support".....

Chances are he never had it to begin with.

As far as those so-called "selfish interests", read my other posts in this this discussion.

[bjobotts]

418. Nonsense! U can support Obama and still disagree with him and the way he is carrying on

[bjobotts]

419. The DoJ also has the responsibility to render opinions and recommendations.

[bjobotts]

420. The DoJ can also refuse to defend or enforce laws at its discretion when those laws are perceived

[bjobotts]

421. by the DoJ's legal council to be detrimental to the public's interests.

[bjobotts]

422. They can be very slow in their prosecutions and less than enthusiastic.

[bjobotts]

423. WE watch what IS, not what we hope will be with Obama.We are not Obama apologists

[bjobotts]

424. Nor are we "My Obama right or wrong". We express our disappointment as well as our applause

[bjobotts]

425. Obama acts like he's so afraid to anger republicans even when the majority backs him to do so

[bjobotts]

426. We voted repubs out, we voted for change from them so stop trying to appease them.

[George II]

438. Huh?

You've just been arguing with yourself, posting over and over again in reply to yourself. That'll get your post count up, huh?

[George II]

434. Read this morning's Nancy Greggs post - THAT is how we should think!!!

[spooked911]

431. he had my VOTE and I gave him a chance after he was elected to do his thing

without criticism-- but he's been a MAJOR disappointment since then, in many ways

[George II]

439. Ok, but let me ask....

When you pulled the lever for him (or filled in the circle on the ballot), what was the schedule you had in mind for accomplishing what you expected him to accomplish? He has a four year term ahead of him, and he's only been in office since January 20 (five months next week) He has also inherited the worst mess that any president has inherited since 1933 - mayb worse because in addition to an unpresidented economic situation he's also inherited TWO wars and a rogue state with nuclear weapons (North Korea)

So, please explain the nature of him being "a MAJOR disappointment" and what those "many ways" are.

Thanks.

[George II]

399. Obama has been president for less than five months...if he's already lost your "support".....

Chances are he never had it to begin with.

As far as those so-called "selfish interests", read my other posts in this this discussion.

[shellgame26]

397. Ding ding ding ding

[Zenlitened]

409. Great Moments in DUchebaggery.

Yay, you!

[bjobotts]

427. not Obama supporters and never were.What, you think you're psychic.You don't know

[caseymoz]

231. But you're analysis of it is just incorrect.

Consider this analysis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5833429&mesg_id=5838361

Remember how pissed we were at Bush politicizing the Justice Department? Jose Gonzales and all that? This case is an example of un-politicizing the Justice Department. That's all. It's functioning the way it should.

And don't worry. They'll lose.

[caseymoz]

232. delete, wrong place

But they have to try it; the DOJ has to try Federal cases. The president has no say, or didn't until Dubya came in.
Remember Jose Gonzales? Politicizing the DoJ and all that? We were all pissed about that remember?

This is unpoliticizing it. Don't worry. They'll lose.

[Zenlitened]

411. "Jose" Gonzales? WTF is that about?

WTF is this place anymore?

[George II]

445. Bizarre, isn't it? I thought the republicans stereotyped, I see we have our own....

...."Jose" Gonzales is about as bad as that republican Senator talking about "Maria" Sotomayor a couple of weeks ago. I suppose if they're Hispanic they have to be named Jose and Maria. Not important that their REAL names are Alberto and Sonia!

[caseymoz]

459. Ahem, Sorry, Alberto. . .

I had a bad moment there. :argh:

[JDPriestly]

429. Chadha is law school textbook law. No excuse for not knowing that one.

[merh]

453. Their conclusions are incorrect. I will attribute it to their hurried

and emotional attempt to make a point rather than outright dishonesty.

See this post to see how wrong the authors' conclusions as quoted really are:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5833429&mesg_id=5838361

[WillParkinson]

2. Impartial...

Comparing gays with pedophiles and incestuous relationships?

Say what you will, Mr. Obama knows what was said. Mr. Obama is the President. If Mr. Obama is not at fault, then it is time for him to speak up. Finally.

[MadBadger]

3. Has Gibbs been asked a question about it yet?

That's usually how he "speaks up" Somebody asks a question to Gibbs and he answers.

[vaberella]

5. I don't think so...not yesterday anyway and I wonder if Gibbs would know.

Note, this is the DOJ's department not the WH department.

[sandnsea]

70. Here's the brief,

The words pedophile or incest do not exist in this brief. Comparing marriage laws from state to state does not in any way equate to comparing gays to anything. It's only comparing different marriage laws from state to state, that's it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

[mr1956]

167. Thank you for posting the brief

It was a long read but necessary for anyone making an informed opinion on the subject. I was particularly interested on the citation of Loving v VA.

It seems the best way for DOMA opponents to approach a case would be for a federal employee to apply for certain rights and, if (when) they are denied, sue for a specific harm.

[DesertDiamond]

211. Thank you for posting this brief. I read it and I did not see mention of incest, etc.

I did see the language that might be interpreted as such. And I think those who see it that way should say so.

I also see that this change we are looking to see is a process, just as any battle for civil rights is a process. I would love to have all States ordered to accept gay marriage. I also see why, aside from any arguments, pro or con, of States' rights to decide their own laws, it would be unwise and counterproductive to force this upon them. Along with laws, we need to change the hearts of the people. Sometimes laws help to change the hearts of the people, such as Affirmative Action. Some laws only agitate the people who oppose. Too many of those who oppose gay marriage are haters who would consider assaulting or even killing others over this matter to be just in the eyes of their god. Just look at the anti-abortionists and what they do. Would it be any different?

I really think we need to continue this battle, one step at a time. This court battle did not win the war, but there will be more battles to come, and at some point we will win.

One last thing. I think blaming Obama is not productive, and only plays into the the RWers hands.

[sandnsea]

214. It's either a Constitutional Civil Rights matter

that cannot be voted on, which I think is the basis of the Boies/Olsen suit; or it is a state marriage matter and the federal rights must be extended in any given state according to the state law on marriage the way it is now. Because some states allow 16 year olds to marry does not mean there's any pedophilia involved and certainly doesn't mean anybody is comparing gays to pedophiliacs. I really don't care who the President is, this kind of hyperbolic reaction is just not useful in a democracy.

[WillParkinson]

336. Sure, of course...

Despite the fact that the marriages they're comparing relate to incestuous relationships or marriage between older people and underage people, that in no way equates marriage between two consenting adults with either of those. It's not like they're trying to give it the same "ew" factor or anything.

[sandnsea]

349. Those are the variations that went to court

What other variations in state law are there going to be?

[WillParkinson]

354. You're the one who wants to tell us what the lawyers are doing...

So I'm sure you can tell us.

[George II]

133. He's got TOO FUCKING MUCH MORE IMPORTANT things to do than address this issue to YOUR satisfaction!!

[ruggerson]

148. I'm glad we now understand that you think there are "much more important"

things than equality under the law.

[ronnykmarshall]

155. Very telling isn't it?

[ruggerson]

161. What's also telling is that the OP hasn't defended his original assertions

In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v. Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

[George II]

166. That's a rather "Limaugh"-esque way of turning my words around....

So tell me, of all the issues presented to Obama by the previous administration, which of these are the most important to the American people:

Ending the war in Afghanistan
Ending the war in Iraq
Working out a liveable agreement in the Middle East between Israel and the Arabs
Stopping the nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula
Closing the prison in Guantanamo Bay
Turning the economy around, including the banking industry, the mortgage industry, the auto industry, the insurance industry, etc.
Reversing the increase in unemployment
Providing decent health care for ALL Americans
Reducing America's dependence on foreign oil
Etc.
Etc.
Repealing DOMA

Huh? With all those pressing issues facing Obama, America, and the world, all you can whine about is a FALSE claim about Obama's position and actions with respect to DOMA?

Ridiculous. And before you attack me for being a homophobe (I can just see your fingers typing that word right now!), please be aware that I AM GAY! But I'm not so self-centered and selfish to think that this issue should come first before all the other woes facing us today.

You have that Reagan era attitude - "give me mine and give it to me NOW, and fuck everyone else - let them fend for themselves". That doesn't work in society and thankfully it won't work under an Obama administration.

[ruggerson]

179. I work differently than you do

I don't think issues of human rights need to be ranked in order of concern. Obama is a bright, energetic man. He has the ability to multi task. We also have majorities in both houses of congress and we have no way of knowing if they will still be in place in 2011, so speed is of the utmost urgency. I have spoken out about every subject on your list. One needn't preclude another.

I like the way you anticipate me calling you a homophobe and then object to something I haven't done. I also see that you have adopted the subtle "whining" meme. For the record, I write what I think as clearly as I can. I (and many others here) have never once "whined" about anything. You give comfort and aid to those who would keep us second class citizens by employing such language. What I am doing is demanding that my elected official (our EMPLOYEE), who I voted for and donated to, live up to the contract he made on these issues. Any distortions on your end will not stop me from doing that.

[mkultra]

185. the distortion is commonly yours

Obama made not contract regarding these issues. If HRC had been elected, i could understand you being upset. As it is now, the reality of the circumstance is that Obama could ignore constitutional requirements and circumvent his duty by halting DADT, or Congress could rally the necessary votes and introduce a bill that Obama has indicated he would sign. If there where enough pressure on the representatives, then the bill would be on the floor now. The concept that Obama should be pushing for this is foolish and naive. He would have to halt all legislation and threaten a veto embargo which would result in a political loss for him. You may want him to pitch his body on the DADT grenade but some of us do not.

[George II]

188. And no doubt he will "live up to the contract he made on these issues".....

....what was the schedule in that contract? Was there one? You people are bashing him and his administration because, as I said, you feel "Give me mine and give it to me NOW", as though you're the only person in the country.

I suppose I was incorrect in calling it "Limbaugh-esque", that comment about me giving "aid and comfort to those who would keep us second class citizens" exposes you more like "Cheney-esque" or even "O'Reilly-esque". You sure have filled out your portfolio nicely.

Good day, I'm going back to being concerned with ALL 300 million Americans, not just a few. That is what TRUE Democrats do!!

[ruggerson]

195. "You people"?

Keep digging.

[ronnykmarshall]

221. Note the edit on that post,

[ruggerson]

225. Ah, "it" removed "you people"

why am I not surprised.

[George II]

350. WRONG, thank you! Read on...

The edit by ME (not "it", dolt) did NOT remove the "you people" - that term is still in the post. The edit was to correct a spelling error, not to change the substance or content of the post.

Why are you not surprised? Perhaps because you may be included in the "you people"? Or, since the "you people" is still in the post you may be surprised because of your lack of literacy?

[George II]

433. Read this morning's Nancy Greggs post - THAT is how we should think!!!

[George II]

435. Read this morning's Nancy Greggs post - THAT is how we should think!!!

[konnichi wa]

243. Yeah. Going out for cheeseburgers is one of them, obviously.

:grr:

[WillParkinson]

329. Testy little cheerleader, aren't we?

This "fierce advocate for gays and lesbians" is nothing more than a lip-service agent. His "change you can believe in" has yet to be proven to gays and lesbians. Yeah, we're angry. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand what it's like to be courted for the prom and then stood up.

Or maybe you do.

[totodeinhere]

413. That's politics for you.

Politicians never deliver on all of their campaign promises. All of us except for the most naive know that full well.

Now I hope that Obama does see to it that both DADT and DOMA are repealed, the sooner the better. But come on now, don't pretend that you are so surprised that a politician has not lived up to a campaign promise.

[Baikonour]

310. The words "incest" and "pedophile" don't appear in the brief ONCE.

Stop reading reactionary blogs and go read the actual brief.

[WillParkinson]

327. "The Actual Brief"

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void")."

"Marriage of uncle to niece" = incest.
"Marriage of 16-year-old female" and "permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage" = pedophile.

Call it what you want. Spin it how you'd like. The implication of those words is there. Putting the marriage of two gay people in the same category as underage marriage and marrying your relatives is attempting to give it an "ew" factor.

[vaberella]

4. I'll K*R this PT but I'm glad you're aware it won't go anywhere.

This board is running high on emotions. The language within the brief was disgusting and cruel to the LGBT community and that is undeniable. However, it is also undeniable that DOMA is law and even if the briefs were written that way or not the case would have went the same way. I'm disappointed by the language used but I'm also disappointed by the way the blame was automatically thrust on Obama when it doesn't prove he even had a clue about what was being said. He already has one perspective which is pro LGBT and the current laws are working against him.

He says he's taken initial steps to ensure the rights of LGBT and I trust him on that. I do want him to talk on this and I do want viable legislation but I don't blame him for this as though he wrote it himself.

[NYC_SKP]

38. 32 comments, 32 recommendations...

I guess the misinformed are outnumbered.
I wish it didn't have to be so fucking filled with anger, but oh well...

:hi:

:toast:

[NYC_SKP]

343. .

mid thread stealth kick....

[Bucky]

6. So his DoJ's behavior isn't a result of policy choices?

Don't the political appointees have some input into which cases they contest and how they contest them?

And even if his DoJ is only following the law that they are required to enforce, shouldn't we as a progressive community organize outrage and protest against an official policy that segregates Americans by which rights get protected or denied?

[Zynx]

9. I think we all support the repeal of DOMA on this board.

It's a law with a questionable constitutional basis anyway.

[Bucky]

14. Oh, I'd love to see DOMA gone. But the question is, must the Holder DoJ defend it now?

I know they can't just start working against that law, but are they required to contest every challenge to it? I know the Ashcroft-Gonzalez Justice Department didn't defend laws they didn't like--but is that advocatory discretion or is that unconstitutional?

[Zynx]

25. They absolutely must defend federal law.

If they are following their own statutory obligations, they must defend the federal laws on the books. Bush's DOJ was a joke.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. But many Presidents have chosen NOT to defend laws they do not

want to defend. Reagan. Clinton. They just tell Congress the DOJ is not going to file. So IF that were true, the vile language and the arguments chosen would be the only issue at hand, still a big one. But it is not true. In fact, this particular motion was not required but make by choice.

[vaberella]

54. Which is interesting...since many could argue during all those times the DOJ was corrupt.

Bush did the same thing we can also say that the DOJ was a nice right mess then too.

[4lbs]

98. And weren't those same Presidents found to have done some sort of illegal activity?

Reagan --> Iran-Contra

Bush Sr. --> lied about his involvement in Iran-Contra

Clinton --> lied to federal grand jury about his affair with Monica Lewinsky

Bush Jr. --> Iraq War

[4lbs]

99. Dupe.

.

[vaberella]

101. I know...I stated the same thing. They had a totally CORRUPT DOJ.

But rational is never allowed it seems.

[mkultra]

187. i dont want him to break the law for this

The law needs to be changed. Bush like methods are not the route to justice.

[vaberella]

10. Sure they are....Policy Choices that were there long before he was.

As for the verbiage in the briefs, well that can't be laid on Obama can it? It has to lay with particular lawyers in the DOJ who used that defense, all of which are under Holder's firing and hiring. Obama has always said he doesn't presume to tell Holder how to do his job or know how he'll go about it---he just trusts Holder to uphold the law. And we don't like DOMA or DADT----but as disgusting as they are, they are the law.

And I see nothing wrong with protests since I sent my fair share to the DOJ and WH yesterday about this. However, it's the language as though Obama wrote this and defended it in court---which is what most are saying. The blame is put on him as though most people don't realize there are divisions of power.

Someone even used Bush as a defense to say, well Bush used the DOJ to defend the law. I'm like Bush used the DOJ and turned it into a corrupt institution to follow it's whims and wants which was illegal in action and against the law. Obama's DOJ is following the law although the words in the brief are inexcusable.

[jberryhill]

250. The DoJ is a big place - it has different offices which do different things

Statutes are not "policy choices", they are statutes.

[Political Tiger]

335. It's not a matter of policy, it's a matter of law.

The DoJ is not supposed to be political, hence Title 1; Department of Justice Organization and Functions, Section 32. It was the Bush administration that politicized the DoJ, under the guidance of KKK Rove and Dead-eye Dick Cheney. It's probably going to take us some time to actually having an ethical DoJ after 8 years of Bush's Kangaroo DoJ.

[wolfgirl]

7. i get so frustrated

with folks. We voted Obama in office so we could assure an INDEPENDENT judiciary that follows the LAW.
People need to take a deep breath and stop listening/reading only the headlines. They need to dig into the truth of the matter.

Thanks for posting this. Maybe some folks will now breath a bit.

[vaberella]

11. They won't, but it's a nice hope. n/t

[NJmaverick]

8. A kick for the truth,

something many DUers, in the zeal to bash President Obama, seemed to have completely discarded

[denem]

13. So why not go marching into the DOJ to kick some real teeth,

and demand that they file, not for the statutes in force today, but Your Statutes which will be in force later on. There's a label or two for a one man or woman congress.

[vaberella]

55. Actually that's wasted energy. I'd sooner go and kick Congress in the teeth.

A lot of the asses who put DADT and DOMA in action are still there and they all need to pay for those two major fuck ups. The DOJ is little to nothing in my immediate attack list. Congress on the other hand, in particular the dirty dealers in the Senate are another story.

[vaberella]

12. *BookMarked* to kick in future. n/t

[lamp_shade]

15. Ahhhhh... a clear thinker on DU. Thank you. Recommended and bookmarked.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unblock]

17. obama vas just folloving orderz?

do you read your own posts?
did the bush administration vigorously enforce all the laws?

[denem]

19. Nope. DOJ following the Law

as passed by Congress and signed by Clinton.

[CTLawGuy]

446. funny

back when it was signed by Clinton, and supported by Hillary, it was teh awesome. But when the black president doesn't get rid of it fast enough, he is a bigot, because blacks should know better.... Have I got it right?

[Zynx]

27. So we want a derilict DOJ just like Bush's?

We don't want a professional DOJ?

[vaberella]

56. Bush's, Regan's, probably Clinton's and the list goes on and on and on.

It seems that when it suits the interests of progressives, they want Obama to do what Bush did (which we disliked him for).

[Zynx]

82. The executive branch in general has been on a bender of power for a long time.

I'm glad to see it is finally exercising some restraint.

[jberryhill]

325. It's something of a paradox

One thing that both Obama and Biden were clear about was restoring the rule of law and the proper role of the executive in how our system operates.

This, of course, results in a voluntarily diminishment of the way that executive power has been wielded within the living memory of a lot of people.

[unblock]

115. point is, the doj has options when there's a law it doesn't like

it's not as if the doj could be replaced with a computer program that files briefs and motions.

[mkultra]

190. actually, the point is that those options are unconstitutional.

Something you may not care about, but some of us do.

[unblock]

206. no need to be snarky about it

but if you want to play that game, i didn't list any options, so do you mean that ALL other choices are unconstitutional?

they had to take the EXACT action they did, or else be unconstitutional?
if it's that simple, and that cut-and-dried, then why do the courts need to read it at all?
apparently the constitution spells out the exact government position on every case, so the judge already knows it and the actual doj filings add nothing to the case, right?

oh, and here's a puzzler for ya: what if the doj is in a position of defending a law it believes to be unconstitutional?
is it required by the constitution to defend an unconstitutional law?

hmmmmm.

[nickgutierrez]

376. Statutory interpretation is the realm of the judicial branch, not the executive.

The courts have the power of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to enforce the law - therefore, yes, it does have the obligation to defend an unconstitutional law.

It goes without saying that recent presidents have not lived up to this obligation.

[unblock]

400. what "therefore"? there's no logic to that.

yes, the executive branch has the *power* to enforce the law. marbury v. madison claimed a power for the court, it did not deny any power to the other branches. it did not claim that the other branches are not to pay heed to the constitution. the executive is not required to enforce or abide by an unconstitutional law until the courts makes its ruling. as an extreme example, had the previous congress & president passed slavery into law, would the obama administration really have to enforce it and defend it until the courts got around to striking it down? would they be required to ernestly present persuasive arguments supporting slavery?

the doj does not have the obligation to defend unconstitutional laws any more than it has an obligation to enforce ridiculous or odious or obsolete laws. is the state required to put people in jail for kissing more than 60 seconds if that law is on the books? is the doj required to defend laws some piece of jim crow legislation that never got removed?

if the federal government is challenged and required to appear in court, then the doj must make an appearance, yes. but nothing requires them to take a particular position about the laws involved, as long as they aren't biased in their application or defense of the law.

[mkultra]

452. the simple answer is yes

the woudl have to defend it. Of course, your example fails in that the executive would have veto power. Aside from that, they would be forced to enforce. The law would only come to review by the judiciary if an individual brought challenged some wrong against them. Essentially, someone could not just challenge a law, they would need to be involved in a criminal or civil case in which they can challenge the verdict to the supreme court level.

The DOJ is require to not only show up but to also defend the governments legislative position.

[AlbertCat]

So we want a derilict DOJ just like Bush's?

We want Obama to tell all Dems what to do.... as long as it's what they want to do... or should do.... or something like that.

Apparently, the Dems in Congress and elsewhere are to march in lock step.

I mean it worked so well for the Repugs!

[Seen the light]

116. They don't have to defend bullshit law and you know it

This thread sucks.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MNBrewer]

226. No, they don't have to.

[Zynx]

323. No, I'm pretty sure that they do have to defend the law.

You're not supposed to pick which laws to defend and which not to.

[polmaven]

109. "did the bush administration vigorously enforce all the laws?"

No, he didn't. Did this board resound with calls for impeachement every time he didn't? Absolutely, and rightfully so.

[DRoseDARs]

18. ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta; Dickerson v. US; Metro Broadcasting v. FCC; INS v. Chadha

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-politico-in-defending.html

"Ben Smith at Politico just reported the following statement from the Department of Justice over their brief, filed last night, comparing gay marriage to incest:

'As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.'

Yeah, you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v. Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

[mikehiggins]

40. Turn about is fair play

Unfortunately that seems to be the pov of a lot of folks on the left. The government SUCKED when the righties ruled the roost so its fine if it sucks the other way now that they are ousted (I'm NOT saying the government has gone leftie. Obviously there are miles to go before we could even suggest that). So, if the rightie DOJ can do whatever its masters want, OUR DOJ should be able to do the same thing on our side.

Well, no. In this case the "fair play" should be a return of the DOJ to its legal function. That is not to be the President's legal firm--that's what the office of legal counsel or whatever its called--is supposed to be. The DOJ is supposed to enforce the law as written IF that law is not clearly illegal itself. DOMA, unfortunately, is not illegal until/unless Congress grows the spine and guts to repeal it. Until that happens--around the 12th of Never IMHO--the law is the law, and the DOJ is not allowed to decide that issue.

We are supposed to have a government of laws. All O seems to want to do is to act accordingly.

Oh yeah like McCain would be better ;^) :sarcasm:

[vaberella]

60. +1. n/t

[vaberella]

59. First off, no one is defending the language used in briefings. That was abhorrent.

However, note many of the Presidents used in your politico quote (politico--the RW blog-world). Bush? Corrupt as all hell, but it's okay to use him.Greatness, when it suits us...it's all good. When we know for most if not all those Presidents listed, corruption of the DOJ was in full affect. Obama/Holder are currently cleaning out the DOJ. I can't believe we're using a defense of Bush's of all people.

[sandnsea]

71. Read the brief

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

[ruggerson]

153. I see no one has a FACTUAL response to you - they're all just running on emotion

n/t

[DRoseDARs]

313. Oh, they're not responding to me. They're explaining the law ... to two lawyers.

Me, I'm just posting their words and enjoying watching people twist themselves in knots trying to explain away the shame. :)

[defendandprotect]

197. PLUS our courts have declared discrimination against homosexuals unConstitutional . . .

[jberryhill]

253. Crap Argument

In each of those instances, the statute interfered with a fundamental and established right in Supreme Court precedent - e.g. Miranda, free speech, etc.

To argue that the SG has discretion not to defend DOMA, then could you please identify the Supreme Court decision addressing the subject of gender-based marriage equality you would rely on to make that argument?

I won't hold my breath.

[ruggerson]

268. Loving

which established marriage as a fundamental right.

[jberryhill]

281. Yah... so is reproductive choice...

And men still can't get abortions.

The clarity of precedent in each of the cited examples is that they are on point. There have been conflicting lower court and state court decisions involving the application of Loving to gender based marriage equality. The situation here is not comparable to the other examples which are being used to call people "liars" with respect to the SG's extremely limited discretion in defending challenges to the law.

Take a look at this map of states which allow or do not allow marriage between first cousins:



Why are those differences allowed after Loving, in your view?

How can this be possible, if the proposition that any two people can get married is a nationally-established fundamental right?

[kevinbgoode]

415. So MY question is. . .are those marriages which are legalized

(for example) for first cousins in certain states also automatically make them eligible for full FEDERAL protections and benefits?

If there is a legal marriage in Georgia, but nowhere else, does the heterosexual couple still receive recognition and federal benefits?

[pdxmom]

20. Thank you. I work in the Federal Courts and understand how it works. The brief

that was filed was disgusting, but to lay it at the feet of Obama is taking aim at the wrong person. Should Obama speak up now that it has been filed? Yes. But Obama didn't write it, he didn't file it, and I would guess didn't read it. There are hundreds, if not thousands of government briefs filed on a daily basis, and Obama can't be expected to read them all.

If Obama lets it just stand without commenting on it, then it's time to get angry. Really angry. But for now, I'm going to keep my powder dry, knowing how the federal courts function.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. He has remained silent

And while we all know that there are piles of government briefs filed, a wise politician would know that out of that haystack one could pull a needle of contention. So being unaware is politically stupid, when the case is so important, when your own standing with those who care about it is strained, and when you, the politician, have made many specific promises about this specific issue, promises not simply of results, but of leadership. How tone deaf is it to be in those shoes, and let that brief be written and released without review or comment? It is either one of the stupidest political moves I have ever seen, or an intentional telegraphing of a message. Due to the ongoing radio silence from the President, we are all free to make up our own minds about what he intends. That is again, his choice, his doing, he holds all the power.
And he has been silent. After all the high blown language. What you legal types call 'terms of art'. There are reasons that the legal profession is so beloved in America. The lies and the hair splitting are big parts of that. Legal folks live in a world that references only itself, speaks to itself and cares mostly about the procedural details of the profession. When you all come to others and find yourselves needing to explain why 'up' means 'down' in the law, you might be correct in your field, but politically the arguments you guys make are like lead balloons, and are too often based on this hubristic concept that others do not and can not understand. In politics, it does not matter if your opinion is cool in Law Land, the people smell bull and act accordingly. And this here is politics, not a courtroom.

[customerserviceguy]

81. Indeed, his silence on this issue since Inauguration Day

and even since Election Day, other than a brief statement about being disappointed by Prop H8, has caused speculation to run rampant. Only he can tell us where he really stands, and show some leadership towards equality.

[pdxmom]

106. "You legal types". Never said I was a "legal type". Just a lowly

paralegal for a criminal defense attorney who practices in federal court. I wasn't offering a legal opinion...just reflecting on what I know procedurally. I work for the attorney who fights against the federal attorneys, for the rights of the people we represent. So find some other "you guys" to slam, instead of looking to paint with a broad brush.

[AntiFascist]

383. Excellent response, if this were a legal forum then we should be arguing legalities...

the fact of the matter is that DOMA can be argued various ways and this president has already made clear his personal feelings on gay marriage.

[Willo]

21. K&R nt

[wroberts189]

22. Excellent post ...knr

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UncleTomsEvilBrother]

24. Wow....

...just...wow! Thanks for explaining this. I was silent, but I was taken aback by the language, and I was afraid that Obama's administration had actually approved of it.

[chascarrillo]

28. I thought the Bush administration approved torture, but actually it was just Alberto Gonzales.

Does my post title make any sense whatsoever?

[QC]

30. And Bush & Cheney never personally dropped a single bomb on Iraq OR Afghanistan.

So stop accusing them of killing all those people!

[ClarkUSA]

32. Apples and oranges. Your point is muddled as the President is Commander in Chief.

[chascarrillo]

45. And the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch.

[ClarkUSA]

48. So what? By law (see the OP), the DoJ doesn't communicate with the President on cases.

[chascarrillo]

57. The DoJ administrative manual is not the law. Sorry.

[vaberella]

63. Can you point me then to the law that designates the rules & regs of the DOJ? n/t

[ClarkUSA]

66. Really? Prove what you say. Links, sourced quotes?

[chascarrillo]

74. Administrative manuals, handed out to employees of the department, are not laws.

Ask any employee of any company or, indeed, any government.

If you want proof of this, you're an idiot.

[vaberella]

85. What are you talking about?

The manual itself indicates the rules and regulations for the DOJ---which means...it's basically their laws written in a book. ie Catholics with Cathechism or better yet a Driving Manual for a driving test. You need to follow those in order to pass. In normal cases, as in day to day, the DOJ is an autonomous entity. It's the same way that the Supreme Court doesn't meet with the President for every case. Would you then blame the President for every case that the Supreme Court rules against?

[ClarkUSA]

87. Proof? The United States Attorney manual is the official guideline for DoJ conduct.

Unless you can prove otherwise, it's clear that Pres. Obama was not involved in preparing the brief.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

326. Agency regulations have the force of law /nt

[chascarrillo]

77. And to answer the portion of your post that was deleted...

I don't remember you defending George W Bush when people blamed him when John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales did something bad.

Hypocrite.

And if you're just going to revise and delete every post that you write, I'm not bothering with you any longer. That's deceitful.

[ClarkUSA]

88. BushCo did not follow the rule of law. The Obama administration does.

And if you're just going to revise and delete every post that you write, I'm not bothering with you any longer. That's deceitful.

You're making shit up. What's deceitful is continuing to attack Pres. Obama in the face of facts. Do I detect the smell of sour grapes?

[jberryhill]

331. The reason is...

That Bush DID interfere with DoJ functions in an improper manner.

You are also confusing actions of Gonzalez and Ashcroft within the realm of legitimate policy functions of the DoJ.

The Office of Solicitor General is not a policy function.

Determining whether to allocate prosecutorial and investigate resources of the criminal division to fighting either (a) terrorism or (b) pornography, is a policy function.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chascarrillo]

51. Then thank god that Obama is doing the right thing and letting the DoJ compare gays to child rapists

I'm glad you approve of this as well.

[ClarkUSA]

61. When and how did he do that? Proof, sourced links, quotes? The DoJ does not communicate w/44.

You're ignoring the rule of law and desperate to scapegoat and attack President Obama, aren't you? Read the OP again.

[vaberella]

67. Uh...that wasn't Obama...so be clear and don't lie. It's the lawyers who filed this...and

no one in hell is defending the language in the briefing. However it seems most people have an issue with the language and not the defense of the law. Well as it stands the language is abhorrent and I'm sure if and when Obama becomes aware of this he'll be appalled as well since it is contrary to his own beliefs which he has spoken public about.

That being said...don't lay blame the words of fools on Obama here. Especially when DOJ is, by and large, an autonomous department that has appointments. Similar to the Supreme Court. So if that's the case, my question to you is that every single decision the Supreme Court makes is in reflection of Obama as though Obama tried the case and made a ruling? Let's be serious then.

[chascarrillo]

79. I'm not accusing Obama, using you're argument. I'm accusing you and Clark of defending the DoJ.

[ClarkUSA]

93. lol! That's news to us, considering your replies #26, #28 and #45 sure seemed to accuse Obama.

[chascarrillo]

119. I,m using your argument.

Say, using your argument, that Obama would be violating the law if he told Justice to not defend DOMA. (A lie, but just for the sake of argument.) Obama still has the option to ignore the nonexistent law. Bush had no problem telling Justice what to do, Clinton too, and neither of them are facing charges. So, yes, he's allowing this.l wouldn't defending civil rights be worth a simple violation of a law that, supposing it existed, he'd never be prosecuted for?

Let's put it another way. Would you be in favor of a president telling Justice not to defend the use of torture? the Alien and Seditipn Act? Slavery?

What would you think of a president who stood by and allowed Justice to defend the above?

[ClarkUSA]

122. No, you're using a strawman argument and ignoring your previous claims against vabarella and me.

The OP's sourced links make it clear that President Obama did not personally approve the DoJ brief. The DoJ was following the rule of law in upholding the law against a case filed against DOMA. Unless there is a new law approved by Congress, all challenges to DOMA will be defended by the DoJ. President Obama has NO say in DoJ affairs.

[vaberella]

105. Aye...?! It can be proved otherwise.

Let me be clear, because you choose not to be. I am defending the DOJ on following the actions of the law. I am not and HAVE NEVER defended the words used in the brief---by a pathetic and despicalbe lawyer. Which I have said was deplorable over and over and over and over again.

[HughMoran]

41. Yes, Bushco (Cheney) violated the law by interfering with Justice

Hopefully Obama is and will continue to follow the law.

[LostinVA]

42. +1

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Politicub]

33. Dude, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining

"Just following orders" has never been an acceptable defense. I read your post, and frankly, I am incensed that you spent so long giving the Obama admin a fig leaf to hide behind.

Thank you to all of the DUers who are standing with the GLBT against injustice and not trying to defend the indefensible. To everyone else, go kick some other dog while its down, ok? This shit hurts and I don't think many of you understand that.

[phleshdef]

36. You are letting your pain cloud your judgement, the OP is right in every way.

[LostinVA]

43. Well no, the OP is far from "being right in every way"

But I know it makes so many of you feel justified in your dismissal of equal rights to think so.

[NJmaverick]

64. Please, facts and the truth are important

they can not be tossed aside to further one's agenda

[ruggerson]

156. Here are the facts:

In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v. Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

There is plenty of precedent for the DOJ not to defend this.

[vaberella]

68. You don't provide the law to defend your statement.

All the OP is doing is presenting the legal facts which are sound. S/he is not defending the language of the briefings which is not sound and ultimately dispicable.

And lastly Obama has nothing to do with the language---you want him to have something to do with the language for whatever reason. However, what ever reason that may be, you'd be wrong if it this is Obama. You should really blame the fools who created DOMA and DADT---not to mention Congress for not making the immediate changes now that we have a President who wants those two things repealed.

[liberalmuse]

34. Thank you for laying it out like this!

I saw some posts really tearing into President Obama here last night, so I decided to do a little more in depth reading on this. I didn't have to go further than Daily Kos. I really wish people would stop, take a deep breath and do a little research before posting nasty shit about Obama. I think some of us developed that hair trigger during the Bush years, but back then, we were absolutely right in thinking the worst about everything his administration did. With President Obama's administration, there is almost always some larger picture that we aren't getting when these stories come out. We're just getting the most inflammatory part. It's just sad that people who tirelessly campaigned and voted for Obama are now failing to give him the benefit of the doubt on some of this stuff, and in some cases, almost all of it.

[AntiFascist]

251. The main problem is that this is all part of a continuing pattern...

It is becoming more and more obvious that all 3 branches of government are allowing the gay and lesbian community to be used as the sacrificial lamb for the right-wing: The DOJ using discriminatory language, Congress not going after DADT, and Obama speaking before a right-wing church audience about the sacredness of heterosexual (only) marriages. The emotions on this are more than justified, and threads, such as this one which receive high ranking, only adds to the anger and bigotry being directed at gays and lesbians.

[Sheepshank]

35. I'm having hard time believing

that DU'ers WANT Obama meddling in the judcial side of things?

Great post. Very clear, on point. Seems like it's hard not to get all excited flex those pack like voices now that they are allowed. It's cathartic to be outraged, but a correct focus seems to be missing. How is the pack like mentality (reacting with outrage on parsed information) any different that those going on at the Rapture Ready, or birthers web sites?

[vaberella]

72. How could you have a hard time believing it?

It's all over this board and apparent that a good number of DUers let their emotions of over the language of the briefings, which are appalling, to cloud their normal mental functions to the sound usage of the law. I've come to see that when it suits progressives, they want President Obama to own the government the same way Bush did. That means arm twist, manipulate, and lie through memos if need be to meet their agenda.

You'll also note that many arguments against the OPs post actually list George Bush and Regan and even Clinton cases when the DOJ was decidedly corrupt---and under Dubya extra corrupt.

[Bluenorthwest]

You are saying the DOJ was corrupt during Clinton's years?

Show your work. That is one hell of a thing to say about a Democratic President on a Democratic site, so back up your claim that the DOJ was decidedly corrupt during Clinton's administration. Then offer an example of an administration that you think was not corrupt, for all Presidents have chosen not to argue cases they do not wish to have argued. All of them.
When you decide to slander a Democratic Administration as decidedly corrupt in order to reject facts presented to you, I expect to see facts to back that accusation. Where are those facts? Decidedly corrupt you said. Prove it. Or at least share with us what leads you to that nasty statement.

[Sheepshank]

103. I think..

...you may be shooting the messenger. I took the narrative to mean that the poster has seen such posts on DU, and not that they personally have endorsed or said such a thing. I think :)

[vaberella]

112. Post # 44. Sums things up best.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=447

And I made clear that we've been dealing with a rather corrupt DOJ for a while. I also should note and I admit that I could be wrong but wasn't a certain Clinton pardon held over Holder during his committee briefing?

Lastly, please calm your indignation. I don't stand here to put anyone on a pedestal or any democratic president. So I'm supposed to love everything FDR did when he was a racist?! Am I supposed to agree with everything Carter or Clinton or even Obama is supposed to do...no. And in the past no one can deny that there were shady dealings with a lot of the former Presidents.

[benny05]

37. This is a model Holder's Folks Should Emulate

from Othniel's diary at the Daily Kos:

California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed his answer to the Federal suit brought by Ted Olson and David Boies.

One reason I really do prefer litigating in Federal Court is the Rules of Civil Procedure are taken seriously and actually make sense. Unlike in Texas State Courts, where if I represent a defendant it is unethical for me not to lie in my opening pleading on his, her or its behalf, in Federal Court each substantive Allegation of the Complaint must be addressed in the Answer to the Complaint. (In Texas we dispense with such niceties by filing a simple one page document called a General Denial, which says everything is in issue, we deny all; oil your six shooters).

Let's examine what California's Attorney General admits to be true from the Complaint, under penalty of Rule 11 Sanctions.

Othniel is an attorney in Texas, and he is a gay man with a loving partner.

Holder should be ashamed for what he did yesterday, and he should sack the man who wrote that harmful brief.

[vaberella]

75. This I agree with. Why out of so many are you the only one to realize that?

Most and decidedly a good majority on this site blame Obama. However, I'd have to say this speaks directly to Holder and for allowing this lawyer to make such slanderous claims. Yet, for so many here----Obama is to blame.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. Was Holder appointed by God or something?

Obama picked Holder. Holder was part of Clinton's DOJ, which you have declared to have been 'decidedly corrupt.' Yet picking from that pool was wise?
Your arguments are all over the place. If Clintons DOJ was 'decidedly corrupt' as you proclaim, then why did Obama pick his AG from a decidedly corrupt talent pool? What is the reasoning for that? Decidedly corrupt you say. Not moderately. Not possibly, but decidedly corrupt.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. Thanks for bringing some sanity into this disucussion (and having the stones to do it)

The brief was definitely horrendous and indefensible but the way people were going after Obama last night (and even CNN decided to join in the fun by having Campbell Brown discuss whether or not Obama is "selling out" the GLBT community) was pretty crazy- as though he authored the brief himself and/or was out stumping for the continuation of DOMA. I myself wanted to know exactly what the situation was and found out most of what you posted here myself- that POTUS is not SUPPOSED to be influencing the DOJ but, unfortunately, after eight years of Buscho, there are some real crackpots still infesting the DOJ. Hopefully, Holder can and will start "weeding" some of them out and getting some better legal minds into DOJ over the course of the next 4-8 years- or at least start paying a little more attention to the briefs being written on behalf of the DOJ- although I'm not sure what the review process is for briefs and how many briefs even Holder himself reviews. I would THINK that SOMEBODY is reviewing them but then again if the people reviewing them are crackpots too, well, then...............:shrug: After eight year of Buscho, the DOJ needs an "enema" that it may, sadly, not get if we can't legally get rid of the rotten apples left behind by Bushco (and we were warned what was going on too).

[sam kane]

46. "it is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice"

Mineta; Dickerson v. US; Metro Broadcasting v. FCC; INS v. Chadha

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-po...

"Ben Smith at Politico just reported the following statement from the Department of Justice over their brief, filed last night, comparing gay marriage to incest:

'As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.'

Yeah, you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v. Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

[berni_mccoy]

47. THANK YOU! K&R! I'm tired of the "OBAMA HATES GAYS" b.s.

[WillParkinson]

408. Of course he doesn't hate gays...

He's a "fierce advocate" of the gays. Fierce, I say.

[juno jones]

49. I hear ya.

A poster on another thread went into a great deal of detail explaining how the government's egregious defense of DOMA might well be a way of having it struck down in court.

Legally, they can do nothing as a branch, to change it themselves but they don't like it either. So when a case comes up, they find the most awful defense possible, that a even a conservative judge must repudiate.

If they went about it 'sanely' with reasonable arguements, the bloody DOMA crap would likely stand.

By highlighting 'teh stupid', they not only gracefully lose, but they also bring attention to the invalidity of the opoosition's arguements, most of which are as crass and anti-humanistic as the 'brief'.

If it's not that way, and Obama's got it in for gays, I'll apologize many times over. I want my friends to be able to marry too. But for now, after weighing some evidence, I will assume it's a feint, and a good one too. If it succeeds, the language thus defeated will be taken out of the mouths of the conservatives, who frankly originated it.

[solstice]

50. Obama is silent while the government compares being gay to incest. What ELSE do I need to know?

He lets the government that he is the head of villify gay people.

Not a peep out of him.

Why is that?

Don't feed me some "our government at work" bullshit. There was a PERSONAL anti-gay hateful - and purely gratuitous - framing of the DOMA defense.

And Obama let it happen!

There is NO excuse. NONE. And I honestly can't believe even the most diehard Obama groupies are defending him. What did you vote for him then, if you don't care that he's defending a pro-discrimination law?

[berni_mccoy]

52. Sure, Obama has time to read every DoJ brief. Right. And I'm sure it's as hateful as you are

portraying it.

[Seen the light]

118. Right, just like Bush had time to read every torture memo

OH WAIT, but he was still held accountable for what his underlings were doing was he not?

[katandmoon]

137. He sure knows about it now. Where is his response? ::: crickets :::

[QC]

62. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!11!!!1

[Name removed]

65. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bette Noir]

95. Mr. President has been kinda busy.

[Moonwalk]

174. About Obama being silent on this...

This just happened, what? Yesterday? We're way too used to wanting and getting knee-jerk reactions to everything and anything from our leaders. "This was said a minute ago, what do you say?" And then, "He said this thirty-seconds ago in response to what you said, what you do you say now?"

I seem to remember Obama making a very strong and clear statement to one reporter who was demanding just such a knee-jerk reaction from him that he didn't respond to anything until he had all the facts, and had them straight.

So, yes, I know you want him to respond to this right now or you will hate him forever, but I, personally, would rather not have another president bullied, bulldozed, and blindsided into making statements on anything too soon or too fast or immediately. Those are the statements that can come back and bite people in the ass.

If he makes no statement on it, then game on. But just because he hasn't presented, in public, the same instant, knee-jerk reaction as you on this brief, doesn't condemn him in my book. I want a president who actually takes time to read over what was said, find out out wrote it, why, who was in charge, how it happened, why it happened, etc., before they issue an informed statement on the topic. Who knows, maybe at this very moment he's looking into how to fire the people responsible, and THAT is why you haven't heard anything. That, to me, is a president who thinks and is working to do something, not a knee-jerk reactionary that's going to get us into stupid messes. Messes he could have seen coming if he had taken the time to read, think and be informed rather than rely on knee-jerks.

You can afford a knee-jerk reaction here on the internet. It costs you nothing to spill out your vitriol and emotions, under a pseudonym, in a post that will be pretty much gone in 48 hours. But what Obama says, on the news, going out around the world, can affect lives, laws, the future of our country...I'd rather HIS responses not be knee-jerk.

[QC]

292. Unless we count those cheap jokes, he hasn't said a word to us since the election.

The reaction that you are seeing has a lot to do with Obama's history with the gay community, which goes back a bit before yesterday and contains enough to give pause to anyone who is not a hopelessly giddy fan.

[Moonwalk]

340. I figured someone would call me on this by referring to Obama's "silence"...

...since the election. I'm only talking, however, about his silence on this brief, which is what this thread is about. If you start a thread on Obama's communication or lack-thereof with gays from election day on, then that's something else entirely and I'll happy side with you on the fact that he hasn't really had any such dialogue and should.

But I'm not going to lump the fact that we've haven't seen a knee-jerk reaction to this with Obama not saying enough or anything on gay rights. Like I said, I don't want to see a knee-jerk reaction from him to anything short of a shooting or 911 attack. A legal brief, however offensive or stupid, representing the stance of the U.S. government on anything needs a strong response, and I'd rather the President work out a good one, then a quick one which YOU and others can then tear apart for being not good enough.

[LostinVA]

370. The President is quick enough to release a backhanded PSA when a state legalizes gay marriage

You know, how he still believes in civil unions for teh gays, not marriage. His silence in the wake of this filth is deafening. Comparing gay couples who love one another to incestuous coupes and pedophilia is breath talking in its audacity of hate.

[DesertDiamond]

69. Whew! Thank you!! I knew this would be cleared up. Political Tiger, I thank you!

[redqueen]

73. K&R

Thank you very much.

[Phx_Dem]

76. I was aware of this, but thanks for posting it. It's too bad AmericaBlog

didn't think it was important to provide its readers with the actual facts from a legal standpoint. They claim to know whereof they speak because both John and Joe are lawyers but, clearly, their personal agenda is more important than providing their readers with actual facts. That's why I deleted their blog from my favorites list. It's not helpful for me to read blogs written by people that don't give me all the facts.

After DOMA has gone through the courts, Obama is going to ask Congress to repeal it. And I believe they will. But don't take my word for it, just wait and see what happens.

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. Don't muddy the lunacy with actual policy or details

As is obvious, some people on this board are sitting in a corner waiting to jump on Obama (even as a person) for anything. This episode fits their pre-existing narrative, so it plays out the way it will play out. If only these people had given Clinton half as much hell for signing the awful, craven, and unconstitutional DOMA in the first place. Hmmm, why would Bill Clinton want to sign that outrageous pseudo-law in September of 1996. I wonder.

Of course the Justice Department can't clear briefs within the President in ongoing litigation. I think Bush actually convinced a lot of progressives that the President IS and SHOULD BE a dictator.

[NY_CJ]

80. Stop making sense.

[MadBadger]

83. I understand the action of the DOJ, but I dont understand what Obama is Waiting for?

When is he going to begin the push for gay rights in this country? The start of the effort to Repeal of DADT and DOMA should happen soon so the DOJ doesnt in their minds have to defend a policy Obama considers abhorrent.

I'm not quite sure what Obama and Congress is waiting for...

[vaberella]

92. It's not Obama...more so Congress.

Obama has already stated he wants Congress to make a move on this. I'm sure you're aware that Obama and Pentagon clarified that Obama is working towards repealing these two laws...correct? So why would you say Obama is waiting...?

Not to mention...have you seen the politics on Health? Does it look like to you, that we'll get a health care bill passed by this summer or even this year? Actually does it even look to you as though anyone other than Obama/Dean and a few rare others are interested in health care reform for the American people? And be honest. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has promises he wants to fulfill and without doing so he'd lose the faith of the people as seems to be the case with you and so many of the people on this board. While on the other hand...most people ignore and forget that there is a division of power in US government. Where Obama has lost to the Senate in the past. There are people intentionally set on destroying him in Congress---in particular the Senate. If you pay attention to an inkling of the news you should be fully aware of that.

He's multi-tasking, but Congress runs on half a brain. So he's not about to push too many legislative bills on those idiots. To me that is functional especially if you want success. So far the first thing he hit was the economy while he worked on things like Gitmo, Gay rights, Womens rights and so on and so forth on the side lines. Now he's pushing the health care reform act and he's meeting even more resistance. You are aware that several Democrats have publicly announced that they would not vote for health care reform if there is a public option, correct?

Take that into consideration and then moving on several other important bills we won't get shit done. Also, I'm sure you're aware of the fools like Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman who stated that they would hold up every single bill that goes through by filibustering it until their bill is passed right?!

You should be aware of these things. He has fools holding the Senate for hostage, while on the other hand he has Dems who are intentionally fucking up Obama's good intentions and the lives of the American people. So do you think it's a good move to not only have the Health care bill out there but also LGBT bill at the same time when these people can't even agree on anything.

He wants to build as much of a following as he can for each important bill and so far for Obama he felt that the first priority for the massive work each entail (as in making townhall meetings and flying across the nation to get things done) he felt the economy and health care are first. However, I am very hopeful and do believe he will target LGBT rights next or at least 4th on the list.

Remember we hired him for 4 years. We should give him that time.

[Neecy]

320. please. just stop.

You sound like a ridiculous fanboy with these justifications.

First, Obama told us - and we expected - that he would LEAD on these issues. HE told us he'd be a 'fierce advocate'...not sit on his ass and blame Congress for doing nothing when he asks for nothing. I repeat - he's asked neither Congress nor the Joint Chiefs to begin work on repealing DADT. He's been SILENT. He's done zilch...zero...nada...nothing.

We have a Democratic Congress and you think a Democratic president couldn't get such a straightfoward bill through, especially one that has overwhelming public support? What planet do you live on?

[LostinVA]

372. I haven't seen much use of his self-proclaimed bully pulpit yet, either

[George II]

84. I've been wanting to post something like this for months, but don't have your articulation.....

.....thanks very much. Hopefully people around here will read it, not just for the specifics with regard to DOMA but with their attitude toward the Obama administration in general.

Sadly, very sadly, people feel the need to criticize and complain. I suspect this is a hangover from the eight years of the bush regime, but that's over - let's start looking at things positively! Unfortunately people are looking for things to change 100% in a few short months. There are lots of important things to accomplish, and the Obama administration has been attacking them at a faster pace than I think many thought possible. If things aren't dramatically different by the middle of next year (although they already are, though not completely) THEN people have a right to bitch. Until then, I hope they have a little patience!

[grantcart]

89. We are returning to a professional and independent Department of Justice

and not a partisan one.


This was one of the main campaign points we used against Bush.


We did not vote to replace our partisanship with theirs when it comes to the department of Justice.


Excellent post.

[katandmoon]

90. So what is Obama doing to overturn DOMA? DADT? NOT ONE FUCKING THING

What has he said in support of gays in light of HIS DOJ defending these laws in court?

NOT ONE FUCKING THING.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Oh, the outrage! You're so good at it. BTW, it's Congress' job to repeal Bubba's fuck-ups.

[katandmoon]

110. So what is Obama doing to counter the damage this brief has done in the gay community?

Not one fucking thing.

Yes, I'm outraged. I'm fucking outraged. Maybe you're not. Maybe it's perfectly OK with you that Obama is all talk and no action when it comes to gays, that he says absolutely nothing when his DOJ issues a brief like this. But is it NOT all right with me. And I will speak out about it. Just like I would if it were Bush's DOJ. Because as far as I'm concerned, it still is.

[ClarkUSA]

114. Always moving the red herring goalposts... always the LOUD outrage...lol!

[katandmoon]

134. WTF are you talking about? I haven't moved a fucking thing. The one moving the goalposts is Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

152. You tried and failed. All you do is attack Obama 24/7. Don't you ever get tired of it?

[katandmoon]

168. Nope!

[ronnykmarshall]

157. That's Clarky poo's favorite cop out ... uh responce.

Straw men and moving goal post. Same shit different thread.

[ClarkUSA]

162. Those are the favorite logical fallacies of those who attack anything and everything Obama.

Same sour grapes, different threads.

[ronnykmarshall]

178. Still waiting for you to produce how I ........

"have never given or never will give President Obama credit".

And please provide sour grapes from me as well since you're pulling that card out again. (With the exception of the President's current lack of support of gay rights of course.)

I still hope he'll come through on his promises but right now that hope is faded.

Please get back with your samples. I'll start reading "War and Peace" in the meantime.

[ClarkUSA]

182. Not sure what you're talking about, but whatever it is, I'm not interested in arguing with you.

[ronnykmarshall]

210. Good ol' cop out again .....

What a shocker.

[JimGinPA]

341. I Thought Making Fun Of Usernames Was Against The Rules Here

[LostinVA]

373. That's not mocking a username

Calling, for example, Retrolounge "Retroloser" would be (RL is a good busy of mine, so I use him as an example with love!). Calling me Lostiepoo wouldn't be. Or you Jimbo.

[donco6]

113. So Obama IS doing nothing.

Wonderful.

[ClarkUSA]

117. Do I smell sour grapes? I repeat: It's up to Congress to repeal DOMA.

[donco6]

128. I don't have any idea what you smell.

I just smell the pile of bullshit you're laying on the board here.

[ClarkUSA]

132. Sure you don't. lol! So to you, facts and the rule of law are "bullshit" eh?

The bullshit I smell beyond the odor of sour grapes are from the same folks who always try to scapegoat Pres. Obama for Bill Clinton's DOMA/DADT fuck-ups while ignoring the facts and rule of law.

[katandmoon]

135. Get back to us when Obama apologizes for his DOJ's offensive brief, 'K?

[ClarkUSA]

145. I'll do that when you apologize for your predictably nonsensical soundbites.

[donco6]

149. You're the one defending the indefensible.

Let's see you go first.

[ClarkUSA]

154. How so? I understand that Congress must repeal DOMA and DoJ must defend existing laws.

Obviously you don't and would rather create strawman arguments. Bitter is as bitter does.

[katandmoon]

165. When all else fails, trot out the BITTER argument.

[ClarkUSA]

177. It's not an argument, it's a fact.

[katandmoon]

164. My predictably nonsensical soundbytes don't affect millions of people. Obama's do.

[ClarkUSA]

186. lol! Please list Obama's "predictably nonsensical soundbytes" using quotes and links.

[katandmoon]

217. "I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate...

...for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/obama.warren/


That sure was a nice big steaming serving of bullshit from the future president.

[ClarkUSA]

219. How is this "nonsensical"? Do you have anything else?

And what proof do you have that it's "bullshit"? Other than your predictable Obama bashing soundbytes, of course.

[donco6]

143. The bullshit is your excusing of Obama's DOJ.

For using every RW theocratic argument against same-sex marriage to keep DOMA in place. You're fooling no one.

[Ms. Toad]

181. So, explain why Obama is so involved in

Health Care Reform? Isn't that up to Congress, too?

[Seen the light]

125. Then what exactly is Obama responsible for?

The biggest act of his presidency so far was when he was actively pushing for Congress to pass the bailout. If the POTUS wants something, he turns the heat up on Congress. Obama hasn't done jackshit with repealing DOMA. Why? Because he supports it and/or he's too much of a coward to push the tiniest little thing through that might cost him the homophobe vote. Either way it's pretty sad.

[katandmoon]

136. Exactly. Obama isn't a passive captive of congress's whims.

[donco6]

151. But . . . but . . . he CAN'T tell the DOJ what to do!

That's ILLEGAL.

Except when it isn't.

[ClarkUSA]

204. No one said he is. But Congressional focus is on healthcare reform and the energy bill this year.

[jberryhill]

256. He is not passive, but a captive of the law to some extent....

He can argue to change the law, but there are vast reaches of the US government which has a legal duty to uphold the law as written and to defend it if challenged.

Otherwise there could be no guarantee that any law meant anything under any particular president.

[AntiFascist]

389. "Captive of the Law"

It was California State Attorney Jerry Brown's responsibility to defend Proposition 8 once it got voted into law the day after the initiative passed. Instead, he chose to oppose it on very basic constitutional grounds, rather than kowtow to the right-wing in order to gain political favor. Obama is not so much a 'captive of the law' as he is a captive of his political fame and fortune.

[jberryhill]

440. I think you had best update yourself on Jerry Brown

There was a procedural challenge to implementation of Prop 8, which Brown supported.

Now that the CA Supreme Court has ruled, Brown's position is that implementation should not be suspended during the federal challenge:

http://www.tips-q.com/news/msm/1020712-schwarzenegger-brown-oppose-suspending-gay-marriage-ban

Schwarzenegger, Brown oppose suspending gay marriage ban
Submitted by NewsSystem on Fri, 06/12/2009 - 16:19

* SacBee -- Breaking News

California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are opposing an effort to lift the state's ban on same-sex marriage while a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 makes its way through the federal courts.


That's because Brown is a CA state official, and the CA Supreme Court has ruled. At this point, his duty is to CA law - a law with which he disagrees.

[AntiFascist]

447. I understand...

my point was that at the CA State level, Brown's function was to defend the laws of the state of California, much like the function of the DOJ at the federal level. Yet, he chose not to perform his function for an initiative that was turned into law for what he has deemed to be an unconstitutional law. This was not a political decision, it was based purely on his interpretation of the law. Now, he feels that his interpretation can be brought to the Federal level where he is supporting the lawsuit against Prop 8. He even has the support of Governor Schwarzeneggar.

Unfortunately the Obama administration is not as clear on their position over DOMA. While Obama has said he wants to work to overturn DOMA, his DOJ pick apparently has no problem vehemently defending it using right-wing arguments together with the financial excuse that a ban on gay marriage is in the nation's best interest. I don't want to hear any excuses that Obama or the DOJ official were not aware of this filing. If the "buck" does not stop with them, then they are simply being irresponsible.

[jberryhill]

448. The Prop 8 suit

Was over whether Prop 8 was procedurally correct as an amendment to the CA constitution. As an open question, Brown was free to take the position it was not. The CA Sup. Ct. decision is the final word on that particular question in CA, and he is a state officer.

The DoJ has independent functions regardless of whose "pick" is in it.

Do you remember Bush wanting his own DoJ to intervene in the 2008 Ohio voter registration issue, and his own DoJ refusing?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/ohio-vote-challenge-effort-hits-another-roadblock/

[AntiFascist]

449. I'm afraid your first statement is flat out WRONG...

in fact Brown argued that the initiative was a procedurally correct amendment to the constitution, but that it was simply an unconstitutional one based on the very basic precepts of inalienable rights to liberty and happiness. Although Brown did join with the opposition to Prop 8, he did not support the argument that it should be considered a Revision to the Constituton. Instead, he took a much stronger position that it was unconstitutional, amendment or otherwise.

[jberryhill]

450. Either way, it was, at that point, an open question /nt

[AntiFascist]

454. At that point Prop 8 WAS the law...

just as DOMA is now the law, unconstitutional as it may be.

On edit: there is no such thing as "an open question" when it comes to enforcing a law. When Prop 8 went into effect, gay marriages in California immediately stopped. While the CASC was considering questions about the legality of Prop 8, due to the lawsuits filed, it was still fully enforced.

[ClarkUSA]

159. Read the Constitution for clues.

Your false expectations aside, Pres. Obama has repeatedly and publicly said that healthcare reform & the energy bill are his top domestic priorities this year. You obviously weren't paying attention. And he has 3.5 more years left to his presidency, so your ranting is ridiculous. What's "pretty bad" is the intellectual dishonesty of some who insist on feigning outrage because of sour grapes.

[Seen the light]

189. Pretty sad that civil rights are way down the list of priorities

You're being naive though if you think he's actually going to push for a repeal, especially after this. Actions speak louder than words. Obama is the master of words, notsomuch on the action part.

[ClarkUSA]

199. That's your opinion. I disagree. He's always been clear on the importance of healthcare reform.

You're being naive though if you think he's actually going to push for a repeal, especially after this. Actions speak louder than words. Obama is the master of words, notsomuch on the action part.

I'm not the one who's naive enough to have false expectations: Pres. Obama never promised to repeal DOMA in his first year. As for actions, unbiased and learned observers have noted he's done more than any other president in his first 100 days since FDR. You're entitled to your opinions, even if they're objectively wrong.

[Seen the light]

202. "Pres. Obama never promised to repeal DOMA in his first year"

So? Bush never promised not to do the bullshit he pulled either, didn't stop me from complaining about it then. The whole "but...but...but...he never promised to do that!" argument is the lamest one on DU. Talk about a fallacy.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

208. Apples and oranges. Your attempt to tangentially link Obama with Bush "bullshit" is revealing.

[Seen the light]

227. How so?

I think it's sad that if that exact memo had been written five years ago under a Bush DoJ then they would have been raked through the coals (and deservedly so!) yet because it's Obama it's being met with a collective yawn with a great number of posters here. That's basically been my point throughout all this.

[ClarkUSA]

230. You did it again. Hypotheticals that are unrelated to reality are not relevant to this issue.

The DoJ memo did not contain anything but case law to support existing law which Bubba signed way back when. That's what DoJ does: support the law of the land. If you have a problem with that, then you're not happy with a DoJ that follows the rule of law.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sojourner]

91. a pleasure to read! -- recommended!

[unpossibles]

97. Actually, I agree.

The White House does not write or repeal laws (or at least, they aren't supposed to), so it really falls upon Congress to do this. The Executive Branch is supposed to execute laws which have passed, not selectively ignore the laws they disagree with. Frankly, I could not stand when Bush did this, so it would be hypocritical of me to want Obama to ignore the law, even the bigoted and stupid ones which make no sense.

[4lbs]

104. Why are defendants mandated an adequate defense by the US Constitution?

Even a (suspected) murderer is allowed a defense, and his lawyer must present the best one he can. It doesn't matter if the defending lawyer thinks the defendant is a big steaming pile of crap that actually deserves to go to prison, he or she must defend him to the best of his or her ability.

Why did the DOJ lawyers defend DOMA and also DADT? Because they had to. They were the lawyers in the federal justice department defending a federal law.

They likely think that DOMA and DADT are steaming piles of crap as laws, but they must, read *MUST*, defend them as best they can.

Just like the DOJ *must* defend the Patriot Act, and FISA warrants. The lawyers doing the defending and the administration that put them there may not personally agree with those laws, but as federal employees, they *must* defend those federal laws in court as best as possible.

To not do so is to shirk their responsibility as federal lawyers under the US Constitution.

Blast Congress as much as you can to pass new laws (you know, by the legislative process) that eliminate or repeal DOMA, DADT, the Patriot Act, and FISA warrants.

[madrchsod]

107. we had 8 yrs of the a government who was above the law

they decided what would be enforced and would not be enforced. decisions were not based on the law or what would benefit the public but on their political gain.

so now we are to do the same ?

[lamp_shade]

108. This is a MUST READ post, tho there are some here who will refuse to read it. Sad.

[donco6]

111. Oh, I see. Obama has nothing to say about DOJ.

Except when he wants to.

Obama’s DOJ defies federal judge

(Obama personally intervened)

Late on Friday, the Justice Department’s lawyers filed a brief with a federal district court in California challenging the court’s power to carry out its own order.

The government lawyers insisted that the court has no right to make available to the opposing lawyers in the case a classified document regarding the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, even though the document is critical to the lawsuit, the lawyers can obtain the necessary top-secret security clearances, and the document would not be released publicly.

http://newmexicoindependent.com/20218/obamas-doj-defies-federal-judge



Obama Justice Department Decision Will Allow Non-Citizens to Register to Vote in Georgia

(Obama personally intervened)

Atlanta - “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.

“DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.

http://www.sos.ga.gov/pressrel/2009_releases/June/20090601Obama%20Justice%20Department%20Decision%20Will%20Allow%20Non-Citizens%20to%20Register%20to%20Vote%20in%20Georgia.htm

Obama's Justice Department Moves to Squash NSA Spying Suits

EFF attorney Kevin Bankston told Salon: "This is the first time claimed sovereign immunity against Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims. In other words, the administration is arguing that the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes, whether FISA, the Wiretap Act or the SCA."

In their motion to dismiss, DoJ attorneys--like their predecessors--argue on Page 13 of the Government's brief that "An assertion of the state secretes privilege "must be accorded the 'utmost deference' and the court's review of the claim of privilege is narrow." Kasza, 133 F.3d at 1166; see also Al-Haramain, 507 F3d at 1203 ('e acknowledge the need to defer to the Executive on matters of foreign policy and national security and surely cannot legitimately find ourselves second guessing the Executive in this arena')."




And so on and so on.

It seems to me that Obama "owns" the DOJ when he wants to, but somehow has an entire cadre of people right here who work to distance him from it when it's politically expedient.

[ClarkUSA]

121. Where's the proof that Pres. Obama "personally intervened"? You offer none. Opinions don't count.

The OP's sourced links make it clear that President Obama did not personally approve the DoJ brief nor could he have been involved in its preparation. The DoJ was following the rule of law in upholding Bubba's fuck-up against a case filed against DOMA. Unless there is a new law approved by Congress, all challenges to DOMA will be defended by the DoJ. President Obama has NO say in DoJ affairs.

[donco6]

127. Of Course He Doesn't. (Except when he does).

You don't really expect people to believe that bullshit, do you?

[ClarkUSA]

129. Ah, I see. Your sour grapes opinion trumps the facts and laws contained in the OP.

I repeat: By law, the DoJ does NOT communicate w/Pres. Obama on cases.

[donco6]

146. Except when it does.

As is obvious in many instances already in his short term.

[ClarkUSA]

163. Proof? Quotes? Sourced links? So far, you haven't provided any. Opinions are not facts.

[readmoreoften]

265. You can't prove a negative. Obama has not publicly decried the stance of the DOJ.

It's called tacit support.

[Skittles]

150. correct

[kenny blankenship]

120. Exactly! Up is Down!

Now where did I hear that before?

[depakid]

123. "where did I hear that before?"

From the same crowd, wearing different shirts, who told us all that torture was cool- and that it worked.

[LostinVA]

191. +1

[cliffordu]

124. Thanks for a calm, well reasoned FACTUAL response to this issue.

[grantcart]

300. Bullshit

(just didn't want you to think that you were being ignored)

[cliffordu]

322. Blow it out your ginormous hiney, Ya wanker.

:rofl:

Really had me going for a minute there.....

[Hekate]

130. KnR. Political Tiger, many thanks for this intelligent input. Obama is neither Jesus nor Judas...

I have a very strong feeling that the governmental, Constitutional, and political wheels are simply grinding along at their allotted pace while profound emotional reactions are going off like firecrackers all around.

In my observation so far Obama has been pretty faithful to his campaign promises and to his character as we know it. Neither Jesus nor Judas, just the guy we elected to clean up a hellacious mess and do the job we elected him to do.

I hope he has enough time, is all.

Hekate

[JerseygirlCT]

142. Thanks for that. nt

[firedupdem]

144. Rec'd and thanks n/t

[Umbral]

147. If anyone thinks Obama will get away with postponing the issue of equal rights for homosexuals...

until his second term, they'd better think again.

[BuyingThyme]

160. I don't understand this post.

Is the point of the post to claim that the Office of the Counsel to the President is not the office of the counsel to the President?

[QC]

169. You're not supposed to understand the post, just to be reassured by it.

"It certainly looked like a man I admire beyond all reason did something hateful, but that turns out not to be true. Thank goodness!"

[BuyingThyme]

172. I would really like to know what the poster is thinking here.

It's as if he or she is trying to draw a line between the President and the President's counsel as if we don't really need a president as long as there's counsel.

[QC]

196. Thinking? n/t

[Political Tiger]

339. I think the post is self explanatory.

It's really not complicated at all.

[glitch]

200. I think it's sarcasm.

The innocently smiling kind. Sometimes it's hard to tell until you get to know a poster (look at how often people misunderstand you ;)).

Either that or the poster is very young and still hopeful, which just makes me sad.

[BuyingThyme]

203. Oh, thanks.

But I'm pretty sure everybody understands me. And agrees.

[glitch]

212. ?

I was talking to QC who posts cryptic orwellian one liners, often taken seriously.

[BuyingThyme]

213. Oh, sorry.

Must have gotten crossed up.

[glitch]

215. de nada.

I would never want you to think I was insulting you, that's all. :hi:

[readmoreoften]

247. BINGO. It's a load of shit. /nt

[Patsy Stone]

198. This is the about the DoJ,

a federal agency (http://www.usdoj.gov/), more than the Counsel to the President, who act as the President's personal lawyers.

http://lostintransition.nationaljournal.com/2009/01/white-house-consels-office-tak.php

I didn't see that the DoJ discussed this with them, but maybe they did.

[BuyingThyme]

218. The Counsel to the President does not act as personal counsel to the President.

You've got it backwards.

[Patsy Stone]

222. On edit:

My bad, they are not the personal lawyer to the President. But they are also not the DoJ who filed this case. I think what I read in OP was that the DoJ might or might not notify the Counsel. I just didn't think they had, but as I said, I could be wrong. It's happened before -- in fact, right here.

[BuyingThyme]

228. These people are members of the Justice Department.

They are not personal legal counsel.

[Patsy Stone]

229. I edited my post

Thanks. And Google is my friend.

[jberryhill]

260. What you do not understand is the different functions of different offices of the DoJ

[BuyingThyme]

301. For instance...

[Political Tiger]

338. Since such a claim was never made the obvious answer is NO. n/t

[av8rdave]

170. Thanks for posting this. Your post brings up something else worth mentioning

This case highlights one of the really important differences between the Obama and Bush administrations. Bush was harshly criticized (rightly so!) for politicizing the DOJ. This situation is an example of President Obama's administration doing it the way it's supposed to be done!

[av8rdave]

171. Thanks for posting this. Your post brings up something else worth mentioning

This case highlights one of the really important differences between the Obama and Bush administrations. Bush was harshly criticized (rightly so!) for politicizing the DOJ. This situation is an example of President Obama's administration doing it the way it's supposed to be done!

[keepCAblue]

176. Too bad there is not a way to UNrecommend a post...n/t

[glitch]

184. DU is working on it. Can't wait. nt

[jenmito]

180. YES! I FINALLY got to be the 79th person to recommend a thread!

Thanks for the facts. :hi:

[Lisa0825]

183. I hope this is true. I hope he'll come through on this issue soon.

I hate that my friends are still waiting to be considered equal.

[defendandprotect]

192. In America, the rule of laws should be EQUALITY FOR ALL . . .

Most of our courts have spoken to the need to end discrimination against

homosexuals . . . why isn't Obama doing the same?


And, sadly, last I was aware, Obama delivered a smug and inane put-down of gay marriage

according to his personal religious beliefs. Well his stupid patriarchal religious

beliefs are just that -- and have no bearing on our Constiutional and civil liberties!


Obama should not only be speaking out personally FOR gay marriage --

but as leader of the nation and Democrats, he should be giving leadership to

overturning DOMA!!!


Obama has so far only delivered stale and tired religious prejudice on this subject . . .

sad to say!

[glitch]

194. Let's say the DOJ had to defend DOMA, did they have to defend it by eguating gays with pediphiles?

Of course not, hence the outrage.

However, the defense of DOMA didn't require filing a brief for dismissal, let alone an egregious one.

Educate yourself.

[defendandprotect]

201. DOJ did what . . . ???? Obama better get busy on refilling those "Bush loyalIsts" posts . . .

with Democrats --

IF HE'S INTERESTED IN JUSTICE COMING OUT OF THE DOJ!

[LostinVA]

330. And to incest

[mr1956]

209. There is outrage at the "disgusting language" in the brief

Some posters have stated that it equates gays to pedophiles, child rapists and engaging in incestuous relationships. I've read the brief and I didn't see any such language.

I'm curious to know if the outrage is based on a reading on the brief or if people are reacting to someone else's interpretation of it.

[ClarkUSA]

216. The false interpretation came from a blogger whose misleading words were posted all over DU.

"For the record: Obama DID NOT compare Gay marriage to Incest": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8468339&mesg_id=8468339

[readmoreoften]

262. No. The DOJ did. /nt

[ClarkUSA]

286. Really? Show me where they did that. Link to a quote from the brief.

[LostinVA]

377. The brief most certainly DOES say all tose things -- I read all 54 pages

And, the section stating this, has been posted many times on here during the last day. It is plain as day.

It also says that gays shouldn't be allowed to be judged by Loving vs. Virginia, because gay people can be discriminated against. Because of being like rapists and incetous couples.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

223. Kudos, PT, and thank you

for taking the time and expending the energy to lay out a beautifully reasoned and researched explanation of what happened.

I am consistently surprised and saddened by the lack of knowledge of how our government works among the good folks of DU, but what is more disturbing is how quickly people jump to blame Obama, as if he'd co-authored the brief and signed off on it. Somehow, people have the idea that the DOJ does what the White House tells them to do.

Some Civics classes are in order.

Thank you again for this absolutely necessary and enlightening post.

You did good................

[nichomachus]

224. I was wondering how long before we'd see this kind of trash

Blah blah blah

All we've heard from the Obama crowd since election day is one bullshit excuse after another for each disgusting thing he's done. Sorry, they don't work any more.

He's a liar and has stabbed us in the back.

[GeorgeGist]

233. You make the case for Obama to remain neutral in the case against DOMA.

Fortunately, the same case can be made for Obama to maintain neutrality on the case against TORTURE.

[Autumn]

234. Can you clear up a question I have

The guy who wrote this brief was a bush holdover as I understand it. Can President Obama legally get rid of these guys?

[Ms. Toad]

235. There is a difference between providing a defense

and taking specific actions in providing that defense, such as filing a motion to dismiss.

Generally, you are correct that the DOJ is required to defend existing laws (although there are exceptions).

What was done in this case went beyond meeting its legal obligations.

A motion to dismiss is always optional, but is often filed in part to raise defenses that are waived if not made before the responsive pleading. None of those "raise or waive" defenses are the ones that I am angry about. Although I do not agree that this motion was legally required, I have no particular objection to its filing to avoid waiving defenses which are waived if they are not made at this time.

This motion to dismiss, puts the Court on notice of the "raise or waive" defenses, but also requests the Court to preempt a full and vigorous argument on the merits of the matter.

For what it is worth, I do not find the reciprocol recognition of marriage arguments offensive (the ones being characterized as comparing being gay to incest and pedophilia), although I disagree that it was required, or even appropriate, to raise these arguments at this time.

Those arguments are essentially the only legally valid substantive basis for a state to refuse to recognize marriages performed in another state (one portion of the statute purports to permit states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in another state). The only reason states can refuse to recognize marriages performed by another state is that recognizing the marriage would violate the strong public policy of the recognizing state. States have drawn different lines as to what degree of relationship between a couple is acceptable for parties entering a marriage (first cousins, second cousins, Aunt-nephew, etc.). In cases decided generally 4 or more decades ago states which barred marriage of first cousins, for example, were permitted to refuse to recognize a marriage between cousins which was legally valid in the state in which it was entered into. Similarly, the age of consent varies from state to state, some states permit marriage at 16, for example, others require one or both parties to be 18. A state that has decided that 18 is the minimum age permitted for marriage could conceivably refuse to recognize a marriage between a 17 and 18 year old performed in a neighboring state where marriage was permitted at age 16 - pedophilia is not the label I would apply to this situation. Again, in cases decided generally 4 or more decades ago, states were permitted to refuse to recognize marriages based on the strong public policy of the recognizing state. (I do want to go back and research current law - I thought relationship and age were decided not to be sufficiently strong reasons to refuse to recognize marriages - but I suspect my memory is wrong and statutes remaining on the books are just no longer being enforced rather than having actually been overruled.)

As a substantive matter, however, there would need to a factual exploration into whether laws barring recognition of a same gender relationship in one state fall into that category of marriages where the interest is so strong that refusing to recognize a marriage performed elsewhere is constitutionally peritted. That is not an exploration that can be done via a motion to dismiss, or probably not even via a motion for summary judgment, so while the argument may ultimately need to be made it was unnecessary and inflammatory at this stage.

What I am angry about is that the motion to dismiss went beyond what was required to provide an defense to the point of including an argument which was not required at this stage (no waiver of defenses would apply had it not been made), which was not even appropriate at this stage because it requires the Court to go beyond the pleadings to resolve (a motion to dismiss must be able to be decided without going beyond the pleadings), might not even have been appropriate for later dispositive motions (which are allowed to be resolved if there is no dispute of material facts), was not legally necessary because there are other less inflammatory ways of satisfying the standard of review requirement, and should not ever have been made because of all of the above. That argument is essentially that discrimination is just fine because the government benefits economically from it.

That argument is offensive, was not required either substantively or procedurally, and should not have been made.

As to whether there is an effort by President Obama or the Obama Administration to deny gay people anything, or to defend DOMA, well I think his record speaks for itself.

At a minimum, the fierce advocacy he declared for our rights when he was courting our vote has failed to result in a request to Congress to repeal DOMA or DADT (in contrast to his advocacy in congress and in public for any number of other issues), his actual retreat on his commitment to repeal DADT, and his failure to reach out to GLBT advocates (except in response to our outrage at Rick Warren) - which is in marked contrast to his overtures to individuals and groups who would keep us oppressed.

[ruggerson]

236. Dear Ms. Toad

Yours is by far the most intelligent response in this thread.

Would you do us all a huge favor and make it into an OP?

[Ms. Toad]

238. Thank you

I'll think about making it an OP - I'm about to head out, so I don't want to make it hit and run OP.

[Duncan Grant]

254. I'd like to 2nd that motion. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

239. Laurence Tribe on the DOMA brief

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5832231&mesg_id=5838074

[Ms. Toad]

264. Nothing in there contradicts anything I said.

[ClarkUSA]

267. Unlike you, Tribe doesn't see anything wrong with what the DoJ did.

[Ms. Toad]

271. So?

As I said, nothing in his comments contradict anything I said. Legal minds are allowed to differ.

And, for what it's worth, I do agree with his assessment that this was a bad case for opponents of DOMA to bring and I have been urging people to hold off filing cases that might make it to the Supreme Court because creating bad law (which this case very well may do) will much harder to undo than defeating no SC precedence when there are more states that recognize marriage.

[ClarkUSA]

274. So it's instructive to note that a great legal mind like Tribe feels that DoJ did nothing wrong.

The motion to dismiss was nothing unusual. Not sure why you're making a big deal out of it.

[Ms. Toad]

344. Because some of the content

of this particular motion to dismiss was offensive, unnecessary, and inappropriate.

I don't happen to believe it is ever appropriate to justify discrimination on the basis that it economically benefits the government, and given the context of the administration's commitment to change and economic justice it is particularly offensive.

If you don't understand that, then you're working pretty hard at being dense.

[ClarkUSA]

396. You're entitled to your opinion. However there is nothing legally amiss w/the DoJ motion to dismiss.

[Ms. Toad]

402. It is really nice you feel you need to respond to arguments

I have not made.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

242. You are confusing substantive law with procedural law,

and if you don't understand the procedural law - which you clearly do not - then the substantive law is immaterial.

I think your failure to grasp the meaning of the DOJ brief filed - the one that does not mention pedophilia or incest, in spite of the raging rumors abounding - is a standard, run-of-the-mill brief, the kind that's filed by the thousands by the DOJ, and if you honestly think that Obama had any hand in this or even took note of it, your understanding of how government works isn't even flawed - it's just nonexistent.

Again, read the Rules of Civil Procedure, and then you might follow that up with the DOJ Rules of Practice.

[Ms. Toad]

257. You can go take a read yourself

I most certainly do understand the meaning of the brief filed, and the difference between substance and procedural law; your comments here and above indicate that perhaps you do not understand the difference between substantive law, procedural law, court rules, and the applicable codes of ethics, and the interplay between them.

As a start, you might at least read the portion of the brief which expressly discusses the merits of the case - although that is not the only place where substantive law is addressed.

Did I ever say, anywhere, that Obama had a hand in it or took note of it?

[readmoreoften]

261. They won't bother to read your analysis. They don't want analysis. They want power.

Obama is some sort of metonym for their own personal power. Call his administration out on their right wing slant and they'll take it as a personal attack instead of a situation they need to fight in order to rebuild the Democratic Party and the US as a whole. But thank you for your analysis.

The minimum that can be done is that Obama supporters try to push his administration to the left, towards corrective action on the myriad RW atrocities. Those who won't do this are stone cold reactionaries.

[Laughing Mirror]

304. "discrimination is just fine because the government benefits economically from it"

Yes, that's the gist of it. And a pretty damning statement it is in this motion. What's shocking to me is that they come right and out and say it. As if it's a perfectly acceptable position to take.

Mind boggling for sure.

[HamdenRice]

345. I thought the worst part of the argument ...and I'd like your thoughts on this...

was that the rational relationship test was the right test to use.

[Ms. Toad]

353. I would argue that it should be intermediate scrutiny.

Virginia v. Loving was a case in which the law equally applied to both races. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that it should only apply the rational basis test to anti-miscegenation laws because of the equal application to all races. The basis for its rejection rejection was that the law was premised on racial classification, and was therefore subject to strict scrutiny. Using the same reasoning, this law is based on gender classification, which is subject to intermediate scrutiny. (And if we'd passed the ERA, it would be strict scrutiny.)

I suspect the current Supreme Court will apply the rational basis test when the case gets there, and it would be difficult for anyone whose job it is to argue that the law is constitutional to justify not making the argument at lest that the proper test is rational basis. My objection is to the offensive posture (on a matter that should not be decided on a motion to dismiss) and the offensive (in a different sense of the word) to the particular justification they chose to use to satisfy the rational basis.

[HamdenRice]

393. That is the test I think should be applied also

I was puzzled that they applied the rational relationship test, and it seemed to me that applying the rational relationship would actually make a future full on frontal attack on marriage inequality more difficult. The state courts have applied intermediate scrutiny, except for Massachusetts (rational relationship) and California (strict scrutiny).

I was kind of shocked that in light of Lawrence v. Texas, the DOJ did not go into court and say, even though we are defending DOMA, we are balancing privacy/marriage/semi strict scrutiny rights against the federal interest.

[Ms. Toad]

416. State courts are a different matter

State constitutions are similar to the Federal constitution as it comes to reviewing laws, but not identical since the protected classes/fundamental rights are not identical. Californa determined that marriage was a fundamental right, which bumped up its level of scrutiny. I haven't paid a lot of attention to the various state decisions because they are all based on state law, and the standard of review won't necessarily be the same.

You are correct that it would make challenging either state or federal laws more difficult if the Supreme Court hears this case and declares that the appropriate standard of review is the rational basis test. That's one of the reasons our family hasn't filed it own case - which is more solid from a legal basis than the California case. (We're legally married, Ohio doesn't recognize our marriage, and my spouse was not allowed to adopt our daughter solely on the basis that our marriage is not recognized - so we actually have been harmed by DOMA (part of the basis for the motion to dismiss the CA case was lack of harm to the plaintiffs)) We have been urging everyone to wait until there is a Supreme Court more inclined be balanced in its review of the matter - which might make a difference as to which scrutiny level is applied.

[Zenlitened]

414. EXCELLENT post.

I think you've shown --very clearly-- that efforts to explain this away as a mere procedural matter miss the mark in some very profound ways.

[Ms. Toad]

436. Thanks you n/t

[Naponic]

245. Practical Info & Keep the Faith

Good, practical information. More than simply acquiescing to procedural compliance, however, let's also exercise a little bit of conservative (small "c") self-discipline.

Too many of us are accustomed to listening to bad lawyers practicing punditry on cable shows and confuse -- at best -- perfectly legitimate, if sometimes unpopular, legal judgments layered with complexity, on the one had, with "policy," on the other. Political and social philosophy are not the "bricks and mortar" of lot of litigation.

Now, in Bush World, the DOJ would act -- or fail to act -- only on the ideological "merit" of an issue like this. Problem with that, of course, is that lawyers then working in (ostensibly) the highest levels of public service had to be willing toadies either to not care, or not know, what their responsibilities were to the law.

Keep faith. And don't be seduced by hyperbole about an issue like this. Things are changing.

[jberryhill]

248. You are a homophobe and bigot defending the "indefensible"

Sorry, but I've been told this repeatedly this week for discussing the functions of the Office of Solicitor General.

Unless you believe that each president has a right to edit the entire US Code, then you are a bigot. End of story.

[Number23]

266. You may already know this, but the OP has identified himself repeatedly as a gay man.

[jberryhill]

307. So - it has been declared on DU this is "indefensible" - he must be self hating

Counsel to Sen. McCarthy, Roy Cohn, was also gay. He was also a fascist enabler who helped McCarthy go after not only alleged Communists, but homosexuals. What of it?

I've learned in the last few days that anyone who tries to explain what is going on here is a liar and gay hater. Get with the program.

[readmoreoften]

270. Yes, you probably are, but I'll leave you to pass judgement on yourself.

Obviously this is not "Obama" but Obama's DOJ. If he disagrees with the ruling, it is up to him to decry it. Until he does, he is tacitly responsible. He is responsible for his own silence. The DOJ was not beholden to defend DOMA. The DOJ does not exist to rubber stamp unconstitutional laws.

If he doesn't want to spend "political capital" being the "fierce advocate" he claimed to be, that's fine. But that choice comes with consequences, and the consequence is that he has lost our support.

[ZombieHorde]

252. Does the rule of law matter on the subject of wiretapping and war crimes?

[jberryhill]

263. Do you understand the different posture when the government is prosecutor or defendant?

Your point is that because the government defends itself when it is sued, then the government is required to prosecute any perceived violation of law regardless of the likelihood of securing a conviction against express statutory defenses.

I don't understand the logic, and perhaps missed something. Can you explain the connection between defending challenges and prosecuting offenses, and why the government's position is somehow the "same" in both instances?

[ZombieHorde]

269. I don't understand the answer you provided to my question. nt

[jberryhill]

277. I'm not surprised /nt

[ZombieHorde]

278. Why not? nt

[jberryhill]

279. Because the supposed "contradiction"

Between the government not prosecuting every perceived crime, and the government defending challenges to the law, has been repeated over and over again in discussions of this topic.

They are two different functions, and there is no contradiction, but not everyone is going to understand that.

[ZombieHorde]

280. I see a government which is quick to remember the laws when they are used to oppress gay people

but quick to turn a blind eye to war crimes.

If the government can turn a blind eye to war crimes, why not DADT?

[jberryhill]

285. Could You Please Identify the Case..

In which someone is challenging the legality of anti-torture laws?

As I said, you don't seem to understand the difference between the government being the defendant, and the government being the prosecutor.

If someone were to challenge the constitutionality of anti-torture laws, the Office of Solicitor General would defend that case, and would be required to defend that case.

The criminal division of the DoJ is not required to prosecute every crime.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

[ZombieHorde]

290. I am talking about the government as a whole.

The criminal division of the DoJ is not required to prosecute every crime.

If you see a small child being raped in the streets, you are not required to help the child.

As I said, you don't seem to understand the difference between the government being the defendant, and the government being the prosecutor.

This difference only exists on paper. The U.S. government is acting unethically and treating people inconsistently. Slavery was once legal here in the U.S., but it was still unethical.

[jberryhill]

303. Another thing that is unethical...

Would be to have each president decide what laws are going to be defended under that administration, and which ones are not.

If your point is that the "government as a whole" is a unitary organism charged with "doing good things", defined as "whatever I agree with", the long term results of that sort of arrangement are historically not good.


The U.S. government is acting unethically and treating people inconsistently.


Oh, okay, I get it. Not recognizing gender equality in marriage would be okay, as long as the government aggressively goes after anyone accused of a crime.

But, yes you are correct, the US system of government and law exists "on paper", and would be much better off without writing things down like that, so that the government would consist of "going with your gut" in any given situation.

[ZombieHorde]

308. "sort of arrangement are historically not good"

Which arrangements are historically good?

I get it. Not recognizing gender equality in marriage would be okay, as long as the government aggressively goes after anyone accused of a crime.

No, not recognizing gender equality in marriage would be OK if there was no marriage.

But, yes you are correct, the US system of government and law exists "on paper", and would be much better off without writing things down like that, so that the government would consist of "going with your gut" in any given situation.

All these straw men are tiring, I was clearly speaking about ethics.

[jberryhill]

312. You want to talk about ethics?

Okay, here's ethics:

1. Laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. All of those people are ostensibly elected by the people of the US for the purpose of making laws and enforcing them. Those laws remain the law of the US whether or not a subsequent president likes them, supports them, or whatever.

2. When someone challenges the constitutionality of one of those laws, there is an office in the Dept. of Justice which is staffed by lawyers whose duty it is to defend those laws.

3. Those lawyers do not have Barack Obama as their client. Their client is the US as defined by the result of the actions described in point 1.

I mean, sure, we have this whole system of enacting laws by electing representatives into a legislature and a president to sign and enforce them, but I suppose that some variety of "ethics" requires the DoJ to substitute the views of some civil service lawyers in the OSG for the law of the US when it results in something they personally deem "unfair".

Alternatively, one believes this system has a way of working. Oddly, the trajectory of civil rights in the US has been pretty much in the direction of expansion, in no small part due to reliance on this crazy system we have, and the assumption that people will ethically carry out their various roles in it.

[ZombieHorde]

315. According to your personal ethics, should war crimes be brought to trial?

My ethics say, "yes."

[jberryhill]

317. Shocker - so do mine

Ummm.. yeah... I'm a big war crimes supporter, I suppose.

[ZombieHorde]

319. What is with you and straw men?

[readmoreoften]

255. This has already been widely debunked. Proves people will rec anything that eases their minds.

Sorry, your post is laughable. The DOJ's job is not to uphold illegal/unconstitutional laws. And upholding illegal/unconstitutional laws has nothing to do with being "impartial." Obama's DOJ argued that DOMA is legal and unconstitutional. It did not *have* to do that. If he is opposed to what his DOJ has done, then let him publicly state that that is the case.

You're not smarter than the ACLU. Do you think they don't have lawyers?

At the end of the day, all this shows is how far people will go to justify inequality and social violence (and, yeah, it's state psychological violence) so that they can go through life without cognitive dissonance.

FAIL.

[Number23]

258. PT, in the two seconds it took me to rec this you got four more recs

At my posting, up to 106 recs. You should be proud. I appreciate you and your courage in this matter.

[ruggerson]

272. "Courage"

Anti-marriage equality bigots often use the phrase when they laud each other and slap each other on the back for standing up for "traditional marriage."

Personally, I don't see "courage" in twisting legal arguments to use against a disenfranchised minority.

I do see "cowardice," however.

I anticipate you will disagree with me.

[Number23]

276. Political Tiger is gay, ruggerson

He would appear to have the same dog in this fight as you do. And I personally believe it took courage for him to put this OP together and post it knowing the response he was bound to get here.

[ruggerson]

282. Whether he's gay or not is irrelevant

my point is that it doesn't take "courage" to defend the status quo when a group of citizens is being deprived of its fundamental access to the laws of the land.

I don't find Clarence Thomas "courageous" either when he argues against affirmative action (amongst many other things.)

[Number23]

289. I have seen no evidence that PT's post can even be remotely compared to Clarence Thomas

But we've already established that I vehemently disagree with some of your "comparisons."

I've said my peace.

[ruggerson]

291. PT has not responded to post 18 in this thread

"In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v. Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

Nor has he responded to Ms Toad's thoughtful reply in post 235.

Nor has he responded to the general argument that Loving and other decisions could have provided the DOJ with plenty of ammunition either to not defend the case at all, or, at the very least, to only defend it on narrow grounds.

There is no "courage" involved here. The people seeking to keep DOMA intact are not courageous. The courageous ones are the ones seeking to abolish it.

Speaking truth to power requires courage. Defending blatantly unconstitutional statutes does not.

[Number23]

302. There has also been no indication that the OP or anyone on this site wants to keep DOMA

The people seeking to keep DOMA intact are not courageous.

You are misrepresenting this man's entire OP. Why, I simply could not even begin to tell you.

And why you're arguing with ME and there have been 100 other people, literally ONE HUNDRED others who support PT's OP is also another question.

[ruggerson]

305. Um, I wasn't referring to PT in that instance

The people seeking to keep DOMA intact in this instance are the DOJ attorneys. PT's post merely defends their non-courageous decision, which, in and of itself, is bad enough.

I'm conversing with you because you are an intelligent human being and I wonder why you see this as an excuse to bash Obama. I would love nothing more than to praise Obama to the heavens on this issue, if and when he actually does something constructive instead of destructive. When he does, I will be the first to publicly laud him. Like I've told you before, I suspect that you take great pride, understandably so, in Obama's election (as do many of us) and that sometimes clouds your vision on issues like this, where, if it were George Bush doing it, you would not be defending it at all.

[Number23]

311. And what if I told you that I think something is clouding your vision?

Would you consider that helpful? I would wager not.

My vision is uncloudy. I have seen alot and I would wager from far more numerous and varied vantage points than you have. I am not even a Democrat. I am an independent, and one of the reasons I am not a Democrat is because I have not liked the way that the Democratic Party has treated minority groups, particularly people of color. Edit to add: I am a Dem-leaning independent.

They are all too happy to have our votes and stand in black churches when they need to look "down with the community" but there have been far too many instances of back-tracking, double talk etc. on policy issues that have discouraged me and many of my black friends and family members.

I too am confused by the Obama administration on this. Perhaps, you should uncloud YOUR eyes and realize that many of what you call "defenses" on this issue are people trying to figure out the correct place to put the blame. I am baffled by this! But the only thing that I DO know is that no one is saying that DOMA should not be repealed. If that happens on Obama's watch, I will be one of the first people to celebrate it even though there's no way in hell I would do it here.

And post #296, that's one of your "friends" right?? And you wonder why so many black people on this site don't even bother trying to communicate, even when sincerely approached?? Everything we say is dismissed or deliberately mischaracterized, so what's the damn point? Our feelings are ALWAYS thrown away. ALWAYS minimized, and frequently by groups who are the quickest to say that they can't understand why they can't get along better with us. But I will tell you this, though. That poster has gotten more private "fuck you's" from the black posters on DU than just about anyone else I can name. And I'm all too happy to add mine to the list.

[bliss_eternal]

355. really...i'm sincerely surprised to hear this.

i thought you would see this differently. :(
weren't you the guy that created the thread in glbt specifically asking glbt's of color for their opinions?

are you no longer interested in a glbt of color's opinion, if it differs from your own?

[ruggerson]

360. His race has no bearing (or shouldn't) on this

I disagree with his OP. I don't know, nor care, what race he is. It's irrelevant.

[bliss_eternal]

363. wow. really? ok....

...i just thought you were the guy that was interested in building bridges between communities. i would think a mere difference of opinion expressed by someone that is glbt, wouldn't be a big deal to someone possessing the ability to reach out in such a generous manner.

you expressed such concern for how difficult it is for the glbt's of color (i was sincerely touched by that). being wedged by two cultures....

wait....i'm sorry, i shouldn't presume...am i mistaken or confused? am i mixing you up w/someone else? i'm really sorry if this is the case.

[ruggerson]

367. I repeat: I disagree with his analysis

he does not say if he is straight, gay or bisexual or transgendered in his OP, unless I missed it. He does not say if he is black, white or asian.

I focused on his legal arguments, which I believe are more than sorely lacking.

So I have no clue why you're bringing up his race and sexual orientation.

[bliss_eternal]

375. didn't mean to harsh your mellow....

...i was merely addressing your comments. it seemed weird to me that the guy capable of creating a thread intent on creating unity, "seemed" to be calling out a glbt as "clarence thomas."

it just seemed rather harsh and uncharacteristic....but again, perhaps i'm mistaking you for someone else.
you couldn't have been the guy that said they wanted to "build bridges" between aa and glbt, starting w/glbt's of color.

i feel so silly to have made such a glaring error--really sorry about this.

[ruggerson]

378. not much harshes my mellow

not even shit stirrers on DU.

I was making an analogy to Clarence Thomas, whom I don't find "courageous" in his repeated attacks on affirmative action.

Maybe you do.

In any case Chovexani has just conveniently explained what you're up to.

If you have something to write, write it instead of making snide, insincere inuendos.

[bliss_eternal]

381. i'm not chovexani.

unless you're suffering a computer error--and are seeing her name, instead of mine i don't understand.:shrug:

why would expect someone other than me, to speak for me?
unless of course you believe that "one select person of color" is capable of speaking for all other people of color.

no one can speak for me, but me. :)

that seems unfair.
it also seems a tad hypocritical.

[ruggerson]

385. cause you got called out below

and since you know full well that I wrote the "bridge building" post (and many others similar to it) I will tell you that my attempts at dialogue have usually been met with anger and snarkiness (kind of like you're doing right now), often from both sides of the equation. While this does not affect my opinions whatsoever, it does make discussing these issues on DU rather futile.

[bliss_eternal]

387. so that was you....!

well thanks so much for letting me know, that my memory hasn't failed me. i do appreciate that.

i would think an overture is that--and it would last beyond the time the thread was created. if you were sincere then, you'd be open to this poster's comments now--as merely a difference of opinion from a member of your broader family(glbt).

unless you were seeking "specific types of comments" from glbt's of color. ah well, that's in the past.
i certainly don't expect you to explain your motivations now.

i'll understand if you disagree.
take care...and thanks again for the clarification! :hi:

[ruggerson]

390. Are you not reading my posts above

you are comparing apples and oranges. I do not know if the OP is a person of color, nor do I care. I care what his legal analysis is - and it's one with which I vehemently disagree. Not only that, as pointed out numerous times in this thread, it's amateur legal analysis, not informed by serious study of the process.

I will assume that GLBT people of color will have disparate opinions on this. I don't think they all think monolithically, as you apparently do.

My past (and probably future) attempts at bridgebuilding between two communities is an entirely separate and unrelated discussion to this thread. No matter how many times you try to repeat it.

Now, since I have been more than clear where I stand on President Obama's DOJ issuing this brief, maybe you would like to tell us where you stand on it.

[bliss_eternal]

394. i'm on the record...

...on this board. my stances on women's rights, glbt equality, disabled rights, equality for people of color, and other underrepresented/oppressed groups has been stated many times over the years.

[ruggerson]

395. that's not what I asked, nor is it what this thread is about

What are your thoughts on Obama's DOJ issuing a brief defending DOMA, replete with arguments that could have come out of the playbook of the religious right?

[bliss_eternal]

401. again...

...my record speaks for itself. review it, and you would know exactly where i stand.

nice talking to you. take care. :hi:

[ruggerson]

403. Your refusal to answer a straighforward question

bespeaks of the utter dishonesty with which you engaged me in discussion.

[bliss_eternal]

404. i answered your question...

...you just dislike my response. you're certainly entitled.

unfortunately, i'm not crazy about the way you seem to need to "bait" and "attack." i find such confrontational tendencies quite stressful. so i *choose* to excuse myself from this "exchange."

best to you!
:hi:

[QC]

294. Roy Cohn was gay, too. n/t

[LostinVA]

333. And J. Edgar Hoover

[firedupdem]

273. +1 n/t

[Name removed]

296. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

334. +1

[Political Tiger]

324. Thanks, 23!

I must say, I'm rather surprised at the (mostly) positive response my post has got. Sometimes DU can be such a downer....I sign on to see nothing but a bunch of knee-jerk, self-imposed outrage nonsense by people who hate Barack Obama and will hate him no matter what he does....and I think, why even bother. Seeing that there are still plenty of people interested in factual based posting restores my confidence in DU!

[Starry Messenger]

386. No one "hates" Obama.

That's a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well". That pretty much undercuts your sincerity, IMO. Winning a popularity contest in GDP is never difficult.

[ruggerson]

412. I'm interested in your response to post #235 in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8468149&mesg_id=8468934

[Name removed]

379. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadMaddie]

275. I think we need to remember how angry we were with

the DOJ -Yoo, Gonzalez, torture and *. They were in cahoots together which damaged the DOJ's ability to actually function.

<snip>
What does that mean? Well, it means pretty much what it says. In order to keep politics out of the process, the Department of Justice does NOT consult with the President, nor does it asks for the President's permission, nor does it brief the President in legal matters in which the United States is a party unless it "is important for the performance of the President's duties" or deals with "national security matters."
<snip>

It's time to start hammering Congress to change this law!!

[Jakes Progress]

283. Close your eyes, click your heels together and say

"There is no defense of DOMA, There is no defense of DOMA"

Kids. We aren't in Kansas anymore. Fall in love with politicians or trombone players at your own peril.

[ClarkUSA]

288. Too bad you weren't around to whisper that into Bubba's ear before he signed DOMA into law.

[Jakes Progress]

293. I am so sorry that Hillary doesn't want you.

Your long standing and unrequited infatuation is a wonder to us all. It does explain your venom toward her (rejection is so hard) and your scanning every post on DU that you can find to bring up Hillary or Bill.

Just come out of the basement and go out sometime. Surely you will meet someone that would care for you as you are. We're all rootin' for you.

[ClarkUSA]

299. My obvious relief aside, what has that got to do with DOMA? Stick to the topic at hand.

Sour grapes indeed.

[Jakes Progress]

384. Now that would be a first for you. You are the one

who brought up the Clintons - which you manage to do quite regularly.

[ClarkUSA]

391. Really? Unlike you, my reference to Bill Clinton was on topic, since he signed DOMA into law.

And the only topic-relevant fact-based reason to mention Hillary Clinton on this thread would be to note that she refused to promise that she'd fully repeal DOMA when she was asked about it last year. Other than that, I don't see a reason to bring the Clintons into this discussion, do you?

[Cha]

287. Thank you, Political Tiger,

for getting all the research on this and giving us some facts..it is very much appreciated.

[unblock]

295. a classic example of "a little learning is a dang'rous thing"

first the fact that the u.s. attorneys are required to defend the federal government in civil cases simply designates the lawyer who stands before the court and represents the interest of the federal government.

it does NOT specify what those interests are. in particular it does NOT require vigorous support of controversial legislation. nor does it even require vigorous defense in any particular case. the federal government has many cases before it at any time and of course the potential for many more. the best interest of a client involved in multiple lawsuits might well be to acquiesce in a few; this might strengthen its hand in other cases, or permit it to focus limited resources.


to administer and enforce in an impartial manner does not require aggressive enforcement, it simply requires uniform enforcement. it means that the enforcement can't pick and choose based on who the plaintiff is, e.g., you either enforce murder laws or you don't. you don't enforce it against blacks and not enforce it against whites. that would not be impartial.

it's not a problem to refuse to enforce, or to enforce weakly, any particular law provided you do the same for all plantiffs. they can't defend doma vigorously when the plaintiffs are one race but not when the plantiffs are another. but as long as the position is consitent, there's no problem with not supporting doma or supporting it weakly.

[ruggerson]

362. thank you. ANOTHER RESPONSE THAT EVERYONE SHOULD READ.

[Name removed]

297. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

318. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bliss_eternal]

348. so, only "some" glbt members can mourn the loss....

...of poor matthew shephard, apparently. i'm guessing political tiger didn't get the memo he wasn't allowed to express his sorrow at the loss.

perhaps someone should inform political tiger who he should have 'consulted' prior to showing his pride as a glbt of color. :shrug:

[Number23]

351. Bliss, POLITICAL Tiger!

Because we all know and love you, we know that's just a typo but that just tickled me!

:rofl:

[bliss_eternal]

352. i know...i just changed it.

:blush:

one of those damned detrergent ads were on in the background--trying to get the stain out of a shirt. guess you know the color.
duh, bliss!

[JackBeck]

356. Political Tiger, bliss, is a phony glbt person of color.

That's what some of DU's 'fierce advocates' would have you believe any time someone disagrees with them.

You should see the filth currently being said about PT in the LGBT forum.

I've alerted, but why some of the most vocal shit stirrers on this site continue to get away with their constant badgering is beyond me.

[bliss_eternal]

357. hey you...

how are you doing? :hi: i haven't seen you around in such a long time.
:hug:

i appreciate your response. (sigh) i wish things were different.
you hang in there, 'k?

[JackBeck]

361. Working my ass off to get marriage equality passed in NJ!

(I swear, I can't wait until we're in a 'post-marriage' lgbt world)

Tomorrow, I'll be at Newark-Essex Pride recruiting volunteers and postcarding.

Sometimes, I wish a few posters would put forth the effort to self-edit before posting, but I've long since let go of trying to educate posters at DU.

Miss you! What's new with you?

[bliss_eternal]

366. that's awesome jackbeck...

...i'm proud to know you (you're doing such important work for the world)...thank you!

not too much on my end, (so sweet of you to ask :blush:).
primarily wearing out my fingers (and brain) writing letters regarding issues in my state.
i'm not giving up hope. i refuse.

[JackBeck]

405. You and I both know from our shared past experience the bullshit

the louder ones here engage in off of DU. The mods and admins are quite aware and have proof of their divisive "poo stirring", yet I refuse to give up hope as well.

Keep up your fight in real life, outside of this place. When we DO achieve equality, we'll know the ones to thank.

[Number23]

369. Echoing my girl Bliss, thanks for your reply

And I sure would like to say that I'm shocked by what you've written, but I'd be lying through my teeth.

Thank you for YOUR courage as well.

[Name removed]

382. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

407. I am not as courageous as the ones on DU.

When I walk up to random strangers on the street every weekend asking them if they support marriage equality, I'm not nearly as courageous as the posters on DU.

[Political Tiger]

443. I rarely visit that forum anymore.

It's been taken over by bullies who think shouting people down and calling them names is the only way to get their point, whatever it is, across. What they fail to understand that the only point they are getting across is that they are cowards who don't have a strong enough conviction in their beliefs to be civil.

[Chovexani]

368. Bliss, hon, I love you

But I really wish you and others on both sides of the equation would stop trying to stir up shit.

Don't even deign to point out that speck of dust without examining the California Redwood. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I would be happy to explain why I've significantly cut back my posting in AA down to almost zero since the primaries.

[ruggerson]

374. thanks for the heads up

I thought she was being sincere. My bad.

[JackBeck]

406. Most LGBT White DUers lost credibility

When they started referring to anyone that disagreed with them as an Uncle Liza.

[ruggerson]

410. Most?

that's the first I've ever even heard of that. And I pay fairly close attention.

[Political Tiger]

442. I can't tell you how many times I've been called that

or some other ridiculous variation of it. They think they're being clever but all it does is land them a spot on my ignore list.

[pepperbear]

309. then obama should publicly object to the brief. n/t

[bigjohn16]

314. To think that the President is hands off on any aspect of US policy is unrealistic.

If he knew the DOJ was going to give that brief on DOMA and approved of it then that is very troubling to me. If he didn't know and has people in the DOJ not consulting the White House on such a critical issue to the left then that should be troubling to President Obama in my opinion.

[Dawgs]

328. There are tens of thousands of briefs and decisions that are made every day by Obama's people.

Do you really expect him to know about every one, and also be responsible for understanding them, and then deciding on each one?

I agree that he has failed miserably on gay rights, but too much blame is being put on him for this one case.

[bigjohn16]

337. Nope but this is not just any brief or decision.

This is very important to his base and if he knew about this brief and did nothing I'm very angry. If the case is that he didn't know about it then he needs to get more control of his people because this could really hurt him politically. To say he knew nothing about this is naive because it's a very charged issue these days. If this is the position of the White House on DOMA then I'm very upset if not we need to know where he stands on such a heinous brief. He is the President and he said the buck stops with him.

[Neecy]

342. exactly.

He made very specific promises during the campaign about DOMA - and one would think that anything so politically charged would be reviewed at the very least by someone senior in the DoJ and very likely someone within the administration before it was filed. This 'don't blame anyone but yourselves for being angry' crap in this thread wants to divorce Obama from his own DoJ and his own AG. I don't buy it.

And to everyone here who's simpering about the OP's 'courage', one would think that someone who is actually gay would have devoted maybe a teeny-tiny little paragraph about the offensive, disgusting language in that brief. Perhaps speculate that, after the flood of very public complaints from national gay rights groups, the administration perhaps would put out a statement clarifying their position. Instead, the same ol' silence from a guy who has time to tape funny little intros for Conan and Colbert. Yes, we have a right to be angry, and those who are are exhibiting far more courage than the apologia in the OP and throughout this thread.

[vaberella]

364. Actually you think and hope it is.

There are lot of briefs important to his people. This is not the first case that has gotten attention on DU. There were many before and some more than others. However...in the case of the DOJ this is one of many.

[bigjohn16]

371. I don't hope or think it is I know it is an important issue for a large segment of his base.

To blow this off as some simple DOJ brief is to deny the citation of heinous and irrelevant case law that was offensive to the GLBT community. This will hurt him politically if he doesn't sharpen his message on this issue. He was the one who said the buck stops with him.

[QC]

455. He does not consider us part of his base.

Esp. now that the election is over.

[bigjohn16]

456. I'm afraid you're right on that point.

I guess "change" doesn't include pandering.

[donco6]

458. And he already has our money.

Time to get the two-finger salute to us suckers!

[elleng]

316. THANK YOU, TIGER,

for the 'legal' education. Its NEVER been easy!

[Fire1]

321. POLITICAL TIGER! Thank you, brother, for having the

courage and fortitude to speak the truth! You are better than I. Peace and love.

[Name removed]

346. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

347. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boomerang Diddle]

358. An inconvenient truth

at least for some people. K & R!

[Baikonour]

359. This thread should be stickied.

A simple understanding of government sure would go a long way around here.

[backscatter712]

365. I've got to agree with Political Tiger on this one.

As much as I despise DOMA and DADT, I do agree that the DOJ is following the law. Unfortunately, in this case, it means defending an unconstitutional and atrocious law, but they're required to defend that law.

Imagine if tomorrow, we pass the GLBT Civil Rights Act which would, say, mandate that all states allowed gay marriages. Now in 2012, the worst happens and we get some fundy Rethug as President. The day after the Rethug gets inaugurated, some fundy activist group sues the U.S. Government to overturn the GLBT Civil Rights Act.

Then the fundy President orders his fundy DOJ to not defend the GLBT Civil Rights Act. In other words, a perfectly good piece of legislation will die because DOJ lawyers stood down because of partisanship.

To prevent such bullshit, that's why the DOJ is required to defend the U.S. and all U.S. laws, even when those laws are douchey. It's short term pain, for rule-of-law gain.

[AntiFascist]

398. Thank God for Jerry Brown...

not doing what the state attorney general was supposed to do. Vehemently defending an unconstitutional law is ironic, to say the least.

[kid a]

380. Ahhhh...K&R for YOU and for DU critical minds

[bluedawg12]

388. Is this not factual? "Hand picked Assist. Atty. Gen. Filed The Motion to Dismiss Today." n/t

[IndianaGreen]

417. Obama DOJ lies to Politico in defending hate brief against gays

Friday, June 12, 2009

Obama DOJ lies to Politico in defending hate brief against gays

by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/12/2009 01:26:00 PM

Ben Smith at Politico just reported the following statement from the Department of Justice over their brief, filed last night, comparing gay marriage to incest:

As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.

Yeah, you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

But it's worse than that. Let's just assume for a moment that the Justice spokesman didn't lie to Politico, even though they did. Let's just assume that Obama had no choice but to oppose the gay couple filing this DOMA lawsuit. Where in the law does it say that Obama was required to compare gay marriage to incest?

And putting that little bit of religious right messaging aside, even if they "had" to file the brief against us, why didn't they just file a brief that argued the technicalities about why the case should have been thrown out (e.g., the plaintiffs had no standing)? No, what Obama did was throw the legal kitchen sink at us in a brief that could have been written by Antonin Scalia. They argued that DOMA is constitutional. Worse yet, they argue that it was a reasonable, rational, good law that actually saves the government money. They argued that DOMA wasn't motivated by hate. That DOMA doesn't discriminate against gays one bit because, apparently, gays can get married if they want... well, if they want to marry straight people of the opposite gender. They invoked Loving v. VA, the miscegenation case, and argued how it doesn't apply to gay marriage, undercutting the entire basis of our civil rights movement - saying that our civil rights are not akin, are not as worth, not as real, as the civil rights of blacks and other minorities. They went out of their way to try to diminish the legal impact of our two big Supreme Court victories, Roemer and Lawrence - that will have implications on every future civil rights battle we fight.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-politico-in-defending.html

[JDPriestly]

428. In California, Attorney General Jerry Brown is defending the

civil rights, the rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, of same-sex couples who wish to marry even though Prop. 8 passed.

President Obama could defend the 14th Amendment rights of same-sex couples. The 14th Amendment is a higher law than DOMA. Obama is choosing to defend DOMA because he doesn't believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians. He believes in civil unions -- in other words, separate but equal for gays and lesbians. Let's be honest here.

Interestingly, before his campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush stated on Larry King Live that he believed that equal rights for gays and lesbians is a state issue -- to be decided by each state. DOMA established a federal law prohibiting equal rights for gays and lesbians. In my opinion, it violates the 14th Amendment. I strongly disagree with Obama on this one. His defense of DOMA is, itself, indefensible.

[JNelson6563]

432. Thanks for taking the time to post these facts.

Well done. :toast:

Julie

[SunsetDreams]

437. Thank you for posting, I hadn't done the research on this yet :)

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

441. Another thing to point out...

Obama doesn't have to play it this way. If he wanted to, he could exert more influence over the DoJ. He could get tough. He could tell them to side against DOMA, and threaten people's jobs if they didn't. He could send Rahm Emmanuel over the AG's office to bully everyone into line. And if he did, we would probably see DOMA repealed pretty damn quick. It wouldn't be wrong for him to do any of that stuff, either. Precedent is on his side.

Because that's exactly what Bush would do.

And no, it's not okay simply because this time it would achieve a goal that we support. America's had quite enough of that attitude, thank you very much. There's no point in defeating your enemy only to see his face in the mirror the next morning.

America's system of government was carefully designed so that no one person or body, not even the President, could have controlling power over the others. Yes, this is a barrier to progress, but it's also a safeguard against tyranny. In recent years, the separation of powers has decayed horribly; Mortimer Fnord was only the most recent, most extreme example. Obama, on the other hand, appears to be a firm believer in the philosophy, and is determined to prove to America that, yes, it can produce results.

[NJmaverick]

451. Kick because there are DUers trying to rewrite the truth

[donco6]

457. Here's some truth: (thanks to IndianaGreen)

Obama DOJ lies to Politico in defending hate brief against gays
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/12/2009 01:26:00 PM

Ben Smith at Politico just reported the following statement from the Department of Justice over their brief, filed last night, comparing gay marriage to incest:


As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.


Yeah, you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

But it's worse than that. Let's just assume for a moment that the Justice spokesman didn't lie to Politico, even though they did. Let's just assume that Obama had no choice but to oppose the gay couple filing this DOMA lawsuit. Where in the law does it say that Obama was required to compare gay marriage to incest?

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-politico-in-defending.html

[jenmito]

460. kick because Rachel Maddow is going to cover this and accuse Obama of it being his position n/t

[vaberella]

461. Kicked as a reminder. n/t

[zulchzulu]

462. Thanks for your researched OP.

Still, I can imagine there will still be people who think that Obama is against gays because the people who spread these lies don't have the cajunas to update their blogs with the proper facts.

I'll still hear some people who will say Obama hates gays, even perhaps well after DOMA and DADT is no more. Or they will just mutter that he didn't do it sooner...

You can never make some people happy.

[bliss_eternal]

463. kick.

:hi: