Irony alert: Obama to ignore law he doesn't agree with

[ruggerson]

FULL STORY


"No not the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. No, not Don't Ask Don't Tell. No, not the immigration law (he's already ignoring that one). But provisions of the new war spending bill that the Obama administration, instead of going to court to litigate the matter, unilaterally decided that they find the provision unconstitutional.

Remember, President Obama won't even do what is legally in his power to do with regards to providing gay federal employees health benefits, opposing DOMA in court, or issuing a stop-loss order to halt the two-a-day discharge of gay US service members - all things that are legally in the president's power to do under US law. Team Obama's logic? The law is the law, and they won't challenge US law, lest they look like the lawless Bush administration that preceded them. But when it comes to outright ignoring US law, claiming the law is unconstitutional and not even going to court to prove their case, then the Obama team is happy to ignore the law - provided the law has nothing to do with those pesky homosexuals and their inconvenient human rights.

And you thought someone had turned the light at the tunnel back on."

[donco6]

1. So, this tells us they really have no problem with DOMA after all.

quelle surprise

[NMMNG]

3. His only problem with DOMA

is all the pesky queers who keep whining about it.

[LooseWilly]

2. Funny, I was saying the same thing not but 23 minutes ago.

But I was thinking of the executive order he was crafting to continue detaining prisoners from Gitmo, just in case the pesky Congress doesn't move fast enough (why does this argument sound so deja vu?)... Is this the same thing? (was the Congress "supposed" to be handling the indefinite detention details in the war spending bill you mention?) Or is this yet another something on his "plate"?

(Of course, I sense a little double irony here too... because I, for one, am not nearly as mad about the laws he's "bending", as I am about the fact that he's not even willing to go to the limit of others...)

Ahh well, you know what they say... great minds taste great together...

[bertman]

4. Whatever happened to the good old-fashioned veto?

Is it passe now? Creates too much angst among the faithful? The override makes the President look, well, bad?

[IndianaGreen]

5. Obama will enforce anti-gay laws like DOMA and DADT

while ignoring whatever he doesn't agree with.

Obama's cuteness is wearing thin.

[jgraz]

6. Makes you wonder...

how many of their other "justifications" -- on health care, on bailouts, on climate change, on torture, wiretaps, war, etc -- are also complete bullshit.

I have a feeling we're about to find out.

[Prism]

7. I'll disagree a little

Having read through it and the signing statement, there is a genuine conflict between the legislative and the executive. And I do see how someone from the executive branch could interpret this bill as infringing upon their prerogatives when it comes to shaping foreign policy.

So, on this specific case, I side with the administration. Partially. Kind of.

Ok, not really, because what in the hell are signing statements?! "This is the law! Uhm, void where prohibited, especially where politically vulnerable."

Ugh.

That said, this does illustrate that President Obama is at least willing to play that ever so creative game between the legislature and the executive. Which does, in fact, make his protestations about immediate DOMA and DADT actions that much thinner on the ground. With LGBT rights, he likes to defer to the legislature and contends any and all decisions must originate with them.

But when an issue of personal importance or policy arises, as it did with this bill, he's willing to go to bat and assert executive authority.

Which all the more illustrates how little he's willing to assert himself or his administration on behalf of us. Some sparingly crappy bill on foreign relations and trade? Man the trenches! Gay rights? Why, I have no idea what you're on about.

And that is its own form of transparency.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Obama thinks that gays are sick and can be cured, that's my conclusion.

His eagerness to spout signing statements while still enforcing DOMA and DADT, leads to only one conclusion: Obama thinks that gays are sick and can be cured!

Time to take a second look at Obama's relationship with Donnie McClurkin that we were too quick to dismiss during the primaries. Add to that Obama's relationship to Rick Warren, and one can begin to formulate a picture of Obama as one that has LGBT issues.

[Prism]

9. I wouldn't go so far

I wouldn't assign the president those attitudes. But I am willing to point out an indifference and lack of empathy when it comes to the gay community. I'm now beginning to believe that the president sees us as one of those much celebrated pawns in that ever evolving chess game we're told about. If he does good things for us, brilliant, if not, then it's no bother in the scheme of it all. Where we're taken is of less consequence as to where he ultimate hits the end of the board.

I admit, full throttle, I was very much wrong in my interpretation of McClurkin and Warren. I thought they weren't worth the reaction they received. President Obama seems earnestly bent on assuring me they were.

We cannot be an inconvenience, as calculated by the chess master. We have to be a friggin stain. We have to show this administration that they ignore us at their peril. I believe the administration sees us as a light, annoying problem in the sense that we're a constituency that donates. We must make ourselves into a potential horror. Screw us? Perhaps you will, Mr. President, but if you do, we will make sure it will cost and cost and cost.

[ruggerson]

11. I was wrong on McClurkin too

I should have been even MORE pissed off than I was. And I was majorly pissed off. :)

In light of everything that has transpired since then, especially Prop 8 and Obama's near silent "opposition" to it (if you want to be generous and call it that), McClurkin should have been an enormous red flag.

[IndianaGreen]

13. McClurkin WAS an enormous red flag

But many of us Obama supporters judged Hillary's stand on LGBT rights based on what her husband did with DADT and DOMA. Clearly, Obama supporters need to engage in signidicant self-criticism about how we felt regarding Hillary.

[ruggerson]

15. Here is something

I wrote at the time: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/ruggerson/4

[plantwomyn]

16. I tried to get some answers from DUers way back when.

Not one reply or comment. No even a cricket.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/plantwomyn/7

[struggle4progress]

10. Could we see the bill text under discussion? Here's a link to HR4346:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:6:./temp/~c111JEf1lY::

<edit:> The concern is apparently somewhere in sections 1110-1112 of title XI and sections 1403-1404 of title XIV

[canis_lupus]

12. Second looks?

"Time to take a second look at Obama's relationship with Donnie McClurkin that we were too quick to dismiss during the primaries."

I so want to gloat right now.

I was one of those who weren't too quick to dismiss Obama's ties with McClurkin, Rick Warren, etc., during the primaries and general election. Those of us who brought up our concerns were shouted down, called racists and Freepers and generally told to take our opinions elsewhere. While I've occasionally stopped in for a visit to DU, I haven't posted anything in months.

Doing a little "I-told-you-so" dance accomplishes nothing other than pissing people off ... so where to we go from here? How are we addressing this?

I know personally I have responded to pleas for donations from the Democratic Party with a curt response that the "GayTM" is now out of service for anyone other than individual candidates to can point to a record to supporting LGBT issues.

[IndianaGreen]

14. In your case, gloating is allowed

and even encouraged.

In my case, self-criticism is necessary and encouraged.

[LooseWilly]

17. I also was wrong.

Gave too much benefit of the doubt, I now suspect. I thought it was a lapse of judgement.

Warren made me uneasy.

Now... well... it sure looks like I was wrong.

I'm also only contributing to individual candidates whose voting record I feel comfortable with. Ironically, it definitely saves money...

[TheWraith]

18. Well congratulations. You're still wrong.

And you're still behaving immaturely if you can't see a difference between the established pre-Bush uses of signing statements, and randomly deciding what parts of federal law you can and can't rewrite on a whim.

[donco6]

19. Gloating allowed.

I certainly deserve it.