HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » House GOP Boosts Funds fo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:34 PM

House GOP Boosts Funds for DOMA Legal Defense

Source: Roll Call

House Republicans quietly have raised the value of a contract with a private law firm that is handling the chamberís Supreme Court defense of a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

House Administration Chairman Dan Lungren, R-Calif., signed off in September on a $500,000 increase in the maximum value of the contract with the firm, Washington-based Bancroft PLLC. Republicans have raised the cap of the contract twice: first on Sept. 29, 2011, from its original maximum of $500,000 to $1.5 million, and again on Sept. 28 to its new maximum of $2 million.

Although the latest lifting of the contract cap occurred nearly three months ago, House Democrats ó and the public ó were in the dark about the move until this week. House Republicans did not share the revised contract with Democrats until Thursday, according to Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Hammill provided a copy of the contract modification to CQ Roll Call.

Indeed, Democrats were so out of the loop that Pelosiís office released figures on Oct. 16 showing that the taxpayer expenses for the defense of the law nearly had hit their cap of $1.5 million. But that was nearly three weeks after Lungren had raised the cap to $2 million.

Read more: http://www.rollcall.com/news/house_gop_boosts_funds_for_doma_legal_defense-219963-1.html



"Fiscal responsibility" my Ashcroft.

15 replies, 1785 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply House GOP Boosts Funds for DOMA Legal Defense (Original post)
UrbScotty Dec 2012 OP
William769 Dec 2012 #1
L0oniX Dec 2012 #4
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #5
William769 Dec 2012 #6
John2 Dec 2012 #11
tanyev Dec 2012 #2
L0oniX Dec 2012 #3
SoapBox Dec 2012 #10
0rganism Dec 2012 #7
elleng Dec 2012 #9
John2 Dec 2012 #12
elleng Dec 2012 #8
NickP Dec 2012 #13
freshwest Dec 2012 #14
Politicub Dec 2012 #15

Response to UrbScotty (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:40 PM

1. Well heres one way they can help with the fiscal cliff

Stop throwing money at something that is unconstitutional! Believe you me that is whats going to happen in the coming months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:45 PM

4. US tax payers subsidising their pro DOMA agenda ...welfare repig queens!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:49 PM

5. I don't know about that ...

It should be ruled that way; but the NOs have 2 votes walking in the door ... fat tony and silent thomas.

But, there is a real chance the cases will be decided on procedural grounds and not touch the underlying issue. The Court has asked an attorney to argue whether the SCOTUS can actually hear the case(s) because when the lower court ruled it unconstitutional, the only party with standing to challenge that finding is the DoJ ... who has declined to do so.

I just think the SCOTUS is trying to wiggle out of hearing the case(s).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:18 PM

6. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Given that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Windsor v. the United States, the future for DOMA looks grim. The law itself is blatantly unfair, arbitrarily setting aside a group of individuals for special treatment for no reason other than a historic Congress' moral disapproval of gay relationships. Having the freedom to disapprove is one thing, but the federal government mugging little old ladies for more than $300,000 of their life savings (that's the Windsor case in a nutshell) is quite another. Section 3 of DOMA should be history when the U.S. Supreme Court breaks for the summer in June. It will not be missed.

The U.S. Supreme Court will affirm that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Friday's news that the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8 came as a surprise. Consensus seemed to be that the court would decline to take the case, for want of a wider question, and as such, there's now some trepidation as to what the nine justices will make of the voter-approved amendment to California's constitution. But fear not. Collectively, the justices know the direction this issue is heading in, both domestically and internationally. They might not yet be prepared to read a right to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution, but I don't believe they are ready to ignore the greatest civil rights movement of their time. A compromise ruling might be to affirm the narrow ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down Prop 8 but limited the scope of the ruling to California. If the Supreme Court did that, it would effectively be saying that states have the right to define marriage as they see fit, but that once same-sex marriage has been legalized in a given state, citizens' right to it becomes vested. It's an intellectually fuzzy argument, but consider the context: a compromise ruling that, for purely political reasons, ignores the fact that gay men and women are created equal to everyone else.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurence-watts/10-lgbt-predictions-for-2013_b_2280121.html

I predict both will be true by my 50th birthday (next December).

The time is now. If it does not happen within the next year, we will not see t for years to come and I just can't fathom that happening when it comes to someones equal rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:02 PM

11. You are right,

 

and I just read a case, where DOJ did step in for someone, to call section 3 unconstitutional for the first time. President Clinton signed DOMA into law but he now disagrees with it. Scalia would be prejudice if he ignores the legal procedures, they determined DOMA unconstitutional in lower federal courts. If he doesn't apply the right procedures, it could affect other cases, that have nothing to do with homosexuals but other groups that have similar discrimination. He cannot seriously describe Homosexuals as not a group of people. Then he has to past the test for discrimination and why the state has an important interest to discriminate against this group. It can't be based on religious theory either. I don't see any way Scalia can make a legal argument defending DOMA as constitutional without violating the U.S. Constitution. The very groups that push this Law were prejudice and much of it was based on religious tradition or their beliefs. I imagine President Clinton committed the same act when he signed it. As far as my own beliefs, I don't use my religious beliefs to discriminate against others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UrbScotty (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:42 PM

2. That would be a good place to cut some spending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tanyev (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:44 PM

3. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tanyev (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:57 PM

10. ++1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UrbScotty (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:27 PM

7. how is this constitutional?

it looks like a breach of "separation of powers", on its face. Enforcing DOMA (including legal defense that amounts to enforcement) seems like it should fall solely to the executive branch (i.e. the DOJ).

Instead, the house republicans are using their own operating funds (used for things like staff salaries and office supplies) to pay contracts for defense counsel, and increasing that amount at will.

Stinks to high heaven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:53 PM

9. This relates to the question Supremes have asked a special counsel to address.

Executive said DOMA is unconsitutional, congressmembers want to pursue it, think its NOT unconsitutional, and are arguing it before the Court.
See this discussion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101650277

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:06 PM

12. I would like to

 

hear Scalia explain why it is not, assuming he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UrbScotty (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:49 PM

8. and WHO is paying for this???

P.O.S!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UrbScotty (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:54 PM

13. Waste of money

DOMA will be struck down, of that I'm sure. I'd like to see the American people realize that the Republicans spent $2 million of their tax dollars on defending a ridiculous law instead of doing something useful with it.

Well, Republicans were never good at money management in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UrbScotty (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:59 PM

14. They think the world's problems can be solved by sticking their noses in everyone else's privates.

What a bunch of losers, like Limbaugh.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UrbScotty (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:27 PM

15. They don't have the balls to call us fags to our faces

My tax money going to lawyers fighting against my civil rights makes me ill.

I hate the cowards who have the audacity to authorize this immoral spending.

We're here
We're queer
And we're going to win.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread