HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So is the Department of J... » Reply #107
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Reply #107


Response to Enrique (Reply #105)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 01:22 PM

107. Without realizing it you just reinforced my point. You just bolded the wrong part and dont have all

the details:

"fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional." - is the part you SHOULD have bolded.


Below is the full text of Holder's statement. Note that it is a statement and does not include the painstaking work done by attorneys to show that Section 3 is UnConstitutional.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEWednesday, February 23, 2011Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 110 replies Author Time Post
The Doctor. Feb 2012 OP
Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #1
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #5
Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #9
morningfog Feb 2012 #10
bvar22 Feb 2012 #63
morningfog Feb 2012 #2
banned from Kos Feb 2012 #4
morningfog Feb 2012 #12
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #19
morningfog Feb 2012 #26
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #3
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #6
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #7
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #8
Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #11
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #16
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #24
Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #25
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #30
Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #34
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #13
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #18
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #21
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #23
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #28
morningfog Feb 2012 #29
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #31
morningfog Feb 2012 #32
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #89
morningfog Feb 2012 #92
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #33
dems_rightnow Feb 2012 #22
movonne Feb 2012 #14
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #17
FSogol Feb 2012 #15
morningfog Feb 2012 #20
NYC Liberal Feb 2012 #37
morningfog Feb 2012 #39
NYC Liberal Feb 2012 #52
morningfog Feb 2012 #56
NYC Liberal Feb 2012 #74
jberryhill Feb 2012 #99
morningfog Feb 2012 #101
Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #27
FSogol Feb 2012 #35
Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #36
morningfog Feb 2012 #38
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #40
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #51
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #69
FSogol Feb 2012 #43
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #44
morningfog Feb 2012 #48
msanthrope Feb 2012 #86
treestar Feb 2012 #58
morningfog Feb 2012 #61
treestar Feb 2012 #77
morningfog Feb 2012 #80
treestar Feb 2012 #84
morningfog Feb 2012 #85
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #65
treestar Feb 2012 #78
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #81
Enrique Feb 2012 #72
NashvilleLefty Feb 2012 #41
morningfog Feb 2012 #42
treestar Feb 2012 #55
Enrique Feb 2012 #73
treestar Feb 2012 #79
stevenleser Feb 2012 #103
Enrique Feb 2012 #105
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Without realizing it you just reinforced my point. You just bolded the wrong part and dont have all
stevenleser Feb 2012 #107
Enrique Feb 2012 #110
Fumesucker Feb 2012 #45
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #47
Fumesucker Feb 2012 #87
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #88
Fumesucker Feb 2012 #90
hughee99 Feb 2012 #46
Son of Gob Feb 2012 #49
hughee99 Feb 2012 #53
woo me with science Feb 2012 #50
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #59
morningfog Feb 2012 #71
woo me with science Feb 2012 #93
treestar Feb 2012 #54
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #57
treestar Feb 2012 #60
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #64
treestar Feb 2012 #76
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #82
morningfog Feb 2012 #83
bvar22 Feb 2012 #66
morningfog Feb 2012 #68
treestar Feb 2012 #75
bvar22 Feb 2012 #91
morningfog Feb 2012 #67
Romulox Feb 2012 #95
treestar Feb 2012 #96
Romulox Feb 2012 #97
stevenleser Feb 2012 #104
Romulox Feb 2012 #106
stevenleser Feb 2012 #108
Romulox Feb 2012 #109
mmonk Feb 2012 #62
madokie Feb 2012 #70
Romulox Feb 2012 #94
jberryhill Feb 2012 #100
jberryhill Feb 2012 #98
Enrique Feb 2012 #102
Please login to view edit histories.