General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: That hopey changey thing at the Department of Justice [View all]DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I don't know what your problem is. But YOU have accused ME of several things. I have tolerated your behavior up to this point because I thought you must simply be misreading what I have said. But this completely disproves your latest accusation. From my post:
"This is HARDLY the kind of thing Justice Scalia would do. No one who thinks as Scalia thinks could ever turn around and do the things I've noted above. It wasn't until the right cases came up in the right venue that level of scrutiny could be addressed.
"DOJ Stops Defending DOMA"
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6022
"The issue was raised, Holder explained in a statement released along with the letter, because Section 3 of DOMA has been challenged in the Second Circuit, ''which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated.'' Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applied to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment all laws that classify people into groups receive a level of scrutiny: rational basis, which is the lowest form of scrutiny; heightened scrutiny; or strict scrutiny."
_------_--------
Yes, Holder defended DOMA in the first 3 cases. My links say why that changed (right case, right constitutional challenge, right venue). And MY POINT is that NOBODY who holds Scalia's views could have gone from defending DOMA to being so very strongly and vocally against it in the space of a few short months. THEREFORE, neither Obama nor Holder ever held views like Scalia's views.
That is the last time I will say it. And don't call me a liar again.