Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama administration appeals ruling that threw out anti-gay law (DOMA)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
LittleBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 08:44 PM
Original message
Obama administration appeals ruling that threw out anti-gay law (DOMA)
Edited on Tue Oct-12-10 08:47 PM by LittleBlue
(Reuters) - The Obama administration decided on Tuesday to appeal a judge's rulings that prevented the U.S. government from banning same-sex marriages, a move that could undermine support among President Barack Obama's traditional liberal base ahead of a key election.

The Obama administration filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, that barred gay marriages, even though Obama had previously opposed the law.

Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court.

"As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. "The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged."

The rulings being appealed by the government were made in July by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in Boston who found the law violated the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights, and the clause granting equal protection under the law.

Under his rulings, same-sex couples would be entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections that are afforded to heterosexual married couples.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. obama is a fierce advocate of......DOMA lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. "obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court"
What a load of crap....it seems they are determined to lose in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. no kidding. i get sick of that damn constitution thing too
it sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Show me where, in the Constitution, it mandates that the DOJ...
defend any and all federal laws. You can't, because it doesn't. Some lawyer may have interpreted the situation as meaning the DOJ has it hands tied and must defend but it reality they could stand down and let this law die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. if a teabagger judge
were to find social security unconstitutional, would it be ethically and morally permissible in your view for a teabagger-led administration to refuse to appeal the ruling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Nice strawman
Edited on Wed Oct-13-10 07:52 AM by AnOhioan
The issue is DOMA, not Social Security. Whether or not the Obama DOJ decides to appeal the ruling is the issue, not some hypothetical teabagger President and judge.

That being said, if a teabagger were to (good gawd) assume the Presidency, then he/she might do just what you are talking about. Obama's decision now would have no bearing on that possibility.

I say again, there is no requirement, other than interpretation, that mandates any administrations DOJ to challenge a court ruling declaring a law unconstitutional.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I saw the posters point but I saw this as apples and oranges too. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Uh, no it's not a strawman
That's what you've said should be done. The hypo makes sense.

Your position is that an administration should pick and choose which decisions it will appeal on defending any federal law.

That means a Teabag Administration could choose not to appeal a Fourth Amendment case where the court decided a particular search did not violate the 4th Amendment. No matter what the facts were.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. thats actually called a hypothetical, not a strawman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. That would be the 1870 act that established the division
Edited on Wed Oct-13-10 08:40 AM by mkultra
making it their duty to represent the government in all legal matters. That power(to pass laws) was given to congress by the constitutiion. I know, i know, America can be complicated.

Yes. I know that and a few rare occasions in the past, the DOJ has chosen to not appeal things based on politics, and frankly i would just fine if that was their choice now, but the fact remains it is their duty to defend laws that pass constitutional muster. DADT is constitutional.

Which is actually the real problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. From the act creating the DOJ
Sec. 5 And if shall be further enacted, That whenever the Attorney-General deems it necessary, he may require the solicitor-general to argue any case in which the government is interested before the court of claims; and as to cases coming by appeal from the court of claims to the Supreme Court of the United Stats, it shall be the duty of the Attorney-General and solicitor-general to conduct and argue them before that court as in other cases in which the United States may be interested.


http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=197

I read that, and the words "necessary" and "may" in the first line jump out. Those words indicate a certain degree of latitude in the way the AG proceeds. The DOJ is under no mandate to challenge each and every finding of unconstitutionality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. The neccesity is based on constitutional muster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. yeah
only *BUSH'S* DOJ has to follow the constitution!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. You mean: Obama's DOJ gets to act like Bush's DOJ
when its something we agree with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diamonique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. OK. Now I'm pissed!
Even if there *is* some merit to that argument (I think it's B.S. actually), they had 60 days to file an appeal. They could have "kept their powder dry" at least until after the election.

Dayum!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
namahage Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. The 60-day clock started back in August.
They were waiting till nearly the last possible minute to file (they had until Oct. 17). Still, timing couldn't have been worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Or... "the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed"
DOMA and DADT will be repealed. It has to solidly be crushed from a legal standpoint.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. Not just wrong but horrific timing.
The day that the Repug Log Cabins got DADT stopped, they do this. You all cannot see me but I am doing a double face palm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
10. booo! now GOTV!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denimgirly Donating Member (929 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
12. And once again Obama trying to Split the Baby
Edited on Wed Oct-13-10 06:55 AM by denimgirly
I really wish he would just BE a democrat and not a person who is trying to please both sides at the same time...its always the same....today its him saying he is against the law but then going ahead and appealing the decision because the law should be defended.....and he wonders why his base hates him.

And wonderful timing...nice way to motivate your base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. actually, only the stupid base hates him for this
Those of us who understand don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Way to build up support
Calling others stupid....yeah, that'll work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. i dont need support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joe black Donating Member (514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. No shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Appeals to logic don't work, so why not call it what it is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Grant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
25. Only dead fish go with the flow. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
28. "as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged"...
Sounds like there was a choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 24th 2020, 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC