E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Shawna Thomas
The Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) announced the first step that will allow the House of Representatives to be party to the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"I will convene a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law of the United States," Boehner said in a statement.
This comes after the Justice Department announced last week that they would no longer uphold the constitutionality of DOMA in court but "work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation."
According to House Rules, Boehner has the ability to direct the House Office of General Counsel in "legal assistance and representation" matters. But while his consultation with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- which consists of House leadership, may only be a formality -- he plans on having the group vote on how to direct the General Counsel. Since that group is made of up the speaker, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), there is little doubt that the group will vote to defend the law.
Later in his statement, Boehner admonishes the Obama administration for moving forward with this issue during the uncertain economic climate.
"It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy," Boehner said.
"The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts -- not by the president unilaterally -- and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution," Boehner added.
Though some would say Boehner's House has also not focused explicitly on jobs by giving support to Rep. Chris Smith's (R-NJ) bill that seeks to assure no federal funds are used to obtain an abortion. Earlier this year, Boehner gave Smith's bill the designation of H.R. 3 signaling it's legislative importance behind funding the government (H.R.1) and repealing health care (H.R.2).
"Aside from standing up for a discriminatory law and failing to focus on jobs and the economy, this action places Republicans squarely on the wrong side of history and progress," Pelosi said in a statement in response. "In addition, this decision will burden the staff and monetary resources of the Office of the General Counsel, and given the complexity of these cases and the number of courts involved, it is likely this will cost the House hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars."
The group is scheduled to meet some time next week.
This announcement does avoid what could have been a nasty floor fight. The speaker had multiple options to choose from including having the whole House vote on whether to defend DOMA in court or not.
DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton and states in part, "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Leave a Comment:
Mr. President, you told the American people during the 2008 campaign you believed the institution of marriage was solely between a man and a woman.
If you have changed your opinion on this important issue, and are now expressly in favor of gay marriage, please honestly tell us so. Do not hide behind the legalities of not defending DOMA.
No, no I'm all for selective enforcement of the law.
See if the governemnt get to choose which laws to enforce I figure we get to choose which ones to follow.
I'm thinking I'll start with choosing not to follow the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). And golly, but taxes are just about coming due now.
But then again here in Cali, the franchise tax board already selectively enforces the code. Last year they failed to adhere to the part which mandates that refunds are supposed to be issued in a timely manner. The bastard just issued IOUs. That was terrific. Oh and did they give interest? Heck no. But oddly enough if you don't pay them on time, they insist on penalties and interest. Isn't government great?
I wonder how that's going to go this year, cause we are the bluest of the blue. Or is that brokest of the broke?
Spanky... that's where you are mistaken... government is not choosing which laws to enforce or not to enforce... they are choosing which laws to defend or not to defend...these things get expensive you know... with all the law suits being thrown at them by gay rights group. TP people have spoken: stop wasting money on stupid laws....we cant afford it.
Quite frankly, I think it's a stupid laws.... land of the free huh? I was raised in a religious home and still adhere to most religious views, but I could care less about what 2 adult male or females do in their own room.
Imagine the case in TX a few years back, when 2 men were arrested for Sodomy in their own house.... wasn't that just a waste of Tax-payer money???? they were arrested, they had to defend themselves in court.... were found guilty and the case was thrown out on an appeal; when did the government get so intrusive in our personal lives. Like I said, I'm still religious till his day.... but isn't this the reason that our fore-fathers (actually mine used the middle passage in that dark boat) came to US - too much goberment intrusion.
I remember reading in history books that Marriage should be between a white man and white woman or (black and black)... what kinda of idiots writes laws like these?
Agree or disagree is not relevant. It is the law. If the law is bad, or outdated, or whatever there is a right way to take care of it.
This ain't it, now is it?
Rule of law and all of that. Again there really is a forrest amongst all them trees.
Spanky: You are right, law is law. So, the litigation of the Healthcare act is unnecessary in your view, because it is LAW. You just got spanked!
Once again SPANKY you pontificate too much. Nothing Obama is doing is illegal or immoral. The Justice Dept has always chosen to prosecute certain cases while not involving themselves in others. Obama in fact is one of the very few that has publicly stated that DOMA will not be defended any further by the Justice Dept. No one said that the law as it stands now will not be upheld. Details again SPANKY facts get them right BUCKO.
Then riddle me this BUCKO - how shall the law be upheld if there is no enforcement?
And really Ray given the proclaimation that there will be no prosecutions of course there will be no compliance.
Those details or facts?
Who cares? If the gays want to get I say let them.
I've been married twice and I say let them be miserable too! Why should straight couples have all the fun of divorce?
tan man is some kinda piece....eat my shorts, Boehner and get to work!! By the way, WHERE'S THE JOBS??
Kevin,
You should have been asking your guys that same question, the last two years.
The jobless rate has decreased from 9.8% to 8.9% since the Nov election, I'd say the Republicans are doing something right.
Rule of law?
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 -- Lawyers shalt not take frivolous positions in litigation.
Big fines and penalties. And hard to do unless you think about it and make a conscious decision not to defend something that's frivolous. So, the President, through Attorney General Holder, is only doing what the ETHICAL lawyer would do -- or should do.
Look it up.
Spanky, one MORE time. This is NOT about enforcement, it is about defense.
Take your idelogical views somewhere else.
And oil is now more than $100 a barrel, causing the Dow to drop 88 points today.
Based on your theory of cause and effect, I'd say republicans are doing something wrong.
Wayne-1BMF
What about the fact the the jobless rate was 9% before any the repub congress was sworn in? what about the true unemployment that's somewhere between 15%~20%.... please educate yourself buddy.
Congressman Jeb Hensarling said today:
The improvement in our nation’s jobs report is welcome news and demonstrates the resilience of the free enterprise economy in spite of the onslaught of the Democrats’ big government agenda. But the real question is why is it taking so long and why is the recovery so weak? The modest improvement can be attributed to two factors – the free-market economy is slowly moving toward a recovery from this deep recession, and with Republicans controlling one lever of the lawmaking powers, job creators know the upper limits of the Democrats’ legislative pain is behind them.
Bob, only the states can regulate marriage. The Federal Government has no power to regulate marriage in any way! Therefore, DOMA is unconstitutional on its face!
You know what REALLY intrigues me is if gay marriage bans ever hits the USSC. The states that have banned gay marriage had to do so by state constitutional ammendment. NO state constitution defined marriage but they all had clauses the guaranteed equal protection under the law. That's why they had to use the ammendment process.
But, what if one of the cases actually makes it to the USSC. The US Constitution does NOT have any definition of marriage; it DOES have a clause that guarantees equal protection under law. Could it be that the USSC could rule that a ban on gay marriage violates the equal protection clause??? Could it be that the only way to institute a ban on gay marriage is thru a constitutional ammendment?? That would be VERY interesting to watch!
Wayne-1BMF.... is that your fact?? u r actually too funny....lol.... A quote from a Republican claiming credit... I could have told you he would have said that last week (i.e. even before the jobs report were posted). Good try though
I've been taking credit for the decrease for the past two months, the Congressman is just finally agreeing with me. Can you deny the decrease since the election? Can you explain it? You have your spin and I have mine. I just happen to like mine better than yours.
Leave it to Bonehead and the GOP to try to defend the indefensible. Its alright though if they move just a little further to the right they will fall off the edge of the planet. It is after all flat, just ask a Republican.
Republicans have nothing to do with this decrease. What exactly have they done to foster job growth? So far it has been about gay marriage, abortion, restricting women's rights, and and they are beginning cuts that will (according to REPUBLICAN economists) lose between 200,000 to over a million jobs. Seems pretty evident that jobs are improving at the moment, but once republican policies do kick in, we will start regressing, and they will get the blame for that.
It looks like the usual 'clownhats' are using the usual lame shallow arguments like 'the government can't just pick which laws to defend and not' totally missing the point that the primary reason for choosing NOT to defend DOMA is because it has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
Why would you defend a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL unless your name were George Bush, Dick Cheney or John Bonehead??
then you have these other clowns who think that the federal government is telling the states that they have to allow gay marriages, not defending DOMA does absolutely no such thing at all.
But hey don't any of you propeller heads let anything like the facts get in your way.
Obama also made a campaign pledge to work to repeal DOMA. He's now fulfilled that pledge.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
FYI, Obama went on record in 1996 supporting same-sex marriage. His current ambiguous position is a political convenience, but it's clear he's not a bigot like Bob.
The US Constitution gives STATES the full and total power and authority over issuing licenses such as fishing licenses, drivers licenses and marriage licenses. Since STATES issue licenses only STATES have the ability to define terms regarding those licenses. That power and authority is defined by the 5th Amendment of US Constitution.
The Federal government is trying to grab power and authority by defining a term used by STATES with DOMA. The Federal government treats the legal marriage of people in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire differently than legal marriages of people in all the other states. I guess the Republicans do not believe that we all should be treated equally under the law of this land.
Obama is not deciding which laws he will uphold but which ones to defend in conformity with the US Constitution. So Republicans would rather spend extra money defending a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL rather than do what they were elected to do.... CREATE JOBS!
Later in his statement, Boehner admonishes the Obama administration for moving forward with this issue during the uncertain economic climate.
================================
Mr Bay-ner, please tell us what this issue has to do with jobs. I guess you can't since you rethuglicants have done everything but deal with jobs.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Spanky-
Agree or disagree is not relevant. It is the law. If the law is bad, or outdated, or whatever there is a right way to take care of it.
This ain't it, now is it?
Yes, Spanky, there is a right way. However, you don't seem to understand HOW our justice system works. There was a suit filed, a ruling, and now the losing side is appealing. The government has decided not to join the appeal. What is your problem with that? This suit wasn't brought by our government. I personally applaude this administration for getting out of this arguement. What people do in their homes is their business. Definitely not your's nor our government's. I thought you cons were for LESS government intrution in your life. Oh wait, that is only for as long as it doesn't interfere with your beliefs. Hate to tell you this but you are only one of more than 300+ million people in this country and their beliefs matter just as much as yours.
Looks like from this discussion that the study done by the University of Maryland about fox viewers having a lot of misinformation and skewed view of reality is true. Never once did the President say he would not enforce the law but simply that the justice department would not defend the constiutionality of law. Big difference completely overlooked by fox and the right wing in their attempt to smear the President. Looks like too many have drunk the koolaid.
Spanky, the decision was to ENFORCE the law, but not DEFEND IT in court. You're confused.
This situation is not different from what Chief Justice Roberts did when acting solicitor for HW Bush - deciding not to defend federal statutes i n court during Metro Broadcasting v FCC.
Most empty promises are met with smoke and mirrors. John Boehner whispers, " Psst, Eric, I don't have a clue about job creation, do you? I thought not. Let's bash some gays. That always gets the home crowd excited!"
commensense101
Or they can defund Planned parenthood or NPR. Nothing like stirring up the culture wars rather than propose meaningful legislation that helps anyone but the upper 2% or the Corporate Lobbyists.
If it weren't for the fact that Boehner can't count votes - I'd say they have the 'best' damn congress money can buy. But quite frankly, I'd expect significantly MORE bang for my buck. I'm quirky about competency that way.
Again, Boehner is not in control of his House nor of his party. All the social legislation the House is doing is not helping create jobs.
Think of the increase of wealth to the marriage industry if you just give it up and let people get married. Even a small marriage employs lots of people: JoP, florist, some sort of food, maybe a DJ,a good California bubbly.
Anna,
Did you ever hear of the Job Stimulus Bill and think that since the republicans have done nothing to create jobs in the form of legislation etc. that just maybe that deserves some credit? Please tell me one thing the repulsive republicans have done to create jobs? Legislation etc. other than still saying, "NO< NO< NO to everything?"
You need to go and read the entire statement by the DoJ. As best as I can paraphrase it, the argument is:
1) Marriage is a religious institution whose practices and procedures varies greatly among religions and denominations. Because of the variances, it is a minefield for enforcement of the DOMA because it is so difficult to enforce without having the effect of favoring one religion or denomination over another. There are Christian denominations that approve of bigamy, child marriage, and marriage between gays for example, and other religions that approve of arranged marriages and virtual slavery within the institution of marriage. The problem for the DoJ is that it is almost impossible to defend without disregarding the Constitution and favoring one religion's or denomination's view of marriage.
2) Civil Union is not the same as marriage. Civil Union is a contract between two people that is registered with the state. The contract is valuable for the purposes of inheritance, taxes, and various legal rights. It has nothing to do with religion at all. It is just a contract and no different than a contract between two individuals for one to provide work in return for money from the other.
3) The state has long skirted the issue by what is called"marriage/civil union concurrency." All states give ordained ministers the ability to form the civil union contract at the same time that they conduct marriages. (Remember the part, "by the power vested in me by the state of ..." in the wedding ceremony?)
4) The fact that we refer to it all by the generic term of "marriage" disguises a huge number of thorny issues. For example, some sects within the LDS Church (Mormons) recognize and encourage plural marriage. And it is almost impossible to prosecute. This is because only the first marriage is registered as a civil union, placing the second and subsequent marriages outside of civil law. Another example is people (and there are many) who, for various reasons choose not to have a religious ceremony, but rather just go to the courthouse and are married by a Justice of the Peace. In the most strict interpretation, these people are not "married" because no religious ceremony, however brief, took place. And what about denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, that recognize gay marriage even though their civil union might not be recognized?
Confusing marriage and civil union is an insidious way of trying to force a religious point of view on what is essentially a civil contractual matter. The problem when state and church get too chummy is that everyone assumes that it is THEIR religious view that will ab adopted. This is an impossibility without establishment of a state-favored religion.
It's kinda like prayer in school. There has never been any SCOTUS ruling against prayer in schools. There is no law that forbids prayer in school. And any kid who went to the mall instead of studying will tell you all about praying for miracles. And religious schools all have prayer in schools. But, for a moment, say that school-sponsored prayer was encouraged in public schools. Who would decide what prayers were acceptable and what were not? Would the fundamentalists protest if it was a Hindu prayer? Or would the Baptists object to a Hail, Mary being said? Or would Christians see a problem if prayers were said 5 times a day facing Mecca?
The majority of my K-12 education was spent looking at the back of the same kid's neck. His name was Bu*** and mine was Ca********. But he was Jewish and we had prayer in school in the 1950's. So every morning he was required to go stand in the hall while the rest of the class stood, heads bowed, to hear a school-supplied prayer read to the class. When everyone was seated, then the kid was allowed to come back into the classroom. Around the 4th or 5th grade I ate lunch at the kid's house. I was appalled when they served me a ham sandwich. Even though I had known the family for years, it was quite a revelation that most Jews, like most Christians, are secular. I always felt bad for him because he was singled our for persecution for being a member of a religion that he didn't actively practice.
The Founding Fathers' greatest fear was that the Republic they founded would slip into democracy. They saw democracy as something to be feared for a number of reasons. 1) They had seen the French Revolution and its excesses, 2) They knew of Cromwell's religious excesses in England. And 3) they had seen religious persecution in both the Plymouth Bay and Rhode Island Colonies and, to a lesser extent, the other Colonies. They discussed at great length (see viz the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers) how to put roadblocks between the government and both religious and populist democratic movements. What they believed was that in a democracy, a majority would always use its power (or even the power of a coalition of minorities) to strip rights from minorities.
If you want to see the major discussion of the issues involved, look at when the 17th Amendment was being debated. The Founding Fathers provided for Representatives to be elected by the people. But they were so scared of democracy that they wanted Senators appointed by the Governors of the states. They gave the purse-strings to the House and fearful of populism, they gave the final say to Senators appointed by the Governors until the 17th Amendment changed the process to allow the direct election of Senators.
Sorry for the length of the rant, but the idea that somehow the Founding Fathers did not think these things through is going to lead to considerable trouble. They understood well how religion and democracy could corrupt this country's government.
I would really encourage that people who are truly interested in Constitutional issues go and read three documents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law This is the part of law that is not written down, but is the foundation for American Law and was the basic for the Founding Fathers' Constitutional arguments. You can find many others by just googling "English common law."
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ These 85 anonymous essays were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay in support of a strong Federal government.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/foundingdocs/antifedpap/main.html These 85 essays were written by a more diverse group and are organized to roughly correspond to the Federalist Papers. We don't know who wrote most of the Anti-Federalist Papers because it was the losing side and the authors simply never came forward.
I think the Founding Fathers would be interested at the level of political debate in this country right now. But they would be dismayed by the content of the debate on both sides. I do not think they would be proud of this country as it stands right now. It was Jefferson who said that a country could best be judged by how it treated its poor.
Thanks for one of the most informative and well spoken comments I've read in quite some time.
felden and others"
Under Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution "he (the President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States"
hmmm! What's wrong with this picture? Is it that the President CAN NOT selectively execute the laws of Congress?
Astonished-655682... I'm actually astonished by your derangement syndrome... this has nothing to do with execution of laws or not... but you don't get it...~!!!!
It has to do with defending the constitutionality of the law...
BTW, Chris-537131... GREAT, GREAT, GREAT POST. Thanks for sharing...
Tunde Akins
Oath ... to defend. Constitution ... to execute. It's both defend AND execute.
Wow, you really don't like gay people
Agreed, Michael-202..., homophobia is there in all it's brilliant array. If the President of the US has to defend all laws, no matter if they are unconstitutional or not, then why did former presidents not defend segregation, the 3/5 rule, the acceptance of slavery? Even the boneheads teabaggers decided to not read specific parts of the Constitution at the House's opening this year. Why? As our country evolves, so must our laws. I must say that one of our founders, Alexander Hamilton, must be very happy with the current decision to not argue for this heinous DOMA. The noise Reason7000 is making is exactly the noise of people who didn't want marriage between races or religions. There is no room for the lack of civil rights in the USA.
Raisedbywolves
Let's start with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment to the Constitution as it relates to slavery, 3/5th rule, and post civil War reconstruction.
Now with regards to segregation, first I'll note that Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) enabled segregation in the 20th century and a string of Presidents defended it as a States Right (sorry to say) until the 1954 Supreme Court decision stating that Separate WAS NOT Equal. Ten years later (some would like it to have been sooner) the Civil Rights act of 1964 (which would not have passed without Republican support) ended to practice.
You'll have to do better than that. A Congressional law is to be enforced by the Executive until replaced or deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (not the Executive).
Wow...
President Obama and Speaker Boehner in rare agreement.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Or, as in the case of Gingrich, 3 women.
Please, Patrick-
Can't you enjoy the rare bipartisan agreement between the President and Speaker Boehner?
I think Patrick, from UTAH was enjoying it.
Hey Pat, as an Aztec I was sorry to hear about the BYU guy. Damn, now that's strict!
Spanky. Yes, but Davies knew the rules and accepted the punishment. My only concern is that the same rules apply to all.
Mixed. I just get so tired of right wingers using gays, guns, and abortion as a political weapon.
OK, Patrick-
But...
Would you regard the President's oft-stated views on gay marriage as a "core belief"...or something to be discarded, for political reasons, as easily as you seem to feel former-Speaker Gingrich discarded his marriage vows?
I doubt that Gingrich's actions were based on political motives.
Too bad it wasn't last week. :(
But man, I'm thinking that cannot be good for the old recruitment.
And Frigging Jimmer is THE MAN. You telling me that dude ain't rolling in tail? If true that is a tragic waste.
Voted best irony of the week. Unless you meant it.
In which case, voted best delusion of the week.
Anna Molly-
Are you really suggesting that Gingrich broke his marriage vows hoping for some political gain?
Really?
What possible political gain derives from such behavior?
Care to comment on President Obama's core belief that the institution of marriage constitutes a union between a man and a woman?
He's commented...on numerous occasions.
Clinton joke anyone? I'm sure all that "depends what the definition of 'is' is" was about political gain too.
Nope, just about getting some strange, costs be damned. Men are pathetic!
Getting elected. His wife wasn't a political asset anymore. Or, alternatively, if not, then how did lying in a deposition about an affair that had no political or national security implications possibly generate a high crime or misdemeanor?
Don't agree. His religion, not mine. Have you REALLY forgotten who I am, Bag Boy? Maybe so.
Really, Spanky? Really?
Really AM, Really? You know - Friday and all that.
Sorry, Anna Molly-
There's no political gain stemming from Gingrich's behavior.
It's all liability.
Apology generously accepted, Bag Boy. ;-)
The President chose not to defend this law DOMA because it is a bad law.
This has nothing to do with his beliefs, which is a personal matter and should not be a guiding principle for everyone. Anyone who becomes President is the president of ALL the people who ALL dont have the same views or the same beliefs. Matters of religion, personal choices and strict interpretations favoring ONE religion should not influence decisions that affect others. To do so is intrusive and smacks of a nanny state, you conservatives are constantly railing against.
It has NOTHING TO DO WITH GETTING THE ECONOMY HEALTHY THEREBY CREATING JOBS.
Beliefs change as one grows. Some stay with you for a life time; some are misguided, and you learn that and change and move on. Certainly, a man coming from a marriage that was once outlawed in the U.S., a man of color who comes from a society where he would not have been able to get a sandwich at Woolworth's in the 50s, can finally see that all these laws like DOMA are just codified rules to discriminate. Sorta like the White Citizens Councils.
Mr. Bohner: Where are the jobs? Are you going to waste the taxpayer's money to defend a law that is unconstitutional? And for this you were elected? To spend money in small tribulations at the expense of the American people? Shame on you!!!!!!
@Mixed bag,
In regard to how Gingrich would have profited politically from marriage and/or divorce.
1) Wife #1 was his high-school geometry teacher. He was 19 and she was 26 when they married. He used her to assist in filing false affidavits to get a student deferment from the draft and avoid going to Vietnam. He cheated on her numerous times to all accounts, including his own.
2) Wife #1 got breast cancer and at one point, she was not to have much of a long-term survival chance. Gingrich, in front of his two daughters, and in the hospital where it was presumed she was dying, he asked her for a divorce so he could marry wife #2. Wife #2 is still alive and has exactly zero good to say about him. His daughters are estranged. Wife #2 says he is a chronic liar and cannot be trusted and should not ever be President.
3) While in the process of getting a divorce from wife #1 and living with wife-to-be #2, he told several people that he was divorcing wife #1 because she was not pretty enough or young enough to be a President's wife.
4) While married to wife #2 and Speaker of the House leading the anti-Clinton impeachment activities, he was having an affair with wife #3. At this time it was discovered that he was using a teaching position to illegally enrich his PAC and was laundering money from the PAC for his own personal use and that of cronies. There were over 400 counts of misconduct charged, several of them felonies. These were reduced to 28 and then to 1 count for which he was censured by the House. No criminal charges were ever pursued. Calista (wife #3) was not the only person with which he cheated on wife #2.
5) But also while Speaker of the House he tried to get wife #3 a no-show job at the Department of Agriculture by applying pressure as Speaker. He was charged with influence peddling and stepped down as Speaker and left the House as a part of a "plea bargain" with the House Ethics Committee. In return for not being prosecuted for influence peddling, Newt agreed to never run for political office again.
6) When Tom DeLay was having all his troubles as Speaker, the House tried to get ethics rules revised so that DeLay could continue as Speaker while under indictment (for exactly what Gingrich was censured for.) They attached the ethics rule changes as a rider to the Defense Appropriations Bill. The Senate rejected the DeLay rules changes causing DeLay to have to leave the post, but no one noticed that a rule change made it all the way through to the President's signature that rescinded the House agreement that kept Gingrich from running for elected office again.
Look at the pictures that all seem to feature Calista at his right hand. This is an obvious attempt to boost his "family values" image. But look closely --- do you think she trusts him any further than she can throw him? Rumors abound that he has serially cheated on wife #3 as well. Do you think she knows? I kinda feel sorry for her to a certain extent. I am sure she would like to know where that think is being stuck besides in her. They say that when you have sex with someone, you are also having sex with all the people your partner is having sex with. I wonder if Calista looks around and wonders if that intern has herpes or if that office staffer has an STD.
Just an FYI Chris, Delay was Majotiry Leader, not Speaker. Other than that, great post.
Aw HELL naw RepubliCONS..... These CONS are working on everything from killing same sex marriage, to outlawing abortion, to how many times one can take a dump in a day, to bustin' up unionized labor - EVERYTHING E-X-C-E-P-T....WHERE ARE ALL OF THE J O B S you promised??
Just like you RepubliCON snakes have "always does, campaign on one thing, and then do the "ropa-dope" on all of that once you get elected. We're STILL waiting. I'm dressed and ready to go out and get one of them GREAT PAYING jobs that the RepubliCONS campaigned on..... I just don't see them no where in sight! I guess your promise wasn't a TOTAL LIE.... you just didn't mention that the jobs you were creating just weren't on this planet. Nor did you give a definite date of "when" the jobs would be created.... so you have until the year 5,000 to create the jobs. So I guess "technically" the RepubliCONS didn't LIE - they just didn't tell the truth - as ALWAYS.
BTW.... THE RENT IS "STILL" TOO DAMN HIGH DOGGONIT! And Americans STILL do their family grocery shopping at the local "pet discount" store - in the bargin bins.... AND the Homeless tent cities are getting BIGGER AND BIGGER each and everyday AND have long waiting lists.
Reality101
Let me think about this a second ... so ... in December ... when the Dems still controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency ... unemployment was ... ~9.4% where it had been for the last 20 months (since the signing of the Stimulus that wasn't bill). And then on Dec 17th the Bush Tax cuts were extended again. TWO months later (the Repubs still only control the House, the Dems have the Senate and Presidency), the unemployment rate drops to 8.9 %. First time in 20 months, HMMMM! wonder why that happened? Maybe some certainty in the markets? So now we have a gas price spike and what does the Prez do? HEY LET'S DEPLETE OUR STRATEGIC RESERVE! He could have said "NOW'S THE TIME TO DRILL!". Any guesses what happened when Bush did the same thing? Maybe some more certainty in the market again causing the speculation to collapse?
Yep, you're right the Dems got all the answers! Unfortunately they're wrong ones!
Oh please.
My question is just how does gay marriage effect my marriage. I don't care what gay people do with their lives. I do know it's none of my business what they do with theirs.
Where are the Jobs boner?
grumpy2u,
So change the law! Until then it's not the Prez's job to say what he will / will not defend. He executes (which is to enforce and defend).
Jobs? Do you read? Mr Bohner's job creation success in 2 months is better than the President's last 20 months. Now if the Prez would just get off is butt and authorize some drilling for some oil!
... of course you didn't want to hear that either, did you?
The first deep water drilling permit was authorized just a few days ago. Spending cuts to kill 700,000 jobs does not sound like a good record to me. Maybe I missed the bill but how did the boner do it? Was it in the abortion bill or maybe the job creating bill to defund the health care bill. or maybe all of the other bills that didn't get passed by these clowns to massage the tea party wackos. By what magic does this fool take credit for anything in just 2 months. It is highly unlikely the the weaper of the house could run a kool-aid stand without hurting this country. Oh I forgot about their "Pledge to Screw America" which they don't follow either. Instead of worrying about DOMA they should start work on the DOAJ (Defense of American Jobs) bill.
grumpy2u,
my my my aren't we PO'd at the world today?
Actually that IS his job.
grumpy2u
Don't worry about Astonished,...his grasp on complex topics is as superficial as his grasp on the precipice we were sitting at two years ago.
Had it not been for the stimulus,...the country would have long since tanked. I shudder to think where we'd be if McCain had pulled a win.
PS. Republicans aren't good at math. That is why they don't put numbers in their budgets. I am LMFAO that someone HONESTLY believes the Repubs are responsible for the jobless rate dropping. There is delusion, and then there is the fanfrickintastical la la land these Me Firsters are living in. But that's just my opinion.
Well I guess this will create jobs for some attorneys.
So this is a RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-an jobs initiative?
No, because the people that will handle the case are already working for the house of horrors (sorry, of representatives)...
"Though some would say Boehner's House has also not focused explicitly on jobs by giving support to Rep. Chris Smith's (R-NJ) bill that seeks to assure no federal funds are used to obtain an abortion."
Atta boy, MSNBC, keep carrying the Dems talking points, as journalism!
Not to worry, Bob-
Whatever happens, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have assured us that Obamacare will not cover abortion services.
Of course, now that the Obama Justice Department has persuaded Judge Vinson that they will fast-track the appeals to his ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional (so that Vinson would grant them a stay to the immediate implementation his ruling), who knows?
With President Obama's core beliefs, from gay marriage to the Bush-era tax cuts...you never really know, do you?
Yes, Bob, they are giving both sides. That is good journalism. Good eye!!
I can't help but laugh my butt off when I hear the claims tha any improvement in the unemployment arena is because of anything that the GOP has done since the November elections, even if they had passed one single piece of legislation which might reasonably be expected to create one single job (which they haven't) but if even if they had there hasn't been enough time passed for any such fictitious legislation to take effect much less to have been in effect long enough to have any effect.
How typically Republican though, take credit for that which others have done and totally shirk any responsibility for anything they have done wrong either by their actions or their failure to act!
aint that the friggen truth...
RonInColorado, How can you say that? They held a symbolic vote against "job-killing Obamacare". They have tackled the "job-killing" abortion issue and now the "job-killing" gay marriage thingy. You can't possibly deny them credit for improving the economy just a tiny tick. It took them 8 years of hard work to destroy the best economy in American history and you dare deny them credit for the slightest improvement in the last 2 months? They have been very busy peppering the salad. How dare you imply their efforts haven't improved the taste of the soup they poisoned!
I guess they could create jobs for people (men, naturally) to go around and inspect all the uteri in the USA.
Speaker Boehner, there you go again. President Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer, President Of Harvard Review, you know his talents, so we're Broke as you so constantly remind us. President said he's "Enforcing it just not spending extra money. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, is what you promised and haven't begun to deliver, it's been Abortion, Abortion, Pulling Workers Rights, Cutting Medicare & Social Security and a whold host of everything but Jobs. It' time to go to work on Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
So June, you are familiar with the whole seperation of powers between the branches, right?
See if you can complete this sentence:
It is the executive branch's job is to ________the laws.
a. create
b. make fun of
c. enforce
Come on June give it a shot - you got a 1 in 3 chance of being right.
Spanky , that was an unfair request to ask June to complete a sentence, multiple choice...
where none of the choices included insulting Sarah Palin.
Unless June can cut and paste the answer, don't expect one anytime soon.
June: ignore the boors. They can only tear down others because none of them have an original thought. Have a good weekend!
Might I reming you that it FRIDAY?
But yes, totally NewDay - I'm a boor because I'd like to see if June has actually given this any thought.
But alas, as seems to always be the case with you libbie [I'm know:boorish] you all just react. I'd ask that you all just take a breath and ask yourselves, huh, is there something bigger than the thing that is immediately confronting me?
Like the rule of law. Kinda important, right?
By the way, you think she can do it? Or more importantly do you think she considered it before spewing forth her comments?
Now we all know the answer to that, don't we? [how you like them apples Ray?]
Like I said June: ignore the boors, especially the ones who cannot write a coherent sentence.
Spanky is picking on poor June and he can't even comprehend the difference between enforce and defend...
See if you can complete THIS sentence:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, it is a lawyer's duty not to take ________— positions in litigation.
I'll give you a hint. Begins with "friv-" and ends with "olous."
And THAT'S the "rule of law" that applies here.
Ok Am so you do want the lawyers making the call.
I suppose we'll wait and see how you feel when the shoe is on the other foot.
And really are you arguing that advocating for a law that is on the books would be deemed frivolous?
That's your argument here? Remember, rightly or wrongly its still the law.
Now are there any rules of procedure prohibiting you from taking postions contrary to the law? Hmmmm, just why do you suppose that is?
Wait I know - it has something to do with the rule of law.
Your turn, but hurry it's gettin' late.
Spanky ~ You need to be more careful. If you were really a lawyer, you would know that there are many outdated laws on the books of many states that would be ruled unconstitional, but have never been removed. They're just not enforced.
And yes, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is exactly the rule of procedure that prohibits lawyers from taking positions contrary to the "law." In this case, the operative "law" is not DOMA; it's Constitutional law. AG Holder has determined that DOMA is unconstitutional and therefore has made a decision not to defend it.
And you're obviously not reading what I'm writing, so I'll write it once again --
Under Rule 11 -- lawyers are not permitted to take frivolous positions in litigation. To determine whether a position is frivolous or not, one assumes a lawyer has to think about that in advance, which is exactly what AG Holder has done. If lawyers DON'T do what he has obviously done, and they DO take frivolous positions, they can be punished with big fines and other sanctions.
Rule 11 is the relevant rule here. In fact, if this were a court of law, your "rule of law" argument would be subject to sanction under Rule 11 -- you keep repeating an argument that is not relevant and is frivolous.
Have a nice weekend, Spanky. But you might want skip the drink. You obviously need to preserve your brain cells so you can study Rule 11 before the next time you go to court.
Ah, dear AM, how about you tell the folks exactly what Rule 11(b)(2) says.
You know the part that says "warranted by existing laws." Emphasis added to illustrate inanity of AM's argument.
So how abou say you have a cocktail or two. Might help, you never know.
Or are you going with DOMA is not an existing law?
Your turn AM, and make it a good one.
Spanky appears not to comprehend the difference between "enforce" and "defend", and seems not to have read Holder's letter to the Giant Orange Boner where he cited the relevant reporting requirements when the President chooses not to defend a law.
Yep, tis true I not understandy.
Not sure the distinction is germaine to the duties of the executive branch. So they get to pick? MMMM, I Eric Holdren will enforce, not defend...wait I will defend not enforce... wait.
So you think the DOJ gets to make that call? Cool. That means that when there is a republican in charge of the executive branch he'll get to do similar, correct?
Cause I can totally live with that. Say what's one gianormous law that a republican may not want to defend? Anyone?
I got to hand it to you guys, seems like a well thought out argument. :)
Are you really that weak a lawyer, Spanky?
That's exactly what DOES apply. That's in fact where you are wrong. Read the rule again. Holder obviously concluded, based on his study of the law, that making an argument that DOMA is constitutional is NOT WARRANTED BY EXISTING LAWS and there is no NON-FRIVOLOUS argument for extension of existing law. The applicable existing law being the Constitution, Amendment XIV, the Equal Protection Clause, and probably the Due Process clause as well. Under Rule 11(b)(2), which is what you're quoting, this is EXACTLY the situation that requires Holder NOT to defend DOMA.
As for whether other AGs can do that, do you really think that others DON'T? Who do you think gave George W. Bush the idea for those signing statements? I'm guessing John Ashcroft.
Unfortunately, however, no republican AG will get to decide whether to defend Obamacare. The Supremes will either uphold it or strike it down long before that.
Well alrighty then, I guess DOMA is not an "existing law."
But alas, Doma is an existing law, so Holder does not get to make the call. And come on it's not extending an existing law, it is upholding, defending and enforcing, an existing law.
Now you are trying too hard. What's that term? Oh year over-lawyering.
And didn't we agree three weeks ago that Obamacare fails - no integration clause, which they of course left out on purpose? So yeah, you are probably right about a Republican AG having to defend O'care.
Try again, Spanky. I explained that further below.
The challenge is to DOMA's constitutionality. The question for purposes of Rule 11(b)(2) is whether you can argue it is "under existing law," with the existing law being the Constitution. Under your interpretation, that would be arguing that DOMA is valid merely because it exists, in which case no law could ever be declared unconstitutional.
And then, we can go back and revisit the Citizens United decision. How would you like that?
Spanky, I have a question for you: How does one logically equate lack of defense regarding the law as lack of enforcement of the law? That is precisely what you are doing, equating the fact that the Justice Dept is not sending lawyers to court to defend the constitutionality of a law they have deemed unconstitutional. This is not so that the Justice Dept is not ensuring that the law is enforced in all federal jurisdictions, they are just not going to court when someone litigates over restrictions they must suffer as a result of this law. To that point, this only applies to a specific section of the law, Section 3.
Forest for the trees, Spanky, forest for the trees.
Obama is in fact upholding his oath to defend the constitution by not defending an unconstitutional law.
While I am not a lawyer, am I allowed to point out that some 'genius' on Ashcroft's team told Bush & Co that torture was legal?
While we'd all like to believe Justice is Blind,...there seems to be pretty clear evidence that it is at least as partisan as other branches of government.
And Spanky, if you are a lawyer - you have some of the worst spelling and grammar of anyone purporting to be educated. It would seem you are deliberately being obtuse with AM's point which is that while DOMA was passed by Congress - it can NOT be held up to existing law (prior to it's passage) to pass the 'sniff' test as to constitutionality. But do carry on with your backwards lawyering. It's nothing if not entertaining.
This is the thread I've been waiting for! Spankey has hit a nerve here with the seperation of powers and I'm of the opinion that the President has over stepped his authority; twice now in this regard.
It is the judical branch's job to determine if an existing law is or is not constitutional, not the Presidents, and that can only occur when said law has been brought before the court in a legal proceeding that directly challenges that law. The executive branch has the power to enforce the laws that the legislative branch creates, but it does not have the power to ignore any law that the people have empowered them to enforce, to do anything less is tyranny, a breach of their oath of office, which is punishable by impeachment.
President Obama has done the same thing with medical marijuana, and in each of these instances, he has circumvented the courts via non-enforcement of laws which will, for all intent and purpose, inturn deny Americans their right to due process through said courts.
What's more, where does this all end once the precedence has been established and has been engrained into the powers of the president? Will murder or treason no longer be enforcable crimes should a President arbitrarily decide they too aren't part of his ideal of what is constitutional and stop their enforcement. Such an all powerful president sounds like a King, someone we fought to get rid of at our birth.
I don't like it in the least bit!
In case it wasn't already obvious, this makes perfectly clear that the GOP will stand up for hate and bigotry masquerading as "morals" and "religion" -- and use taxpayer dollars while doing it.
As with McCain's idiotic stand against DADT, history will record all of this, but it will not remember the GOP kindly.
The USA is a nation that believes in the rule of law or not so much, or only when it is easy or ?
Why do you give the legislature a pass? Or should we just do away with the legislature and let the executive branch take over their duties?
Sound good to you Grand Moff?
I'm not sure how it sounds. Your post was so poorly worded I couldn't figure out if there was a question in there or not. Can you translate that from derp back to English and try again?
If I'm not mistaken, it IS the Executive Branch's duty to enforce the law, and that's exactly what President Obama has pledged to do. I don't agree with his stand on gay marriage, and I certainly don't agree with DOMA, but I do understand what the Chief Executive's duties are.
If a decision is made not to defend the law in court, that probably qualifies for protection under legal ethical rules requiring lawyers to exercise candor before a tribunal and not to take frivolous positions in litigation. In fact, lawyers can be sanctioned severely for that.
You claim to be a litigator, Spanky. Ever hear of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11? Look it up.
One of Reagan's duties as Chief Executive was to put in place the mechanisms to enforce the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 against employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants. It is universally acknowledged that Reagan, and his successor George H. W. Bush, failed to do this -- deliberately it would seem. I never heard a single republican complain about that.
George W. Bush issued thousands of "signing statements" declaring that he disagreed with certain laws and essentially announcing his intent not to enforce them. I never heard a single republican complain about that.
The State of Arizona, controlled by republicans, is currently considering legislation under which it would decide unilaterally which federal laws to observe and which not, essentially violating the federal Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. I haven't heard ANY republicans making ANY objection to that.
And your point, again, Spanky?
Grand Moff Joseph-
Your reading comprehension skills aren't so grand, Grand Moff.
Love the title, though...
Why thank you for highlighting m point AM.
Arizona is legislating. Obama is charged with enforcement. He is not supposed to be in the bsiness of choosing. If it's a law, he upholds it. Ethical duties? So the lawyers get to decide now? I think you'd agree that would be a bad idea.
If Bush made similiar choices, that was equally bad.
So let's try it again: which branch creates the laws, and which enforces?
If the laws sucks it's on the legislature or the judicial branch to correct, not the executive branch.
Did not not what Saturday morning cartoons. I know there was a special on this subject. And yes that is typically the basis of my knowledge on the subject.
Hey AM, in case I don't get to say it later [cause I'm out drinking] thanks for making it a fun week.
The President continues to uphold the law regardless of how much conservatives stamp their feet--enforcing the law and not defending its constitutionality are two different things.
Since immigration was mentioned here, I heard today that, Texas (I think), passed a law making it illegal to hire illegals except if it is for domestic work around the home. What?
Violating Rule 11 is the "bad idea," Spanky. When Boehner's legal minions take those frivolous positions in court and get slapped with sanctions, they'll be the ones receiving those Rule 11 fines.
Will you pay their fines for them, or will you ask the teachers to pay them?
Judy, I live in Austin and I'm embarrassed at that law.
I don't understand what they are trying to say. It's okay for illegals to clean my bathroom and do my yard, because they'll do it cheaply, but it's not okay for businesses to do the same thing because they do it cheaply?! Does anybody think that sounds right?
None of them should be legal to hire in my opionion, but that's also why we need to settle on a better immigration policy that deals with people already here, and enforce the hell out of it.
Sanctioned for taking a position consistent with the existing and current law? Really? That's what you forsee happening? Have you ever been sanction for taking a postion that is consistent with ans existing law, cause I sure have not, nor have I sen o har o such a thing.
Perhaps you could explain how that would happen? Again, DOMA, like it or hate is still the law, right.
Come AM, you have to at least try.
and that's ...nor have I seen or heard of such a thing.
Not sure if it's my awesome typing skillz, or cheap ass wireless keyboard. And I haven't even gone to happy hour yet.
I don't know if this will help anyone or not but, when an attorney is enforcing a law, it is done on the prosecutorial side (see criminal law). If an attorney is defending a law, it is done when someone is filing a case against it (see civil law). The AG's office is charged with both duties (criminal and civil). Hope it helps.
Wrong applicable "existing and current law." DOMA is being challenged under the CONSTITUTION, and the applicable question is whether it can be defended UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, not whether it can be defended under itself. If that were the standard, and it's not, then NO law could EVER be declared unconstitutional because every law could be defended under its own terms.
Under your view, let's go back and re-visit Citizens United, shall we?
What law school did you go to again?
What law school? really that's where we are going? Not sure how this is more or less relevant that the other guys commenting upon IQs, but USD. How about you?
So why do you suppose that guy trotted out IQ score? Perhaps he wanted to get away from the merits?
And I can assume you are in full agreement with Citizens, correct?
No. Just the opposite. Where did you get that idea? But under your theory, the underlying laws were "existing laws" and apparently, not subject to challenge. They were "rule of law" just because they existed. That's not how it works, Spanky, because then we wouldn't need courts to, as John Marshall put it, "say what the law is." Why, when legislatures already do that?
Or was Marshall wrong?
I can't comment on someone else's motivations, and I didn't question your IQ. I know a LOT better than to do something like that. But given the positions you take, your legal training IS legitimately open to question. I'm sorry if that offended you. It wasn't a particularly polite thing for me to say.
UW.
How can you say that when in reality the USA is a nation born in contradiction. When the founding fathers signed the declaration of independence, they claimed that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and yet African Americans had to wait 87 years for this be (partially) true; women had to wait 144 years, and that after 235 years gays and lesbians are still waiting for this come true? What rule of law are you talking about?
Anna Molly, are you of the opinion that the people are in some ways being denied due process with such Presidential mandates to not enforce laws of their choosing. I understand that the Republicans have done it before; however, do you agree with us continuing down this slippery slope of despot like rule?
Whar more do republicans have to, do to convince independents that they do not give a crap about the working people of this country?
If there IS something, I'm sure they'll think of it.
yea, forget about lowering debt and creating jobs, this country really wants you to defend a law that an ever increasing majority of americans do not support. brilliant!
Does anyone else notice how quickly this country is devolving into Margaret Atwood's THE HANDMAID'S TALE?
Anna Molly... YES! And it sends chills down my spine.
I think I'm going to have to watch the movie now..............And Anna Molly, I think Spanky likes you. Notice how he keeps trying to bring you out?
How can the party of Newt Gingrich (on Wife #3) talk seriously about "Defense Of Marriage"?
What are they defending it from?
Themselves?
Attack of the Killer Cross Dressers. Whatever seems most scary today.
RUNNNNNNNN.
I think "killer trannies" would be more scary. LOL!!!
It should have been called the 'Defense of Mistress's Act' instead.
Poor Speaker Boehner, he's spent a couple months on anti-abortion legislation, repealing health care and a host of other legislation to appease his Tea Party base--how's he supposed to find time to create jobs? I'm betting it won't be long before Rove or some other FOX talking head claims this was a plot by President Obama and those democrats to prevent the GOPTP from working on the economy.
Contrary to the noise machine from the right, the Department of Justice and President Obama will enforce the DOMA--they will not, however, defend it's constitutionality in federal courts. Other administrations have taken similar stands on laws. Nothing new here except that conservatives get all bent out of shape when it comes to sticking their nose into people's bedrooms.
Ummmm, Jody - that was some nice news on the job front this morning, right?
You are comfortable with the DOJ deciding which laws to defend? You have no seperation of powers issue?
Interesting. Say, you think someday, when there is say a republican president you might feel, i don't know, exactly the opposite?
come on Jody think it through. Now, say it with me: Rule of law.
Do you know what that means?
And he's had to do all of this while taking extra time off this year. That Speaker is a busy guy for sure.
Was Spanky born a sniggering, sarcastic douche, or is there some sort of training program you can go to?
Not good enough to impress the market two days in a row, Spanky. Dow was down 88 points today.
If republicans are responsible for the drop in unemployment, then what do you suppose they are doing to make those gas prices go up and up and up? And make them stop it, please.
Or wait. My investments are now secure. Yours?
As a matter of fact I just closed down two of my stock accounts. I think you and I discussed this last week - I think things are going to go downhill for at least the short term.
This gas situation is BAD. I just hope the republicans can beat down the EPA and other regulators related to energy prices.
And I think they should hire you and JoAnna to do it, right after you get done with the unions.
After that, there are some Head Start regulations and after-school childcare funding bills that need some serious attention.
"Beating down" progress should keep you two busy and entertained for years.
Let me know you what you find under that stone, won't you? I'm betting it won't be oil.
I suspect that it'll be money. Kindo of like the DROP program that is bankrupting San Diego.
Yeah, the unions didn't take advantage at all over the last few years.
But hey, you never did answer about the Beat down Boxer got yesterday about Global Cooling/Warming Czar Holdren. Cool, right?
Not cool. Warm, in fact.
Oh, Spanky, think it through yourself. The law is being enforced, anyone who reads the Constitution can conclude that DOMA violates it--why should any government defend a law that is a violation of its own constitution and a violation of civil rights. From your postings, I assume you are a conservative who believes in small government yet you expect Government to determine who can and cannot marry in this country--that's hypocrisy. There was a time when one race could not marry another, it was illegal and that, too, was unconstitutional. There was a time when gays could not serve in the military and finally in 2010, that law was repealed. There was a time when blacks and women could not vote but today they can. It seems, Spanky, that you have a small government wish with a big, intrusive government ideology.
Give it a rest, let adults choose who their partner in life is and grant them the same rights across the board, Man-Woman, Man-Man, Woman-Woman. Kill DOMA, it is an anachronism of an earlier age and a vestigial remnant of bigotry and intolerance that has no place in a modern civil society.
So when are they going to stop wasting time on this BS and start working on things that will create jobs?
More of the same...
Why is it this Congress is focused on anything but jobs. They focus on continually dividing the citizens of the United States and would rather defend Un Constitutionally indefensible law they knew was Un Constitutional when they passed it. What do they think when they visit the personalities of the Constitutional signers, Three of them who went to live the rest of their lives together in ........New York City?
How can they defend the time and money they spend on this nonsense? They clamor about the powers of the federal and state government, yet defy it in the same breath, stepping across the boundries time and again to draw division between the people.
The election was about job creation, and they better start doing their job.
Okay Mr. Boehner,
You (and the GOP) can go ahead and worry about this Nation spending money within Courts to debate who should give birth to babies during these difficult times of budget cuts......
And the White House can go ahead and worry about whether or not a Baby has parents who actually have a job after their birth.......................
That would be a nice change, Tony, because he sure as he!! hasn't shown much interest in the job picture, the last two years.
Marriage does not really require any defense. At a time of cutting budgets we have more important things to focus our money on then these court cases. If some individuals want to contribute to a legal fund for the defense of DOMA I think they could, but I agree with Obama that he doesn't need to be wasting the money and the justice department lawyers on this right now.
I just love how Obama has decided what is and what isn't Constitutional.
Another example of Obama acting like a dictator.
Lawyers are not permitted to take frivolous positions in lawsuits. They only way they can do that is by making determinations for themselves as to what may be frivolous. Failure to do that results in big fines.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Look it up.
Steven B - find somebody with an IQ over 100 to explain to you what Obama has dedided.
Oh no you didn't JimS! GGoing score board on IQ? SWWWEEEEETTTTT!
But hey there buddy, I don't know about my IQ, but I am a ESQ., so maybe you and your big brain could explain it to me. How about it JimS.
And remember to type real slow so I can follow along.
OK – here it is. Because of recent supreme court rulings and the repeal of DADT, The Obama administration has decided that the Federal Marriage Act might be unconstitutional so they will not continue to defend it as being constitutional on appeal. It will continue to be enforce until it is overturned by the court system.
The problem is, this is what was said and many if not most right wingers couldn’t understand. Maybe the administration needs a 2nd press secretary. Somebody who knows how to explain things so republicans can understand.
At least this position involved the Justice Dept. reviewing the possibility of the DOMA being deemed Constitutional and concluding that it would not be upheld. Contrast this with how the Bush administration twisted the law around to say that waterboarding wasn't torture.
If Bush really wanted to know if waterboarding was torture, he could have waterboarded Cheney to find out. This is what the vice president is for.
It MIGHT be? They are not sure, but won't enforce. Huh. Say, whose job is it to defend the existing laws? Are you aware of some private law firm that does that?
So how do you forsee that working with say, or I don't know, a republican head of the DOJ? You think there MIGHT be an issue with Obamacare? Cause I think some republican might think O'care is unconstitutional. Just a hunch. What's that, a Federal Circuit Court Judge has ruled on a case brought by 26 states that O'care is in fact unconstitutional? Well look here. You suppose the DOJ will apply it's own logic and not defend O'care anymore? If not why not? Sure there are other decisions, but that one, and at least one other have affirmatively ruled it to be agaisnt the constitution. What up with that JimS?
And maybe you need to lay off other people's percieved IQs, eh? Or maybe you have a chart with everybody's IQ scores on it. You know, so your comment would not be based 100% on your own speculation?
But I get it - us republicans is mighty dumb, right JimS?
Ahh, and it back to Bush I see. Brilliant work there. But I think Biden may just disagree. Wait, you menat only what republican vps are for right there JimS?
Look, Spanky, we know you're smarter than all of us combined, so why don't YOU offer to defend DOMA against Constitutional attack, and I'LL challenge it. Steeler Fan can be my very worthy co-counsel.
I realize that the two of us against you still leaves us about 100 IQ points short, but I'm willing to take the risk.
And tell you what, Spankster. Whichever one of us gets slapped with Rule 11 penalties for the positions we take in Court has to buy the drinks. Deal?
And one could make the argument, what the waivers and all, that the DOJ isn't defending Obamacare NOW.
Now why would I want to defend an unconstitutional pos like DOMA?
You think your managing partner would let you take the case? Might not pay too good.
Headed to car wash to get convertible cleaned up. Supposed to be really nice this weekend.
Hey look at that 4:41 pm. Now where did the day go? Oh, yeah. Nevermind.
See you next week AM.
Pelosi says Republicans are squarely on the wrong side of history and change? The majority are opposed to Gay marriage, but like Obama health care, I guess that really doesn't matter to her. She must still be mad because she lost her $50M a year travel allowance.
Dave D-1046643,
Your opinions sound purely speculative and heresay. How about speaking of actual political facts and the affiliated issues surrounding the facts???
The question of who's on the Right side of history has already been answered in the present tense; indicated by who's sitting in the White House...................case closed.
Well Tony, that was a load of blather. The fact is: all polls, to date, support marriage between a man and a woman. California, although sadly, a Left leaning State, voted in just that. Who's on the right side of history remains to be seen. Your guy isn't looking to good.
After the Mormons poured in millions upon millions of dollars to get Prop 8 pushed through. Which is even now being litigated as ALSO being unconstitutional I might add!
Well, Spanky, when Boehner's legal minions take those frivolous positions in court and get slapped with sanctions, they'll be the ones receiving the Rule 11 fines.
Will you pay their fines for them, or will you ask the teachers to pay them?
I'll take SEIU for $2000 please.
Say what do you think about the impending collapse to the SEIU? $81,000,000 in the hole? Oh my, is it possible they are worse business people than workers?
At least we now know why Stern left in such a hurry.
I don't think anything about it. I have no skin in that game.
Corruption is corruption wherever you find it. If there IS corruption, then it should be punished.
By the way, what do YOU think about Milwaukee County being on the brink of bankruptcy owing to Scott Walker's stewardship?
Better yet, what do you think about the corruption on Wall Street that led to the financial collapse that helped precipitate the fiscal crisis on all levels and in all states, unionized or not? Don't look at me. George Bush said that, when he asked for the bailout.
And what do you think about that unnecessary, off-the-books war that also helped precipitate the huge deficits we have now? Ought to send those guys to jail, too, don't you think, if nothing else, for fiscal high crimes and misdemeanors.
I was out, but you suked me back in.
A wise person once said "corruption is corruption wherever you find it." Applies to private and public settings equally. I actually don't think the financial collapse was the fault of Walls Street as much a just a perfect crap storm, fueled by the housing bubble and GAS prices.
The wars are bad and I really wish Obama would just pull out all the troops and let the whole area fall in onto itself. But although costly, they are not the cause to he debt. A relatively small factor, yes. As a real estate broker I have a very strong inclination that Barney Frand and Chris Dodd ought to be punished. Jail, maybe, but we got to get Barney and Rangel the hell away from congress. Again, a wise peron once said "corruption....."
And she meant it.
But you really need to get that spell checker fixed. ;-)
Spanky, u r correct....but I would venture to say, it was primarily the housing bubble deflating, and the ever increasing cost of gas in the summer of 2008 increased the rate of recession. You say it wasn't the bankers, I say it was primarily their fault... Frank and Dodd played a minor role in letting banks get too greedy and not acting to curtail them when necessary. For the Banks, it was easy since they passed up the risks to their investment to the government (Fannie and Freddie).... California's Prop 13 (and the likes in similar states) didn't help either...
Anna Molly
I think that shut Spanky up and excellent comments! My hat is off to you!
Have a wonderful weekend
Shut me up? Nah, but hey I did look up the rule [getting sanction as never been an issue with me, sorry AM] and low and behold Amma Molly got it wrong.
What, don't believe me? You too can pretend to be an attorney. Just google FRCP Rule 11. Then pay attentin to subsection (b) sub-paragraph (2).
Go ahead take a gander. I know, right! Sure she's silly wrong, but I give Anna M some credit-- she certainly is a gamer.
Read my comment above. Far from being wrong, you proved me right and further proved you are no master of syntax, or the law, either, come to that.
But I didn't have to look it up. What kind of litigator ARE you, anyway, that you have no working knowledge of a critical rule of pleadings?
No you are wrong!
Except for the part about master of syntax. Oh, and the law, 'specially Fed. Civ. Pro.
And again, never had any issues with sanctions, and god knows I try to limit my exposure to federal courts. Got a fairly large trade secret case right now. UGH!
Well, you know how this group of Republicans-Tea People are; they don't work on creating jobs. However, they love fighting the people's rights as far as social issues go.
Next, they will go after un-wed mothers. Whoops, I forgot that they are already doing that.
What would be news is if Boehner focused on anything that is important to the majority of americans and not all these social issues. Useless way to spend our tax dollars.
So John of Orange, exactly how many jobs will this create??
Boehner supports marriage between a man and woman...
Isn't it time he at least try to put a stop down South to the marriages between brothers/sisters and first cousins?
What do you call a Southern Tea Partiers Engagement Party? A family reunion...
Maybe Jody doesn't, but I surely do. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, as a matter of fact.
Look it up.
Which really only makes it worse. At least Jody can assert ignorance.
And you're living proof of it.
But keep digging, Spankster. You're getting closer to China with every post. ;-)
Well I do find Asia women hot, but I digress.
Hey, you like china bowels, right. See we do have things in common. I mean I a crack litigator and you are not, but we did both go to law school, right?
Apparently only Anna Molly graduated,...