Holder: If Gay's Your Way, That's Okay!!!

[Conan71]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html

This could be interpreted that one, unelected official has determined gay marriage is now okay by the Federal Government, singularly overturning 15 years of policy.

"Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.

"Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed" the Defense of Marriage Act, Holder said in a statement. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional and that Congress has repealed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said Obama himself is still "grappling" with his personal view of gay marriage but has always personally opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as "unnecessary and unfair."

Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that Obama has concluded the Defense of Marriage Act fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.

The attorney general said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html

[Gaspar]

Again. . .gay marriage?  Who cares!  I think you should be able to marry your sofa if you want to.

The problem here is that the attorney general has stated that he intends to selectively not enforce the law.  I don't really care what the law is.  We are a nation of laws.  The attorney general's office is tasked with enforcing those laws. 

He is not the decision maker on what laws are enforced.  Refusing to enforce the laws established by the people is contempt (open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of the court of law or Congress). 

I agree that the concept of marriage has become more of a legal definition than a spiritual one.  I think the legal definition should be extended to anyone who wishes to enter into the legal bond.  I think the country is moving that direction, but it is not the duty, right, or mandate of the office of the attorney general to make or change policy.

This guy is a moron.

[nathanm]

It's not at all uncommon for US attorneys to choose not to prosecute crimes. Same goes for state-level prosecuting attorneys.

[guido911]

It's not at all uncommon for US attorneys to choose not to prosecute crimes. Same goes for state-level prosecuting attorneys.

Holder is not refusing to prosecute a "crime". He is selectively refusing to enforce a law passed by Congress and signed off on by Clinton. That's a huge difference than a prosecutor exercising prosecutorial discretion. Also, I am not sure there is any criminal component associated with DOMA.

I heard a talking head today state that since Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional, then in order to be consistent Holder and the Pres. should no longer enforce any of its provisions. I am still thinking that point through but it at least made me think.

[Gaspar]

It's not at all uncommon for US attorneys to choose not to prosecute crimes. Same goes for state-level prosecuting attorneys.

Yes, usually that determination is based on the abundance of evidence or lack thereof.  The decision is based on an evaluation of individual cases.

Mr. Holder is not evaluating the merit of a case.  He is refusing to uphold the law.  The duty of his office is very narrow.  It is to uphold the laws established by the people and passed by their representatives in Congress and signed into law by the President.  When he was sworn in he swore to well and faithfully discharge the duties of his office.

He has now indicated that he has no intension of upholding the duties of his office.

This establishes him as a moron.

[guido911]

This guy is a moron.

I read on the nets that Holder believes DOMA violates the "equal protection" clause of the Fifth Amendment. Funny thing is that that provision is in the Fourteenth Amendment. Here's the text of the Fifth:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[Gaspar]

I read on the nets that Holder believes DOMA violates the "equal protection" clause of the Fifth Amendment. Funny thing is that that provision is in the Fourteenth Amendment. Here's the text of the Fifth:

Actually when asked if he read the Constitution, he said "I have not had a chance to - I've glanced at it."

[Conan71]

Actually when asked if he read the Constitution, he said "I have not had a chance to - I've glanced at it."

Best laugh of the day.  Thank you!

I'm in agreement as far as gay marriage.  If same sex couples want their union sanctioned by the state, so be it.

However, the US AG selectively refusing to enforce a law is dereliction of duty.  This is not how it's done.  You get Congress to pass a law and the President signs off on it.

Wonder what would happen if the next USAG decides to not enforce the CRA's of the 1960's?

[we vs us]

Actually, nowhere did Holder say he wouldn't enforce the law.  What he and the President have both said is that they wouldn't argue the law in front of the courts.  Which is to say, they won't defend it if it were to be challenged on legal grounds.  They'll enforce it until it's struck down by the courts or amended by the Congress. 

[guido911]

Actually, nowhere did Holder say he wouldn't enforce the law.  What he and the President have both said is that they wouldn't argue the law in front of the courts.  Which is to say, they won't defend it if it were to be challenged on legal grounds.  They'll enforce it until it's struck down by the courts or amended by the Congress.  

What kind of nonsense is that? Holder/Obama are going to enforce a law they consider so unconstitutional, to the point where Holder thinks it violates the equal protection clause, they won't defend it when challenged? That is some mighty fine weapons grade hypocrisy.

edited.

[we vs us]

What kind of nonsense is that? Holder/Obama are going to enforce a law they consider so unconstitutional, to the point where Holder thinks it violates the equal protection clause, they won't defend it when challenged? That is some mighty fine weapons grade hypocrisy.

edited.

Well, yes, they are going to enforce a law they consider unconstitutional.  They won't argue for the law if it is challenged, but will enforce it, because that's their job . . . they are the executive branch, and in part responsible for enforcing the law. 

C'mon, you're a lawyer, right?  Surely you must have to argue things you don't believe in.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wevsus,

It's just more of that RWRE script.  When reality doesn't follow it, the words still must go to the script.  That's why it so seldom makes sense in any normal context.  (I don't believe he's a lawyer...)

[guido911]

Well, yes, they are going to enforce a law they consider unconstitutional.  They won't argue for the law if it is challenged, but will enforce it, because that's their job . . . they are the executive branch, and in part responsible for enforcing the law.  

C'mon, you're a lawyer, right?  Surely you must have to argue things you don't believe in.

Nope. But in fairness, I was never a federal government lawyer whose job it is is to defend federal law to the fullest extent--whether they disagree with it or not--not just to a self-imposed extent. But please, feel free to continue your sad and pathetic defense of a hypocritical position taken by your administration.  
BTW, do you even listen to yourself?

[guido911]

Wevsus,

It's just more of that RWRE script.  When reality doesn't follow it, the words still must go to the script.  That's why it so seldom makes sense in any normal context.  (I don't believe he's a lawyer...)

I couldn't give less of a damn what you believe.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I never would have known....

And STILL, no understanding of what they are saying.  Oh, but wait...if their JOB is to defend Federal law, then wouldn't that same thing also have applied during the 8 years of the Bush regime??  No, I thought not.

After all, those weren't serious laws like interfering with peoples emotional lives, those were trivial things like torture.

That must be the infamous "double standard" we hear about all the time.  Stinkier than one of Andrew Zimmern's meals.