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

[pmcalk]

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:

The Supreme Court decades ago recognized that the 5th Amendment does incorporate an equal protection requirement.  In Bolling v. Sharp, the court determined that the "due process" clause of the 5th Amendment must require the federal government provide equal protection of the laws.  Otherwise, equal protection would only apply to the states.

[Conan71]

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.

No, actually, that's not at all what Holder is saying.  He's saying that this law somehow became irrelevant in the last 15 years and this week seems to be the arbitrary time line for it to become irrelevant.  As well, AG is DOJ, not Executive Branch.  Double FAIL. 

Well, wait, under the Chicago rules of engagement, AG probably is a cabinet position maybe even more like a co-president.  We usually would like to see a semi-adversarial relationship between the AG and EB, that means the AG is really part of the checks and balances, not a sock puppet for the President.

Speaking of co-presidents, where has Biden been lately? Playing with his stamp and coin collections?  He's such a speshul little guy.

[Conan71]

The Supreme Court decades ago recognized that the 5th Amendment does incorporate an equal protection requirement.  In Bolling v. Sharp, the court determined that the "due process" clause of the 5th Amendment must require the federal government provide equal protection of the laws.  Otherwise, equal protection would only apply to the states.

I'll take another fifth!  Hic!!! 

Good to see you back around here, don't be a stranger, PM.

[nathanm]

As well, AG is DOJ, not Executive Branch.  Double FAIL. 

Maybe this changed while I wasn't looking, but last I checked, DoJ is an agency of the executive branch and all its members not subject to civil service rules work at the pleasure of the President. We used to have the Office of the Independent Counsel, who was not appointed by anyone in the executive branch and could not be fired by anyone in the executive branch, but that expired in '99.

[Conan71]

Maybe this changed while I wasn't looking, but last I checked, DoJ is an agency of the executive branch and all its members not subject to civil service rules work at the pleasure of the President. We used to have the Office of the Independent Counsel, who was not appointed by anyone in the executive branch and could not be fired by anyone in the executive branch, but that expired in '99.

Well, I'll be damned.  The AG has gone from being the people's advocate to the President's advocate

[Townsend]

From the Onion.

Systems Analyst

"Well I hope they don't expect my wife and I to do it, because we've got our hands full defending Christmas."

[Townsend]

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/25/134035020/after-obamas-gay-marriage-decision-a-new-world?sc=fb&cc=fp

After Obama's Gay-Marriage Decision, 'A New World'

President Obama's assertion that the federal ban on same sex-marriage is unconstitutional has expanded the political debate on legal rights for gay Americans.

The administration's position on the Defense of Marriage Act "will affect every nook and cranny of gay rights," says James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"It's a new world," says Esseks, who heads the ACLU's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project.

By saying it regards the 15-year-old federal law as unconstitutional, the White House has injected gay rights as an issue into the next the presidential election. Obama is expected run for a second term in 2012.

Some conservative activists have already begun raising money by pointing to what they characterize as the White House's refusal to "defend marriage," and influential Catholic leaders are echoing that language.

[Gaspar]

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. 

That is the best laugh of the day! 

Thanks, I had to share that reasoning with some co-workers.  Priceless!

[Gaspar]

Well, I'll be damned.  The AG has gone from being the people's advocate to the President's advocate

+5

[nathanm]

Well, I'll be damned.  The AG has gone from being the people's advocate to the President's advocate

The AG didn't "go" from anywhere to anywhere. The way it is today is the way it's always been. If you want to bring back the independent counsel, be my guest. That would make me happy. (I'd prefer more oversight than in the last go-round, but even bringing the old statute back word for word would be nice)

[Townsend]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/boehner-vows-to-defend-gay-marriage-ban/not-so-fast/?cid=cs:headline1

Boehner's found a way to save the economy:

House Speaker John Boehner said today that members of his caucus will defend the law that forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriages, after the Obama administration said it would no longer defend the law in court.

Dammit, that-a-way Boehner...that-a-way.

We're certainly gonna turn this boat 'round now.