Obama government will stop defending the DOMA

[cinyc]

I guess the Attorney General no longer is required to defend the laws of the United States in court if he doesn't like the law.

[cinyc]

While you were lying in bed doing nothing, a helicopter crashed into your neighbor's house and caused a fireball, inflicting 1st and 2nd degree burns over most of your body. While you were unconscious, an ambulance picked you up and took you to the hospital. Oh, and you're not Torie, you're an unemployed 24-year-old with no savings living in a rented apartment. Who pays your bills?

Easy.  The helicopter company, whose negligence caused their helicopter to crash.  I and the hospital sue them; they pay me and the hospital; I pay my bills.

Next question.

[cinyc]

But if it makes you feel better, you caused the fire yourself by doing some at-home electrical work, burn yourself up, the hospital takes you in and treats you without knowledge of ability to pay, and it turns out you have none. You're at fault. Well, hospital, go try to collect.

As bullmoose88 said, perhaps I can sue the manufacturer or homeowners' insurance will pay.  But if they do not, simply making medical bills non dischargeable in bankruptcy would allow the hospital to collect over time.  In your hypotheticals, I'm 24, and have years of work ahead of me.

[cinyc]

I wonder if certain liberals here still think Obama is not liberal enough?

Lol. Obama is barely liberal. I don't understand how you could realistically define him as anything other than a charismatic centrist.

If National Journal's most liberal Senator in 2007 is not a liberal, then who is a liberal, exactly?

[cinyc]

I wonder if certain liberals here still think Obama is not liberal enough?

Lol. Obama is barely liberal. I don't understand how you could realistically define him as anything other than a charismatic centrist.

If National Journal's most liberal Senator in 2007 is not a liberal, then who is a liberal, exactly?

Obviously using the GOP definition of the liberal, which is anything to left of them...

Nice try.  National Journal is not a partisan publication.

[cinyc]

lol... you obviously have no idea what communism is.

Is it also tyranny and intimidation (which you seem to approve of) when Scott Walker threatens to use the National Guard to force people to work after he attempts to strip them of their collective bargaining rights and slash their pay?

I'd hope you are consistent!  

For the umpteenth time, Scott Walker NEVER threatened to call out the National Guard if government workers protested his proposed changes to bargaining laws.  And he hasn't.  

[cinyc]

This effect has been explained before. Democratic nominees for president from the Senate tend to get rated as highly liberal by even objective sources while they are campaigning for the White House because they often take fewer votes due to spending less time in DC and they often only vote when their vote is needed by the party or for highly important legislation. As such, there is a heavy selection bias and the rating, while not biased in an intentionally partisan or ideological way, tends to skew reality toward the extremes; it makes sense that in 2007 or 2008 even while Obama was spending most of his time campaigning that his 'liberal score' would be high.

Scores from 2005 or 2006 should be more reflective of his natural leanings.

Care to guess who had the most liberal Senate voting record of all Democratic nominees in 2006, per National Journal?  Hint.

[cinyc]

This effect has been explained before. Democratic nominees for president from the Senate tend to get rated as highly liberal by even objective sources while they are campaigning for the White House because they often take fewer votes due to spending less time in DC and they often only vote when their vote is needed by the party or for highly important legislation. As such, there is a heavy selection bias and the rating, while not biased in an intentionally partisan or ideological way, tends to skew reality toward the extremes; it makes sense that in 2007 or 2008 even while Obama was spending most of his time campaigning that his 'liberal score' would be high.

Scores from 2005 or 2006 should be more reflective of his natural leanings.

Care to guess who had the most liberal Senate voting record of all Democratic nominees in 2006, per National Journal?  Hint.

Why do you people always obsessively focus on the stupid ratings lists instead of actually pointing out the list of the evil liberal things they've said and done instead?

You can talk talk talk about Obama's crazy-liberal record but it's not reflected in almost anything he's actually done.

changing the goal-posts - now most liberal candidate in 2006...

When was 10th most liberal... or 15th in 2005...

The 10th most liberal Senator is still more liberal than 90 of his colleagues.  How is that is not liberal enough for you or others who are denying that Obama is a liberal is beyond my comprehension.

The guy is a liberal.  He enacted socialized medicine despite overwhelming opposition, wants to hike taxes on the so-called rich, is pro-abortion and despite attempts to hide it, wants gay marriage.  He comes down on the liberal side of every contested issue today.  That he doesn't have the power to enact what he wishes is a different story.

[cinyc]

That's really the only issue that matters - as that would be a huge executive power grab if this could not be done.

Congress can choose to appoint someone. I wonder if the House GOP may actually decide not to do so, because this is the one part of DOMA which is clearly and unequivocally indefensible, and Boehner isn't looking to stir up the youngs before 2012 with a culture war where they have already banked all the votes they can get out of the issue.

Indefensible to gay rights activists, perhaps.  But not indefensible to the Republican social conservative base.  The Republicans are dead with their base if they don't fight Obama's nonsensical decision.

[cinyc]

Indefensible on constitutional grounds. That doesn't mean the Republican social conservative base understands this, of course, and will want to waste money on a kamikaze run.

Again, to gay rights activists.  The DOMA is perfectly defensible on constitutional grounds.  Nothing in the constitution confers rights to people due to sexual orientation, or so the argument goes. 

[cinyc]

Indefensible on constitutional grounds. That doesn't mean the Republican social conservative base understands this, of course, and will want to waste money on a kamikaze run.

Again, to gay rights activists.  The DOMA is perfectly defensible on constitutional grounds.  Nothing in the constitution confers rights to people due to sexual orientation, or so the argument goes.  

Cinyc, if it isn't clear, I am talking about the one section of DOMA that empowers the federal government to decline to recognize certain legal state marriages. You are not on solid ground here with your characterization of this as a minority view or an issue of special rights based on sexual orientation--it's about equal treatment of state marriages, as has always been done. I stand by what I said and the vast majority of con law experts are with me. All you are doing here is repeating Sam's ad hominem criticism, not making a case.

Now, the part of DOMA that allows Alabama and Utah to ignore my marriage may be found constitutional, I don't know; we will find out eventually and the DOJ hasn't said anything affecting those appeals. Similarly, the case for the legitimacy of prop 8 is very different and I wouldn't predict how Kennedy will rule on that.

The federal government has as much a right to define marriage in a way different from the states as it does anything else.  It is a sovereign that need not make federal determinations based on how states define marriage.  If the federal government wants to define marriage as between a man and woman for federal purposes regardless of what Massachusetts says, it can.  Massachusetts cannot bind the federal government for federal purposes.

Like most in the halls of academia, the vast majority of constitutional law academics are liberals who believe in the "right" to same-sex marriage.  They also believe in the concept of a living constitution, where the most special special interest group of the day can claim new "rights" that they neither traditionally have had nor deserve to get in any manner except through the ballot box.

[cinyc]

The DOMA is perfectly defensible on constitutional grounds. 

five words, my friend: Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Which binds the federal government how, exactly?

[cinyc]

The law firm hired by Congress to represent them and defend DOMA has dropped the case.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/law_firm_drops_doma_defense_leaves_house_gop_at_the_altar.php?ref=fpi

I'm surprised that the House Republicans can't find some law firm they know well that would take tons of money to wage this fight for them and lose with dignity before the base. All Congress has to do is get out the national checkbook and write a big blank check to whichever law firm happens to have some former Pubbie congressmen among its partners... everyone's happy.

Well the lawyer who took the case will continue to represent the House, just not the law firm, who was bullied out of representing the House by gay rights activists.   He resigned from the firm.

Bullying lawyers to not represent someone because you disagree with the position taken is extremely low - something these gay rights activists should keep in mind the next time they need representation.

[cinyc]

Oh those poor straight conservatives. Always being bullied

I should have known better than to say anything opposing the gay rights agenda on this website.  I will say nothing further than what I said earlier - pressuring law firms because you don't agree with the position they take on behalf of their clients is simply wrong.  Everyone deserves fair representation from counsel.

I'm done commenting on this thread unless something else happens.

[cinyc]

Well the lawyer who took the case will continue to represent the House, just not the law firm, who was bullied out of representing the House by gay rights activists.   He resigned from the firm.

Gay rights activists have a First Amendment freedom of speech. I would strongly discourage trying to censor them in the interests of your own political views, that's not consistent with democracy. Spaulding and King as a law firm has the right to decide its own affairs without you deciding for them what they have an obligation to do or not to do--that's how it works in North Korea, not the U.S. Clearly an ideologically-motivated partner went off the reservation and made a decision that was bad for the firm and wasn't thought out. The firm didn't have an obligation to consider your desire, as neither a member of the firm, a client, or John Boehner, to see your opponents crushed under their bootheel.

Did you notice that the contract to represent Boehner in this losing case included a gag order banning all members of this law firm from advocating against DOMA, even in their private time, as private individuals? Do you think it is "gay activist bullying" to oppose that provision and think it was an overreach on the part of your side to impose on a large law firm?

And I have a First Amendment right to call people who pressure law firms to drop clients what they are - thugs who deserve to have the same thing happen to them when they have a legal problem.  The right to be represented by counsel is also an important one.  Attacking lawyers for taking on a case is very weak and extremely disgusting.

And I also have a First Amendment right to call King & Spaulding what they are - cowards.  The court shouldn't have let them withdraw from representation.

I would believe that any firm would have an ethical obligation not to make public comments that cut against a case they have agreed to take, but what do I know?  My arguments are always "doomed" because I'm not "progressive".