Posted on 02/23/2011 9:39:31 AM PST by Justaham
A well-placed and trusted source tells me that, any minute now, Attorney General Eric Holder will issue a statement announcing that it will no longer defend so-called Defense of Marriage Act lawsuits in court. The source believes DOJ had come to the conclusion that heightened scrutiny would apply, and that these cases cannot be defended in court. A 530d letter has been sent to Congress informing it that, if it wants to defend the statute, it is free to do so. A case is pending now that has a filing deadline of March 11.
This is huge, folks. By definitively stating that gay men and lesbians deserve heightened scrutiny, the Obama administration is declaring that there is no government interest in perpetuating the discrimination aggrieved parties are trying to redress.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
ping to #140
additional thoughts ...
Re: Arbitrary Presidential Enforement of Laws
Interesting discussion on this topic at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=138676 ... some of the postings:
“it’s an understanding between the branches with regard to the separation of powers: the legislature passes the laws, the courts interpret the laws, and the executive is bound to enforce them (whether they want to or not). this understanding, combined with the president and legislature’s oath to uphold the constitution, binds the executive and legislative branches to enforce the rulings of the supreme court. and throughout american history, there have been numerous examples of govermental branches either defying or threatening to defy the supreme court’s rulings.”
“It’s the Executive Branch’s job to send in the National Guard to enforce Supreme Court decisions.”
... right, I can really see Zero doing this ... ha, ha
Zero will send in the national guard after he suspends civil liberties and free elections ... it is coming
Zero thinks it’s all about him. And unfortunately, he has a number of useful idiots, weaklings and ideologues around him who support this delusion.
Even more unfortunately, it seems to be working.
Re: Zero has useful idiots, weaklings and ideologues around him who support this delusion
I concur with your conclusion that it appears to be working.
Also, it strikes me that other dictators do exactly the same thing ... which gives me a sense of anxiety
The meaning of this is that the Administration wants the Court to make SSA a “strict scrutiny” category, so that the USSC can use XIV to overrule all state anti-gay “marriage” statutes and state constitutional amendments.
DUmocrats are picking and choosing which laws matter and when laws don't matter. If they can go unpunished when not abiding by them, why not judge shop till we find one who'll declare the IRS "unconstitutional" and stop subsidizing DUh-bama's failure.
DUmocrats are picking and choosing which laws matter and when laws don't matter. If they can go unpunished when not abiding by them, why not judge shop till we find one who'll declare the IRS "unconstitutional" and stop subsidizing DUh-bama's failure.
Of course the Executive can't ignore a legitimate law. But the President can ignore an unconstitutional law and if he decides a law is unconstitutional he can't be overruled by any court. The only remedies are impeachment and conviction or electoral defeat.
If you want precedent consider the Andrew Johnson impeachment. Congress passed a law over Johnson's veto which provided that the President couldn't dismiss members of his cabinet without advice and consent. Johnson refused to obey the law arguing, correctly,that it was unconstitutional. Congress resorted to its only remedy but failed to convict. It is now firmly established that Johnson's understanding of the Constitution was correct. Nobody even thought of submitting the dispute to the courts. The matter was none of their business.
How can the President “simply decide” that a law is invalid and he won't execute it? By simply deciding and giving orders accordingly. That's what executives do. Who's going to stop him? This doesn't negate the rule of law or republican government. It is a necessary part of both.
The rule of law means that everyone, in and out of government, has to obey the law. That means following the dictates of the Constitution, which are not necessarily the same thing as the latest musings of the Supreme Court. Our republican government makes the people sovereigns, not the courts.
I'm always amazed when people say that the President can't be trusted to understand and follow the law so he should have an absolute duty to obey the Supreme Court, no matter how absurd it's pronouncements may become. The President is elected every four years. Justices have lifetime tenure. Someone is going to get the last word subject only to impeachment. Shouldn't that someone be the guy who has to face the voters?
A junta is a junta, whether its members wear military uniforms or robes. There is just as much potential for tyranny in a judicial regime as in any other and judges need checks on their powers like everybody else. If you want to preserve a free society, you'd better rid yourself of the ridiculous progressive idea that experts in robes from the best law schools can order society to the benefit of all. That idea is no friend of liberty, and neither is anyone who propagates it.
Judge shopping only works until you get to the Supremes.
Would the Supremes actually strip the IRS their army of knee breakers?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.