Boehner promises to be a dick about DOMA repeal
By Ben ReiningaFebruary 28th, 2011, 6:18 pmComments (14)
Last week, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the anti-gay-marriage act, DOMA, is unconstitutional and the justice department will cease to defend it. It both pleased a large faction of Obama's base, and also seems like a very clever bit of politicking, since now the Republican dominated house will be forced to defend DOMA or let it slide and anger their super-conservative base.
Unsurprisingly, they chose option A: House Speaker John Boehner announced today that the House of Representatives will defend the Defense Against Marriage Act. The party will be forced to defend Clinton-era legislation in court, in what promises to be a long and drawn-out legal battle. And, if I may make a prediction, they'll lose. Historically, civil-rights legislation has moved in one direction. Plus, majority of Americans already support gay marriage, and that number's growing.
That does not, however, mean that defending DOMA will be without short-term political gain for the Republican Party, at least among a hard-line conservative set.
Commentarium (14 Comments)
If the the GOP looses the battle it's one thing, but I think we'd all prefer they lose it.
The issue isn't the direction civil rights legislation is moving; it's the direction the Supreme Court is moving. Even with Alito replacing O'Connor, there should still be a 5-4 majority left over from the 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down state anti-sodomy laws in 2003) (the other new justices likely line up the same way as the ones they replaced). So I *think* we're going to be ok on this, but it'll be a close thing.
The Executive branch cannot declare anything unconstitutional.
They must defend the law until it is struck down.
The constitutionality of the law must be determined by the Judicial branch of government not the Executive branch.
The Executive Branch must *enforce* the law until it is struck down. They are in no way constitutionally obligated to defend it.
Of course, they are, GeeBee since part of enforcement is defending it.
Christ America is backasswards. What a bunch of dicks.
And pussies and assholes.
"Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from assholes."
From Team America: World Police
@Randlan: the exact reference I was thinking of...
"Get out of my head!"
Chris from Family Guy ("guess the word I'm thinking of - and it's not kitty")
It's a bit more complex than "declaring it unconstitutional" and the executive branch will have to act on the law as it stands now, but the opinion issued by the Attorney General calls certain parts of the law into question and pretty much puts the ball in the Supreme Court's ... er, court.
30 years from now, I'll be telling my future kids EXACTLY how stupid this whole thing is. It will probably be just like baby boomers describing the civil rights movement to their kids.
Maybe the baby boomers should remind _themselves_ what the civil rights movement was, since they're the ones in office (and voting people into office) that are dismantling it.
I agree, RW. If the Executive is allowed to decide which laws are worthy of enforcement and which aren't, we will soon all be serfs in feudal America.
Now you say something