House Republicans paying lawyer up to $500,000 to defend DOMA
By Peter SmithApril 19th, 2011, 4:35 pmComments (21)
After months of pontificating about government spending, House Republicans have now hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement and his legal team to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, with a contract stating the lawyers' pay could go as high as $500,000. With characteristic audacity, Speaker John Boehner requested that the Justice Department pay the House the money that they would have spent defending DOMA had President Obama not ordered them to stop defending it in February.
So that's your half-million dollars going to keep gay people from getting married. Which is clearly the best thing the government could be working on right now. (Incidentally, the same American populace that's paying for this fiasco is against defending DOMA by a twenty-two point margin.) In even better news, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese says that the litigation will probably actually cost more than $500,000, explaining that:
"There are currently at least nine cases challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA which bars federal recognition of marriages between same-sex couples... If the House were to intervene in all nine that would mean less than 100 billable hours would be spent per case in order to hit the $500,000 cap. Clearly this fee cap is a lowball estimate that hides the true cost of this litigation."
On the plus side, as my friend Fred pointed out, at least the GOP just created a job.
Comments ( 21 )
The Hooksexup of Boehner, having the "characteristic audacity" to defend Federal law.
Why can't the Executive just defend the laws it likes, ignore the ones it doesn't and make up laws when it wants to? You know, kind of like the Obama administration does now?
the audacity is asking the DOJ to pony up $ 500,000 to pay to defend it. If Boehner decides this is a good use of the House's money then he should find the money to defend it.
the Executive branch doesn't need to defend every single law (and has not in the past) - it only needs to enforce it. Which is what it is doing.
What laws are the Obama administration making up?
You're right about the $500k, sp80. Boehner should request that the House reduce the DoJ appropriation by , say, $5M to express its displeasure with the Executive's abandonment of its responsibility.
What laws? I'd have to give it some thought for a complete answer but using the FCC to control the Internet is one. Ignoring the ruling that the PPACA is unconstitutional is another. Admittedly, the latter is more ignoring the rule of law but you get the idea.
I can see the ad next year now: "Republicans spent half a million dollars to deny same-sex partners the federal rights that heterosexual partners have. Is that a good use of your tax money?"
If that's the way you feel about it, profrobert, get DOMA repealed. Until it is, it needs to be defended. We're a nation of laws, not slogans.
In case you still feel bad about the $500k, consider the feds will spend way more on regulating icemakers: https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/apr/feds-will-regulate-ice-makers...
And, don't forget, the TSA spends a ton of money patting down six year olds: https://blog.tsa.gov/
Be upset about the House defending DOMA if you want but objecting to it on financial grounds is ridiculous. If you allow yourself to become that delusional, you'll soon be believing that Obama will reduce the deficit by the end of his term as President.
Evidently you don't understand the difference between "defend" and "enforce." The Administration is enforcing DOMA, as it is obliged to enforce all the existing laws. There is no obligation on the Executive to *defend* the constitutionality of a statute that it believe to be unconstitutional, as DOMA is on its face. Indeed, how could it? It would be bad faith to make legal arguments that one does not believe have a colorable basis.
As for the deficit, Obama would be able to reduce it, except the Republicans won't allow any tax increases on millionaires. That'll be a campaign ad, too.
Nice try but, no. The Executive makes a determination that a law is unconstitutional so it elects to not "defend" it. Except the determination of Constitutionality is not an Executive responsibility. And what does it say about the Executive when it enforces a law that it has determined to be unconstitutional? And you might want to look up "color" in the context you employ it.
As to taxes, another nice try but, no. All "millionaire" income over $100k could be confiscated (the Admin would just say taxed at 100%) and it wouldn't cover the deficit, let alone start to pay down the debt. Why increase their taxes when 45% of households pay no Federal income tax. Fairness means those who receive benefits pay for at least a fraction of them.
@Stupid: Really? What law school did you go to? Are you really going to argue constitutional points with someone who teaches law school? Each branch of government can determine constitutionality for itself -- Congress can refuse to vote for a bill it deems unconstitutional, the Executive can refuse to defend an unconstitutional law in court, and the Judiciary has the last word. As for enforcement, it is the duty of the President "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const. art. II sec. 3. That clause does not require the President to argue a law is constitutional; it does require him to enforce it so long as it is on the books. That's the difference.
I do agree that my use of "colorable" was an overstatement. In rereading the Attorney General's statement, I do not see him saying that the argument that DOMA is constitutional is frivolous, only that it is plainly wrong.
One of the better law schools, depending on your pov. You teach law? Sorry, hard to believe. To wit, your misunderstanding of "color" in this context, not just in the original post but this one. Also, thanks for the Constitutional review but it, too, is largely incorrect. I see that you must also write for National Review since your description of the Administration's actions appears to come off their web site.
I should leave the whole analysis alone but must note that when "Congress" refuses to vote - silly me, I thought Representatives and Senators voted not the institution - based on an individual's belief of Constitutionality that action has absolutely no legal standing w.r.t. that bill's Constitutionality.
You want to split hairs between "Congress" and "Representatives and Senators." In plain English, you have no real argument, and fall back on meaningless quibbles. It couldn't be more obvious.
Splitting hairs? profrobert says he is a law professor for God's sake!
And if you want to believe that Congress can make a determination of a law's Constitionality, you should get in touch with every school you attended and demand your money back.
And don't forget he doesn't know what the meaning of "color" in a legal context.
On the other hand, he's not a Hooksexup employee.
You mean the deficit run up by Bush? Get off your high horse.
Lol. Yeah, I mean the deficit run up by Bush. God, how I wish we had deficits that small now. $1.5T deficits/year as far as the eye can see. It sure is a good thing Obama gave us those!
I enjoy my high horse. Get your own.
The defecit run up by Bush, and amplified by Obama. "We cannot spend more money than we're taking in" (from Obama's recent speech)...? WTF??? That's been the hallmark of his administration from the moment he took the oath of office.
Yes, only Democrats could triple the deficit and then blame it on Bush.
RuleofLaw, is this really the best use of YOUR time?
Really?
Really. I appreciate your interest in my schedule but what business is it of yours? Does reading the comments of someone with whom you disagree upset you?
These comments give me headaches. Keep going though, because only YOU are correct in your way of thinking, there are no other possibilities, so keep posting angry emotion filled comments on an article that argue with other people who will never agree with you!
To whom are you speaking, Paula?
The entire internet, basically : )
Add a Comment