Obama urges Supreme Court to overturn California same-sex marriage ban

Full story: The Washington Post

The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Thursday that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, a position that could also cast doubt on prohibitions in other states.
Comments
1,441 - 1,460 of 1,525 Comments Last updated May 8, 2013

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1715
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
DOJ is not required to defend any particular law in court. Just as they didn't 11 times under Bush.
The POTUS SWEARS to execute [ALL} the laws of the land, NOT just the ones he "likes".

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1716
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely it is THEIR call.....just like it was the call of the AG and Governor not to defend Prop 8........seems that's something you fail to understand!!!
Then don't complain because money is spent defending them....if the justice department were doing its job..it wouldn't have cost us a cent....
Howdy

Irving, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1717
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
What laws didn't Bush defend??
The president doesn't defend the laws, the DOJ does.
I have to correct myself - the DOJ has refused to defend laws in court several times, under various presidents.
Cases where the DOJ did not defend a standing law in court:
United States v. Lovett 328 U.S. 303 (1946)
This case concerned the constitutionality of § 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1943, providing that, after November 15, 1943, no salary or other compensation shall be paid to certain employees of the Government. On appeal, the Solicitor General joined the claimants in arguing that the statute was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.
INS v. Chadha 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
Under the relevant immigration laws that were in effect at the time of this case, the INS had the authority to suspend deportation of a someone in the country illegally for at least seven years if the Attorney General deportation would result in extreme hardship. The House of Representatives, acting on its own, could then reverse the INS’s decision. Chadha was a qualifying alien under the law, and the Attorney General had suspended his deportation based on the “extreme hardship” standard but Congress acted to reverse that decision. Chadha appealed, arguing that the “one-house veto” was unconstitutional and the Department of Justice agreed.
Morrison v. Olson 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
Case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Independent Counsel Act.
Metro Broadcasting, Inc v. FCC (1990)
Case involved a challenged to the practice of the FCC to give preference in the granting of broadcast licenses to organizations which met a certain level of minority ownership.
Simkins v. Moses H Cohen Memorial Hosp. 323 F.2d 929 (4th Cir, 1963)
A federal statute permitted the Surgeon General to make an exception in the award of grants for hospitals that discriminated on the basis of race if there was a “separate but equal” hospital facility for all races immediately available.
Garrett v. Alexander 477 F. Supp 1035 (D., D.C, 1979)
A federal law permitted the army to sell surplus rifles to the public, but only to members of the NRA. The DoJ took the position that the requirement for NRA membership was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and made this argument in Court.
League of Women Voters of Calif. v. FCC 489 F. Supp. 517 (C.D, Cal 1980)
Federal law prohibited non-commercial radio or television stations from editorializing or endorsing a political candidate. The Solicitor General appeared to argue that the law violated the First Amendment. Senate Legal Counsel appeared to defend the law in the District Court. The case went to appeal after the Reagan Administration came to office, at that time the new Solicitor General determined that he could defend he law and did so in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, where the law was eventually upheld.
Turner Broadcasting Svcs v. FCC Civ No 92-2247 (DDC)
This case concerned the constitutionality of the “must carry” rules imposed on cable television providers by Federal Law. In the District Court, the DoJ took the position that the rules were unconstitutional.
Howdy

Irving, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1718
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The POTUS SWEARS to execute [ALL} the laws of the land, NOT just the ones he "likes".
There's a difference between "defending" and "executing" laws my friend. The laws are in effect until they are no longer in effect & must be followed. However, it is not a requirement upon the DoJ to defend those laws in court when challenged.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1719
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
The president doesn't defend the laws, the DOJ does.
I have to correct myself - the DOJ has refused to defend laws in court several times, under various presidents.
Cases where the DOJ did not defend a standing law in court:
United States v. Lovett 328 U.S. 303 (1946)
This case concerned the constitutionality of § 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1943, providing that, after November 15, 1943, no salary or other compensation shall be paid to certain employees of the Government. On appeal, the Solicitor General joined the claimants in arguing that the statute was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.
INS v. Chadha 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
Under the relevant immigration laws that were in effect at the time of this case, the INS had the authority to suspend deportation of a someone in the country illegally for at least seven years if the Attorney General deportation would result in extreme hardship. The House of Representatives, acting on its own, could then reverse the INS’s decision. Chadha was a qualifying alien under the law, and the Attorney General had suspended his deportation based on the “extreme hardship” standard but Congress acted to reverse that decision. Chadha appealed, arguing that the “one-house veto” was unconstitutional and the Department of Justice agreed.
Morrison v. Olson 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
Case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Independent Counsel Act.
Metro Broadcasting, Inc v. FCC (1990)
Case involved a challenged to the practice of the FCC to give preference in the granting of broadcast licenses to organizations which met a certain level of minority ownership.
Simkins v. Moses H Cohen Memorial Hosp. 323 F.2d 929 (4th Cir, 1963)
A federal statute permitted the Surgeon General to make an exception in the award of grants for hospitals that discriminated on the basis of race if there was a “separate but equal” hospital facility for all races immediately available.
Garrett v. Alexander 477 F. Supp 1035 (D., D.C, 1979)
A federal law permitted the army to sell surplus rifles to the public, but only to members of the NRA. The DoJ took the position that the requirement for NRA membership was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and made this argument in Court.
League of Women Voters of Calif. v. FCC 489 F. Supp. 517 (C.D, Cal 1980)
Federal law prohibited non-commercial radio or television stations from editorializing or endorsing a political candidate. The Solicitor General appeared to argue that the law violated the First Amendment. Senate Legal Counsel appeared to defend the law in the District Court. The case went to appeal after the Reagan Administration came to office, at that time the new Solicitor General determined that he could defend he law and did so in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, where the law was eventually upheld.
Turner Broadcasting Svcs v. FCC Civ No 92-2247 (DDC)
This case concerned the constitutionality of the “must carry” rules imposed on cable television providers by Federal Law. In the District Court, the DoJ took the position that the rules were unconstitutional.
I've missed which one of these were in the Bush administration...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1720
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The justice department is supposed to defend the laws of the United States...it is not their decision as to what is unconstitutional or not...that is why we have the supreme court...
Incorrect. They are sworn to defend the constitution. They don't have to uphold laws contrary to the constitution.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1721
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
Do you know of any specific laws, Howdy??
You do realize, of course, that your constant attempts to change the subject, betray your underlying inability to craft a rational and factually supported on topic argument, right?

Does the justice department need to defend laws that are patently unconstitutional?

Can you indicate anywhere where the federal constitution delegates the power to regulate marriage to the federal government?

Or, are you, as you have often proven, nothing more than a shill for a cause that you can't begin to understand?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1722
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
I've missed which one of these were in the Bush administration...
I missed it, when are you coming back to the topic?

Each time you advance an argument like this, you tacitly admit you have no on topic argument.

Perhaps you feel the Justice department should have represented the government on the issue and offered an anemic argument.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1723
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The justice department is supposed to defend the laws of the United States...it is not their decision as to what is unconstitutional or not...
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What planet are you on?

If the Justice doesn't think a law is constitutional, it's supposed to show up at SCOTUS and say so.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1724
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The POTUS SWEARS to execute [ALL} the laws of the land, NOT just the ones he "likes".
Oh?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Show us where a POTUS is sworn to protect laws he/she thinks are unconstitutional.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1725
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh?
<quoted text>
Show us where a POTUS is sworn to protect laws he/she thinks are unconstitutional.
I agree. What is more, opposing an unconstitutional law is directly in line with the Presidential oath to Preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1726
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh?
<quoted text>
Show us where a POTUS is sworn to protect laws he/she thinks are unconstitutional.
Well, if you believe that...then Obamacare is in big trouble...because the next republican president is throwing that out!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1727
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
Well, if you believe that...then Obamacare is in big trouble...because the next republican president is throwing that out!
Good luck with that. If you are really so dim as to believe your fiction, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1728
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you believe that...then Obamacare is in big trouble...because the next republican president is throwing that out!
..within the first month!

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1729
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you believe that...then Obamacare is in big trouble...because the next republican president is throwing that out!
Get a concept of how government works you idiot!

First, you would have to have a republican president - not happening anytime soon.

Then, it has to be overturned by Congress - again, AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

Presidents can not overturn laws put in place by Congress, and signed into law by former presidents.

See how far that stupid train of thought got Romney? DUH!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1730
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a concept of how government works you idiot!
First, you would have to have a republican president - not happening anytime soon.
Then, it has to be overturned by Congress - again, AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Presidents can not overturn laws put in place by Congress, and signed into law by former presidents.
See how far that stupid train of thought got Romney? DUH!!
Well, we'll have to see on all counts..

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1731
May 1, 2013
 
Get That Fool wrote:
..within the first month!
So, about that bridge I'm selling you...

You are an ignorant fool who lacks a fundamental understanding of how government works.

Just how is the president going to unilaterally do this on their own?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1732
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
Well, we'll have to see on all counts..
I suppose you are correct on this point. We'll first have to see if the Republican party can make it to the next election, or if they will continue their glorious self-destruction.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1733
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you are correct on this point. We'll first have to see if the Republican party can make it to the next election, or if they will continue their glorious self-destruction.
Firstly, remember that I'm a Libertarian.

IF the Republicans are in "self-destruction" mode, as you contend, then please explain WHY Americans voted the Republicans into the MAJORITY in the House Of representatives, voted the Republicans into the MAJORITY in the states' governor's mansions, and voted the Republicans into the MAJORITY state legislative seats.

Please explain your statement in light of those facts.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1734
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we'll have to see on all counts..
We'll have to see?

See what? If you ever get an education as to how government works?

Yep, we'll have to see - but I won't hold my breath over that one.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••