Comments on: Gay Marriage: Coming to the Supreme Court Soon

By: davenj1

davenj1 — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:16:57 +0000

Obama is the next messiah, they were just duped. When Obama thinks he is the next messiah, that is mental illness. Another reason to dump him come November.

By: davenj1

davenj1 — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:14:52 +0000

for a totally different diary entry. To answer your query, the question is complicated. The last time I believe it happened- outside the practice of signing statements- was in 1996 under Clinton. Then, he refused to defend a provision of the Defense Authorization Act of 1994 directing the military to remove personnel who were HIV-positive on the grounds the move was “unconstitutional” under the Equal Protection Clause.

There are, on the other hand, numerous cases where a new Administration comes into power and they defend the existing laws. Many of your “…v. Holder” cases started as “….vs. Gonzalez” cases. In Buono v. Salazar- the desert cross Establishment Clause case- started under Bush. Upon Obama assuming office, his Interior Department defended the law in question.

There have been a couple of other instances under the Andrew Johnson administration and under Woodrow Wilson. But again, thanks- they will be discussed and distinguished in a totally different diary entry.

By: davenj1

davenj1 — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:54:19 +0000

This term regarding the VRA in Perry v. Perez. The Court, in an emergency hearing, ruled that the court in Texas erred when they failed to consider the legislative map drawn by the legislature. They simply “assumed” a racial/ethnic animus and drew their own map. The Supreme Court rebuked that court.
And yes, I intend to discuss the VRA and the Shelby County case if and when the case becomes docketed before the Supreme Court. I decided to write on the gay marriage issue because the appeals- which are basically cross-appeals- have been docketed with the Court (the day after Obamacare decided, btw). I may have referenced the VRA case in another entry.
Incidentally, a couple of terms back, the Court signaled that parts of VRA may not survive scrutiny unless Congress made changes. Congress has failed to act. The gist of the argument is that the VRA uses 1965 reality and applies it to 2012 reality. Not to say racism and prejudice in America have been eradicated, but there have been major, huge improvements and that most of these have occurred in the areas covered by the VRA.
In answer to your question: yes, I intend to cover this issue as it has the potential to be a landmark decision (also, Fisher v. U. Texas-Austin about affirmative action in college admissions).

By: Victor_Purinton

Victor_Purinton — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:15:03 +0000

“It is long-standing tradition for the government, through the Executive Branch, to defend duly enacted laws in courts whether they agree or disagree with the law. In fact, one can say it is their duty to do so until the law in question is repealed, amended, or stricken down by a court after exhaustion of appeals.”

This would have been a good spot to discuss whether previous presidents have refused to defend laws enacted by Congress but not yet ruled on by the Supreme Court.

By: Melody Warbington (rwm52)

Melody Warbington (rwm52) — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:05:49 +0000

I appreciate the research you’re doing on these matters.

This article hit our local paper today (here) re the Voting Rights Act. I live in Shelby County, AL. If you don’t already have plans to write a diary about this (assuming you haven’t already – did I miss it?), I hope you’ll consider it.

By: zachv

zachv — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:33:51 +0000

His attempts to act on both sides of the line, if you will, have confused and complicated the situation. Even though DOMA is horrible law, I believe Obama and the Justice Department has the duty and the tradition-backed responsibility to continue defending it. It’s a raw deal that the Republicans (BLAG) had to step in to defend the law and take up the responsibilities of the administration. I was rather thankful the few weeks ago when Biden of all idiots forced the President’s announcement so that the matter was finally cleared up. Sheesh.

I’m looking forward to your next post too on this subject. Section 3 directly conflicts with both equal protection and federalism, and I believe it doesn’t have even a chance of standing. Anyway, I’ll be reading if/when you post more!

By: westcoastpatriette

westcoastpatriette — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:22:15 +0000

The courts must be tiring of the messes Obama creates in order to pander to his various special interest groups. As you stated, with the exception of the ninth and eleventh circuits, Obama continues to use the courts to try to win various angles to make himself look good and I am sure many of the judges that have to preside over the legal maneuvering tire of him, too. That’s what happens when we elect a narcissist to be President.