Obama and DOMA - can someone explain something to me?

[Taverner]

To what extent was his involvement in writing that legal paper? Did he write it, sign it or orchestrate it?

I do not doubt that he screwed the pooch here - but I just want the details. How deep into this travesty is he?

Having anything to do with supporting DOMA is deplorable.

[Taverner]

1. Nevermind - I have my answer

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/12/741698/-Happy-Loving-Day

I learned today that the DOJ has filed multiple briefs to dismiss lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. In these briefs, the Obama Administration argues that DOMA is perfectly constitutional, there is no fundamental right to marriage, and that states should be allowed to restrict gay marriage just as they restrict marriage to minors and incest.

So its not just Obama, its Holder and all of the attorneys at the DOJ

Despicable

[Captain Hilts]

2. I doubt he wrote it, but he might have signed off on it. Holder definitely saw it. nt

[gcomeau]

3. In all likelyhood...

...the first he heard of it was probably roughly when we did, after it was reported in the news and someone came and told him "look what some DOJ lawyer just did".

Which will not even slow down the people who insist on saying "Look what Obama just argued!!!" as if he were personally standing in front of the judge doing it himself.

[Bluebear]

6. So Obama's DOJ is a rogue operation & not under his control?

Wow!

[gcomeau]

10. No.

But neither is it an organization comprised of however many hundreds or thousands of lawyers who each make the President of the United States personally sign off on every brief they write before filing it.

Don't be a child.

[Bluebear]

16. 'Don't be a child.' - Don't be an asshole.

[gcomeau]

19. Wow, witty. Now run along kiddo. -nt

[Bluebear]

22. OK apologist.

[gcomeau]

26. Aww... now my feelings are hurt.

I may be emotionally scarred for life. Some juvenile on the internet thinks pointing out simple logistical facts about the running of the United States Government makes me an "apologist" However will I live with myself after this?

Excuse me while I go contemplate ending my sorry, sorry life.

[Bluebear]

28. Truly weak sarcasm as usual.

As to your contemplation, it's at least worth considering. Ciao.

[gcomeau]

29. Oh christ, the deathblow!

My sarcasm-fu has been denigrated! That completely cancels out the total insensibility of everything you've said, thus winning you the argument.

Damn, if only I'd thought of that earlier.

[Bluebear]

32. Put me ignore, I am doint the same for you, we won't have to run into each other here again.

Bye

[gcomeau]

37. In the entire history of my time on DU...

...I have only brought my ignore list up to a grand total of one person. I don't intend on letting this ridiculous little exchange drive that total up.

If you are coming to the realization that you have presented no argument and want to run off, fine. Buhbye.

[LooseWilly]

42. So you really think that, in preparation of the case, no one ever thought to check on Policy?

A topic that was in the election discussions... a hot political football... and no one's going to bother to ask what the administration's policy on the matter is?... really?

That seems to be a rather idiotic position to take, don't you think?

So you are trying to argue that all those thousands of lawyers in the DoJ are free to make up any defense, or not defend at all... unless the AG expressly tells them otherwise?

So, if I got a job in the DoJ, I could feel free to defend existing laws by just standing up and shrugging- "Defense rests." ?

Or... is it more likely that the lawyers of the DoJ need to clear the arguments they are going to put forth in a case with someone in a supervisory position... and in a case like this... with obvious political ramifications... isn't it sensible to assume that that supervisory oversight would be exercised at the topmost levels of the DoJ and the Presidency? (Unless you are going to argue that Obama has explicitly decided on a policy of "Don't Bother Me with the GLBT Crap..."?)

I think you are the one being naive and childish... ignorance is undeniably bliss though... so carry on if it makes you feel good.

[gcomeau]

58. Obama's "policy" has nothing to do with the DOJ.

You appear to be cognitively trapped in the Bush era of a politicized Justice Department.

In other news, and speaking of the Bush era politicization of the DOJ, looks like the brief filer was a Bush appointed devout Mormon who was apparently one of Gonzales' favorites : http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/who-wrote-the-doma-brief.html

Gosh golly gee, whoever could have seen it coming that it was a Bush holdover who was responsible for the filing? I mean, there existing any other explanation besides the President of the united States personally writing a legal brief, hand delivering it to the lawyer on the case, and instructing them in what argument to make in court despite that being absolutely no part of his job responsibilities? It blows the mind!!!! There's no way anyone could have guessed it was something like this!

So I'll now say again what I said elsewhere in the thread. If this doesn't get stepped on by Holder then by all means, take it to Obama for appointing him when he would appear to lack a great deal of judgement... but people throwing around the "Look what Obama Argued in court"!!!1!!11! idiocy need to shut the hell up and stop making idiots of themselves.

[MiniMe]

52. The DOJ is supposed to be independent of the WH

[konnichi wa]

7. So...the buck stops...a good safe distance from the White House?

Got it.

[gcomeau]

18. Oh shut the hell up. I said nothing of the kind.

It's still Obama's responsibility to do something about this once it is brought to his attention. And if he doesn't then he will bear that responsibility.

Simply pointing out that the President of the United States doesn't personally vet DOJ briefs in advance on a case by case basis is not somehow absolving him of responsibility for making sure the department acts appropriately.

[konnichi wa]

54. "shut the hell up"??? Did somebody die and you got appointed God???

If the DOJ is operating in such a way that a matter of this import is handled by bumbling underlings without any reportage to top levels, we are even more well and truly fucked than we ever imagined.

[Indydem]

4. Obama in 2004...

"For the record, I opposed in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. None. None whatsoever.

[Taverner]

8. So is the DOJ a rogue office?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. The DOJ is a big office.

In fact, right now the DOJ is preparing briefs to defend James Von Brunn in his shooting at the Holocaust Museum.

That does not actually mean Barack Obama is conspiring with James Von Brunn to kill the joos.

[Taverner]

11. If he backpedals or pulls the report, he's got my support again

But so far he hasn't

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. I'm sure Obama is very concerned.

:rofl:

[Taverner]

14. Maybe Gay rights are a joke to you, but I take them very seriously

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Oh, I take gay rights very seriously.

Sanctimonious melodrama less so.

[Taverner]

20. Well then this should concern you

But obviously it doesn't so too fucking bad, right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. No, it shouldn't.

Any more than the public defense of Von Brunn should concern people who worry about anti-semitism.

[Taverner]

24. oooooooookayyyyyyy

Nothing to see here - think happy thoughts - lalalalalalalala

I guess that strategy could work...I think I will need a bit more morphine to make it stick though

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. "I will need a bit more morphine to make it stick though"

Well, whatever. Just lay off the crack.

[Taverner]

27. I wish I could live in denial like you do

Do those rose colored glasses sell on ebay?

[konnichi wa]

55. Psst: You are not anywhere near as opaque as you seem to think.

...

[redqueen]

15. Nice try at attempting to convey the concept in a novel way.

It will of course gain absolutely no traction whatsoever.

[dsc]

36. Nor should it since it is a total, utterly bogus lie

[dsc]

35. No it isn't

Maybe a public defender is but not the DOJ. It is nothing short of absurd to suggest that a brief in this case wouldn't have been vetted by political appointees.

[redqueen]

38. So public defenders are in no way associated with the DoJ?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Technically it gets contracted out.

But the analogy still holds.

[dsc]

44. No it doesn't

as public defenders are run by the courts, not the DOJ.

http://www.fd.org/odstb_CONTACT.htm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Yes, it does.

In court, good people defend bad people and things they don't agree with.

That's how the court system works.

I'm sorry if this is new to you.

[dsc]

46. No it doesn't as Obama has appointed virtually no judges

so they actually aren't his employees as you are purporting them to be. That is, incidently, the entire point of having defenders appointed by the court so they will be independent of the executive branch of government and thus zealously defend their clients. If you are going to give derisive civics lessons it would behoove you to actually know some basic civics.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. So you're saying it's the courts that are in league with the white supremacists.

Truely we're all doomed.

[dsc]

48. No they are doing their jobs which in this case is defending those clients

I have no problem at all with Obama's DOJ writing some brief in defense of DOMA. I have a huge problem with this brief in defense of DOMA. It is a brief that could have, and frankly would have, been submitted by the Bush DOJ. When I voted for Obama I foolishly assumed that briefs like that would be in the past.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. So, wait, you're saying it's OK for the Obama DOJ to defend DOMA.

Before we move on, let's get that clear and set in stone.

You, dsc, are OK with Obama's DOJ defending DOMA.

[dsc]

50. It is the law of the land and I do think the DOJ should defend the law of the land

unless they are going to make a specific argument that it is blatently unconstitutional on its face. I can't see DOMA being in that category. I think the executive can't refuse to defend laws on that ground unless it would be say the alien and sedition act (ie something the court has already ruled is unconstitutional) or something that no sane reading of the Constituion would support (say reinstituing slavery). But what they did here was way over the top. The could have argued that these particular people didn't have standing or that DOMA is covered by mid level scrutiny and that it passed that test. Instead they set back gay rights in the courts by decades.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Well then you don't really have to anything to complain about.

Because once a lawyer takes the case, they argue that case by whatever means necessary, and if their arguments are unjust it's for the court to decide, not the lawyer.

[dsc]

53. Yes I do

Which arguments are made matter a great deal and are part of policy. They could bribe judges to defend the law, they could kidnap the children of the people arguing the other side of the case but we don't want them doing that either. These aren't defense lawyers who get to do anything they wish to zealously present their side. They are government lawyers presenting the offical position of the government and I had hoped when voting for Obama that the offical position of his government wouldn't be that we aren't entitled to any 14th amendment protections at all which is precisely what was argued under his name and with his apparent approval.

[dsc]

41. I absolutely am

the federal public defender program is run through the courts, not the DOJ as are public defenders in every single, solitary, jurisdiction in the entire United States.

http://www.fd.org/odstb_CONTACT.htm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. So you're saying it's rogue public defender? ZOMG!

[dsc]

43. No I am saying that public defenders are appointed by

and report to the federal courts, not the DOJ. That is the way public defenders work in every single, solitary jurisdiction in the entire nation.

http://www.fd.org/odstb_CONTACT.htm

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. I would like to know more too

I'm HOPING that it was more of a matter of him HAVING to defend the law rather than WANTING to (or is secretly trying to LOSE the case) but AFAIK he hasn't made any pronouncements that indicate that he suddenly believes DOMA (or DADT for that matter) is a great law and must be preserved. I'm going to wait and get some more information before lunging down his throat about this. Maybe he really is a raging homophobe in disguise who secretly admires McClurkin, Warren, et. al and think their views on gays and lesbians are wonderful and terrific and that he is really IS throwing gays and lesbians "under the bus" and "sticking a knife in their backs" and if that is indeed the case, then he roundly deserves all the condemnation he is getting here on DU (and then some). :shrug: Somehow I kind of doubt it but I don't really know enough about what is going on to say anything at the moment.

[BuyingThyme]

21. Barack Obama sees gay rights as a political issue.

He does not give a flying fuck about the people and he never will.

He feels the same when it comes to any aspect of the Constitution. We see this with him day after day after day.

He is not a fan of the people or of the law. Never has been.

[gcomeau]

31. Even If that was true...

...what the HELL in that purely political calculation do you think would lead him to personally sign off on making the argument contained in that brief? Even if you think he doesn't give one single tiny little shit about gay people or their rights, which I don't buy for a second, you would also have to think he was a complete fucking political moron to stake out the "I'm anti-gay rights" political ground considering the nationwide trends on that issue we all know damn well he's fully aware of.

So, what exactly do you think is going on here? Really? That Obama is making a cynical politically calculate move to reverse the course he campaigned on so he can plant himself firmly in the ever shrinking "we're scared of the gays" voter demographic? is that it?

Do explain. Please. I'm fascinated.

[BuyingThyme]

33. Obama has always been anti-gay rights.

He panders to religious nuts.

He even has a faith-based insanity department.

I'm glad I could straighten this out for you.

Anything else?

[gcomeau]

34. I'm not sure the logic centers of my brain...

...could survive being exposed to any more of your "straightening out". Thanks anyway.

[konnichi wa]

56. You deny the facts? That is truly astounding.

Are you a creationist too?

[gcomeau]

57. I didn't see me denying anything...

...let alone these facts you speak of.

I did seem me expressing total befuddlement at how the hell they thought what they posted constituted a response, in any way, to what I had written.

[JVS]

30. That went through before he was outside of Illinois politics.