|
And I'll even stipulate as to the usefulness of a nominally, at least, independent DoJ.
That said... I can't imagine that, in cases where cases defending laws from suits by citizens, that the DoJ would not consult the White House to determine how these laws are being interpreted in terms of a given administration's policy priorities.
It would be one thing, if it were a law that has a long history of precedents... and if the challenge to the law didn't involve a complete shift in the legal "background" within which it is being offered. However, as the legal context of DOMA has shifted, now that same sex marriage is legal in a number of states... the idea that Holder wouldn't've been contacted to see how the DoJ wanted to approach this case seems ridiculous to me. And the idea that Obama was too busy to respond if Holder left him a message regarding policy in relation to which Obama made several political speeches, also seems ludicrous to me. Add in the continuing public outcries... and Rachel Maddow now regularly referring to Obama as the "Fierce Advocate"... and I can't imagine that no one would think to re-consider this lawyer's line of argumentation going into this case.
If I were to take your interpretation of the issue to heart, I would find myself convinced that lawyers in the DoJ can argue however they want to any case that they get... and that odds are slim that the AG will ever notice... and that model of the DoJ just doesn't seem like one that would be allowed to go on in a political town like DC.
On the other hand... if Obama/Holder had given the green light to defend the law... a lawyer who had been appointed by W's people would likely have come up with a Michael Steele inspired defense, as indeed was the case... so logically, I must conclude that Obama & Holder (as his proxy) have just pissed on a segment of the "base" and flouted his campaign promises to that constituency.
|