Obama administration appeals ruling that threw out anti-gay law (DOMA)

[LittleBlue]

(Reuters) - The Obama administration decided on Tuesday to appeal a judge's rulings that prevented the U.S. government from banning same-sex marriages, a move that could undermine support among President Barack Obama's traditional liberal base ahead of a key election.

The Obama administration filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, that barred gay marriages, even though Obama had previously opposed the law.

Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court.

"As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. "The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged."

The rulings being appealed by the government were made in July by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in Boston who found the law violated the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights, and the clause granting equal protection under the law.

Under his rulings, same-sex couples would be entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections that are afforded to heterosexual married couples.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

:eyes:

[msongs]

1. obama is a fierce advocate of......DOMA lol nt

[AnOhioan]

2. "obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court"

What a load of crap....it seems they are determined to lose in November.

[mkultra]

3. no kidding. i get sick of that damn constitution thing too

it sucks.

[AnOhioan]

8. Show me where, in the Constitution, it mandates that the DOJ...

defend any and all federal laws. You can't, because it doesn't. Some lawyer may have interpreted the situation as meaning the DOJ has it hands tied and must defend but it reality they could stand down and let this law die.

[CTLawGuy]

11. if a teabagger judge

were to find social security unconstitutional, would it be ethically and morally permissible in your view for a teabagger-led administration to refuse to appeal the ruling?

[AnOhioan]

13. Nice strawman

The issue is DOMA, not Social Security. Whether or not the Obama DOJ decides to appeal the ruling is the issue, not some hypothetical teabagger President and judge.

That being said, if a teabagger were to (good gawd) assume the Presidency, then he/she might do just what you are talking about. Obama's decision now would have no bearing on that possibility.

I say again, there is no requirement, other than interpretation, that mandates any administrations DOJ to challenge a court ruling declaring a law unconstitutional.

[vaberella]

14. I saw the posters point but I saw this as apples and oranges too. n/t

[treestar]

22. Uh, no it's not a strawman

That's what you've said should be done. The hypo makes sense.

Your position is that an administration should pick and choose which decisions it will appeal on defending any federal law.

That means a Teabag Administration could choose not to appeal a Fourth Amendment case where the court decided a particular search did not violate the 4th Amendment. No matter what the facts were.

[mkultra]

26. thats actually called a hypothetical, not a strawman.

[mkultra]

16. That would be the 1870 act that established the division

making it their duty to represent the government in all legal matters. That power(to pass laws) was given to congress by the constitutiion. I know, i know, America can be complicated.

Yes. I know that and a few rare occasions in the past, the DOJ has chosen to not appeal things based on politics, and frankly i would just fine if that was their choice now, but the fact remains it is their duty to defend laws that pass constitutional muster. DADT is constitutional.

Which is actually the real problem.

[AnOhioan]

18. From the act creating the DOJ

Sec. 5 And if shall be further enacted, That whenever the Attorney-General deems it necessary, he may require the solicitor-general to argue any case in which the government is interested before the court of claims; and as to cases coming by appeal from the court of claims to the Supreme Court of the United Stats, it shall be the duty of the Attorney-General and solicitor-general to conduct and argue them before that court as in other cases in which the United States may be interested.


http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=197

I read that, and the words "necessary" and "may" in the first line jump out. Those words indicate a certain degree of latitude in the way the AG proceeds. The DOJ is under no mandate to challenge each and every finding of unconstitutionality.

[mkultra]

21. The neccesity is based on constitutional muster

[CTLawGuy]

9. yeah

only *BUSH'S* DOJ has to follow the constitution!

[mkultra]

15. You mean: Obama's DOJ gets to act like Bush's DOJ

when its something we agree with.

[Diamonique]

4. OK. Now I'm pissed!

Even if there *is* some merit to that argument (I think it's B.S. actually), they had 60 days to file an appeal. They could have "kept their powder dry" at least until after the election.

Dayum!

[namahage]

7. The 60-day clock started back in August.

They were waiting till nearly the last possible minute to file (they had until Oct. 17). Still, timing couldn't have been worse.

[zulchzulu]

5. Or... "the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed"

DOMA and DADT will be repealed. It has to solidly be crushed from a legal standpoint.

[stevenleser]

6. Not just wrong but horrific timing.

The day that the Repug Log Cabins got DADT stopped, they do this. You all cannot see me but I am doing a double face palm.

[mdmc]

10. booo! now GOTV!

[denimgirly]

12. And once again Obama trying to Split the Baby

I really wish he would just BE a democrat and not a person who is trying to please both sides at the same time...its always the same....today its him saying he is against the law but then going ahead and appealing the decision because the law should be defended.....and he wonders why his base hates him.

And wonderful timing...nice way to motivate your base.

[mkultra]

17. actually, only the stupid base hates him for this

Those of us who understand don't.

[AnOhioan]

19. Way to build up support

Calling others stupid....yeah, that'll work

[mkultra]

20. i dont need support.

[joe black]

23. No shit.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

24. Appeals to logic don't work, so why not call it what it is?

[Duncan Grant]

25. Only dead fish go with the flow. (nt)

[polichick]

28. "as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged"...

Sounds like there was a choice.