Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

DOMA decision: It's not [insert President] won't defend [insert case] Mad Libs

Uncategorized

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

Here’s a novel new meme building in socially conservative circles:

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment

Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment [Newsmax via the National Organization for Marriage]

Uhm, okay. But here’s the question: What “similar action” would a potential President Palin possibly take? Because what we are talking about here is the increased protection of one of the last shunnable minority populations. This is not some generic case. With dropped DOMA defense, we are talking about something specific: The possibility of increased nondiscrimination for LGB people. Sarah Palin has never given any indication that she would put that concept even close to a table, much less on it.

The far-right crowd is looking at the Obama administration’s new DOMA position in the completely wrong way. The generalized socially conservative response acts like the decision was completely arbitrary, with the specified scenario painted as easily interchangeable with basically any other legal matter that might be presented to a President — a view that is flawed, offensive, and intellectually dishonest! Flawed, because the truth of the matter is that Obama officials have poured over this case and its (lack of merits), determining the exact reasons why this particular piece of legislation, unlike countless others, is patently unconstitutional and therefore undeserving of DOJ defense. Offensive, because Gingrich and company’s choice to strip out the actual human beings attached to the matter completely overlooks the very concrete reason why DOMA (enacted under Gingrich’s time as Speaker) is, was, and forever will be wrongheaded and unfairly enacted. Intellectually dishonest, because rather than help the American public understand a decision that people like NOM and Gingrich have to understand on a factual level (even if they don’t agree with it), the American social conservatives are yet again — YET. AGAIN. — waging a blind attack on “the left™,” the Democratic President, and the “radical agenda®” that’s supposedly attached to any of the brutally-shunned LGBT crowd’s attempts to seize their equal rights and citizenship.

So if a theoretical President Palin did something truly similar to the Obama administration’s DOMA decision? Well no, of course LGBT rights activists wouldn’t call for impeachment (and not only because they’d be dead from shock). But a “similar action” would not mean a refusal to defend something like hate crimes legislation or Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’s repeal (once it’s completed), two choices that would be much more in line with Sarah Palin’s stated positions. Because the choice to either defend or offend a certain minority population is not an equally-footed choice. Merit and principle aren’t disposable considerations.

158 Comments

  • 1. Bob  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:13 am

    so are they admitting they would actually consider electing Palin for President,,,,, cause that is scary!!!!!!!! an pretty sobering for anyone around the globe that has a brain

  • 2. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Also: He's. Still. Enforcing. The. Law.

  • 3. Michelle Evans  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Forgot the "T" in the first mention of "LGB." :-)

  • 4. Michelle Evans  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:17 am

    Yeah, they don't seem to understand the difference between "defend" and "enforce." Guess it's sort of like the other little things they don't understand called the U.S. Constitution and Equal Rights for all people of this nation.

  • 5. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Call me cynical, but I think they fully understand and just want to stir up fear and resentment.

  • 6. Bob  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:28 am

    Maybe it will help win over all those middle of the road fence sitters trying to decided,,,,, Umm Palin or Obama,,,, let them see real clear where the republicans would take them ,,,,,, makes the republicans look real extreme,,,, good advertising,,,,

  • 7. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:29 am

    I agree.

  • 8. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:33 am

    totes…. <3…Ronnie

  • 9. Rhie  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:37 am

    Yea just the words President Palin are enough for me to start looking into emigrating somewhere else.

  • 10. Chris B  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Interesting info from the NY Times:

    "…an acting solicitor general told the Supreme Court that the Justice Department would not defend a Federal Communications Commission affirmative-action program because, in language echoing Mr. Holder’s, it 'could not withstand the exacting scrutiny required by the Constitution.

    "The commission filed its own brief defending the program, and the court upheld it. The acting solicitor general who refused to defend the program, John G. Roberts Jr., is now chief justice of the United States."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/weekinreview/27

    (And let's not forget what Focus on the Family said when the Wisconsin AG chose not to defend the Domestic Partnership law in WI:

    "Julaine Appling, chief executive officer of Wisconsin Family Action, said Van Hollen took a strong position when he said he would not disregard the constitution or the will of the people by defending the registry.

    "'What J.B. Van Hollen was saying was that his oath of office is to defend the constitution,' she said, 'not the Legislature and not the governor.' "

    Again, this is all political. These people have to say what they say in order to get support from their followers. If Bush and Obama did the exact same thing, the Republicans would simultaneously praise Bush and denounce Obama, without the slightest hint of irony.

  • 11. Ed Cortes  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:55 am

    They don't seem to get that part, do they?

  • 12. Ray in MA  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:06 am

    There is a March 11 deadline for Congress to notify the court if it intends to act in the cases.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/28/h

  • 13. Sagesse  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Just the usual meaty if inaccurate soundbites. Repeat as often as you can in each interview or article.

  • 14. Rich  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:20 am

    A quick glance at the NOM site confirms the panic that enshrouds this organization in light of O'Bama/Holder's contention that part of DOMA is unconstitutional. Clearly, for them, it's time to fling whatever crap/spokesman/bigotry they can and hope/pray that some of it will stick. I monitor their site frequently and have never seen such outright hyperventilation and shrill diatribe as you would see today. The sky is falling and the babies are in danger!! The world, as they know it, is about to end. Well NOM, welcome to a new (and better) world.

  • 15. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:40 am

    That March 11 deadline is based on the current briefing schedule in the Pedersen and Windsor cases. In both those cases, government motions to dismiss are due on that date. However, the Court could change the schedule, given the new developments.

  • 16. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:41 am

    UPDATE: Golinski v. OPM

    Here's the government's response to the questions posed in the Feb 25 Order to Show Cause: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49746021

  • 17. JonT  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Yes, Newt, et. al. keep 'forgetting' to mention that little fact.

  • 18. GraciesDaddy  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:46 am

    We would have never gotten this far with "President" Palin… she would've pushed the wrong button 18 months ago and blown us ALL up!

    I'd be typing this from my cave.

  • 19. Owen  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:48 am

    And now it's going to be reported in Newsmax, which means it will make its way to the right-wing echo chamber, which means between that and Megyn Kelly's "journalism" half the country will be believing this "fact" in time. Ugh.

  • 20. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:50 am

    This item, attached to the Golinski filing referenced above is useful. It's a list of the pending cases in which DOMA is being challenged: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49746350

  • 21. Ray in MA  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:09 am

    Hi Kathleen,

    You took the bait! I was hoping you would clarify and elaborate…Thanx!

    (It was a very vague statement in the article)

  • 22. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Thank you, Jeremy Hooper! And thank you, P8TT, for cross-posting this! Of course, this still reminds me of something Roseanne Barr said when she met Candace Gingrich, Newt's sister, who is openly lesbian. Roseanne looked at Candace and said, "Don't feel bad, honey. I have a weird brother, too."

  • 23. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:19 am

    You can just ask.

  • 24. Ray in MA  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:27 am

    I didn't want to burden you… you are amazing.

  • 25. Michael  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:29 am

    Any man who commits adultery and leaves his cancer-ridden wife in the hospital while he goes off with the woman he's committing adultery with is not FIT to judge anything Obama or anyone else does!

  • 26. Tomato  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:29 am

    But… hasn't just about every president had at least one "case" they wouldn't "defend?"

    Democrats AND Republicans?

    Where is the logic?

  • 27. Tomato  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:32 am

    That's for sure! Serving her the divorce papers while she was in her hospital bed is a sign of real leadership, yeah?

  • 28. Ginger  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:34 am

    I noticed it too, but I thought that was on purpose since I was under the impression that DOMA did not address trans people specifically, as long as you want to marry someone who is the opposite of your legal sex. Though I suppose if you are married and then change your sex, your marriage can be terminated…

  • 29. Josh  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Again, these guys are getting upset bc the DOJ won't defend the law anymore, yet not so long ago, they were upset that the DOJ wasn't defending it the right way. Who in the MAJOR MEDIA is going to point this out REPEATEDLY and emphasize the hypocrisy that they so profoundly display so every American has a chance to hear it?

    I agree that the administration has taken their time to come to this conclusion, but hopefully it is with some plan going forward. Maybe they will collect all the bullshit that the opposition will say about it, all the while keeping quiet, so they can replay the utter garbage later and show how wrong and hypocritical they were.

  • 30. Kevin S.  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:51 am

    "If Bush and Obama did the exact same thing, the Republicans would simultaneously praise Bush and denounce Obama, without the slightest hint of irony."

    You mean like the bailout?

  • 31. Tasty Salamanders  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    I know, it's got to be the biggest thing that has annoyed me out of this whole thing, the fact they keep claiming he isn't enforcing it.
    Even in a Facebook convo I corrected someone who said it and they responded by going on about how the President has to enforce the laws and so I to say that defend and enforce are completely different things… and they again went on about how he has to enforce it…
    I think they must be purposely putting up mental filters or something because really…

  • 32. Tony Douglass In Ca  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Thank you for braving the waters for me! I don't want to raise their hit counts to see what they're up to, I'm glad you report them here!!

  • 33. marc  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    i love this website with all my heart, and i know this might be nit-picking, but…

    could you add the "T" to the first appearance of LGBT in the following sentence: 'The possibility of increased nondiscrimination for LGB people.' ?

    ever so much thanks.
    xxx

  • 34. Michelle Evans  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    Such as was done by the state of California to myself and my wife, Cherie, back in October. Including transgender people in this discussion is always very important as we too often get left under the bus. Re: ENDA and others.

  • 35. Michelle Evans  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Marc, Thanks for also requesting this. I mentioned the ramifications of leaving the "T" out of DOMA discussions above (currently item 14).

  • 36. George Vreeland Hill  |  February 28, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    When two people get married, it is because they love each other.
    They want to be together in a bond that makes them one with each other forever.
    It is a wonderful thing to have such a bond.
    It is special.
    It is love.
    When a man and a woman get married, no one blinks an eye.
    If two men or two women do the same, then many people do not approve.
    They claim that it is not right or that it soils the real meaning of marriage.
    What is the real meaning of marriage?
    The answer to that question is in line one of this article.
    It is because they love each other.
    Does it matter if the couple is gay or straight?
    Should it matter?
    No!
    After all, why should it.
    Gays want their equal rights and among those equal rights is the right to be married.
    I agree with wanting equal rights.
    We are all people which means we are all the same.
    It does not matter if someone is gay, white, black, a man, a woman, tall, short, young, old or whatever.
    We all want our equal rights.
    That is our right.
    However, we need to go beyond equal rights when it comes to gay marriage.
    Society needs to understand that any marriage is not about the right to be married.
    It is about wanting to be married as a loving couple.
    Love is not something that should be decided on by voters.
    It is not a court issue either.
    It should not be an issue at all.
    Marriage is between two people in love.
    It is not between two people, the voters, the courts and anyone else who has an opinion.
    Gay marriage does not bring down the meaning of marriage.
    It makes the true meaning of marriage even better.
    That is what love does.
    It makes things better.
    Society has come a long way in the last fifty years in terms of equality, but we still have a long way to go.
    It is a shame that love is something that needs to be fought for.
    I am not gay, but I am the same as you as you are to me.
    May love conquer all.

    George Vreeland Hill

  • 37. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 28, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Thank you, Mr. Hill. You have brought tears of joy to my eyes. And after I show this to my husband, I will post his response to your heartfelt words. May your life be blessed more than you expect, and please feel free to pull up a chair and grab some cookies, challah, and MILK.

  • 38. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    I uploaded the wrong document, so deleted the link above.

    Here's the list of DOMA cases: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49755370

  • 39. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    I think you're on to something. Fear is the great crowd control device. I was listening to a radio show today that connected all recent revolutions (the Orange Revolution in Ukraine to Tunisia to Egypt to Libya, etc.) by saying that the people overcame fear. That's it. They "simply" decided not to be afraid of the one/those in power. I believe that the anti-intellectual, fear-mongering Fox News and its political allies know how powerful fear is; if we're afraid of commies/ Muslims/ gays /losing our jobs/ losing our homes and 401ks, etc., then we'll stay in line. Let's all throw open our windows (and encourage our family and friends) and yell, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to BE AFRAID anymore!"

  • 40. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE

  • 41. Bob  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Bingo JC right wing is doing their usual fear mongering as Straight Ally points out above,,,, but they've actually gotten so extreme they are stirring up fear in us,,,, of them,,,, we got to work that for all we can,,,,, if that fear doesn't motivate us to move,,, nothing will,,,,, the labour strike in Wisconsin is like the spark that lights the flame,,, kindles the spirit,,,,, sets fear in the hearts of every day Americans,,,, wake up people,,, they're all about strengthing the wealthy ,,, legislating discrimination, that's what the right wing is up too,,,,
    We need to stop fearing the strength of big money,,, and religious nut jobs,,,, just say NO

  • 42. Bob  |  February 28, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    big old rainbow colored buses from all corners ride into Wisconsin,,, with loads of people to support the labour movement,,, rise up,,, be there when they are forced to reopen the doors of the parliamnet bldg.. stand united,,,,

    how bout a bus tour to rival that failed one!!!!

  • 43. Michelle Evans  |  February 28, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    I'll be glad to join in the thank yous to George. Thank you for your eloquence. Thank you for being an ally of equality!

    It is still a sad fact that if you change the word "gay" or "LGBT" with the word "interracial" you get the exact same rhetoric as we had nearly 45 years ago, before Loving v Virginia. And yet they still use the same tired arguments against us, while saying it is a completely different issue. Sounds like a second definition of insanity to me.

  • 44. Dan  |  February 28, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    "Flawed, because the truth of the matter is that Obama officials have poured over this case and its (lack of merits), determining the exact reasons why this particular piece of legislation, unlike countless others, is patently unconstitutional and therefore undeserving of DOJ defense."

    But the US Supreme Court has ruled (Murphy v Ramsey):

    For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union,than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."

    So Obama gets to decide overturn US Supreme Court precedent by deciding that legislation which the US Supreme Court has called "wholesome" is somehow unconstitutional?

  • 45. Nicole  |  February 28, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    You're talking about a late 1800s era supreme court decision regarding polygamy. Because of the obscurity of the idea of gay couples existing let alone forming marriages, it didn't address the existence thereof.

    I'm not a lawyer, maybe someone else can tackle it better, but that's the first thing that comes to mind for me.

  • 46. AnonyGrl  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    You are correct. Murphy v. Ramsey was about polygamy, and did not in any way address the issue at hand. And was in the 1800's, and still did not address the issue at hand.

    I'm not a lawyer either, but this tactic of trying to equate homosexuals to polygamists often used… it is akin to calling homosexuals pedophiles or suggesting they want to marry their house pets.

    Forget it, it is meaningless noise about a case that does not relate.

  • 47. AnonyGrl  |  February 28, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    I wondered the same thing… but then he got it in the second time, so I wondered if it was an odd typo.

  • 48. Felyx  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    This case determined suffrage rights of persons engaged in plural marriages. Either those married to more than one woman or those married to someone married to another. The court ruling merely decides the right of the registering agent to determine suffrage by predetermined criteria. Furthermore, none of this case occurs in an actual state that is part of the Union with the right to determine marriage for its citizens, so it does not apply to an individual state's right to determine marriage.

    One thing that we CAN infer from this case is that an individual state has the right to permit voting rights to men who are married to any number of women, woman who are married to any number of men, men married to men, women married to women, trans-persons married to any other person, people married in a large group in whole or in part or even theoretically an individual married to him or herself (although I am uncertain as to what the advantage of such an action would be… perhaps it would have merit in a society that only allows rights to married persons… which, incidentally, is a situation mentioned in this case).

    We can infer that the case has little merit because it was decided in the century before the last one and much has changed. Along those lines, we can infer the case has little value as it is based on subjective moral grounds and therefore is perhaps subject to a higher scrutiny.

    Perhaps most importantly we can infer that the government can restrict rights to religious groups that break laws!

    So far in the Federal legal code there is absolutely no right of the US government to restrict polygamy or polyamory. Not only that but a fair understanding of our legal system would suggest that any federal law outlawing any such practice would not survive a legal challenge!

    And lastly, as far as the one man one woman part goes, it is a side comment, not the ruling itself. It has no legal value on its own.

  • 49. Ray  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    I don't understand. Obama and Holder specifically stated they would continue to fully enforce the law until acted upon by another force – either repeal by Congress or a Supreme Court decision.

    He did not order IRS to replace "husband" and "wife" with "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2".

    The administration is fully enforcing the law as Congess and the courts get their turn to act on it.

    The claim attributed to Gingrich is factually false. Hm, what else is new.

  • 50. Dan  |  February 28, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    "And lastly, as far as the one man one woman part goes, it is a side comment, not the ruling itself. It has no legal value on its own."

    Congress explicitly cited this case (and this part of this case) when creating DOMA. If Congress believes the case has legal value when writing a law, then to strike DOMA down, a plaintiff would have to show that congress could not have rationally believed at the time it enacted DOMA that a legal ruling from the Supreme Court is a valid basis for writing a law.

    From the legislative history of DOMA:

    "The DOMA definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885)."

  • 51. Chris B  |  March 1, 2011 at 12:18 am

    From what I've been reading during this whole Prop 8 case, the arguments about polygamy, etc. were also brought up in the days of anti-interracial marriage. Opponents also claimed that if we allowed blacks and whites to intermarry, then we would have to allow anyone who wanted to get married to marry. Also, there were 'what about the children' arguments too. Interracial children would be rejected by blacks for not being black enough, and whites would reject them for not being white.

    I think (IANAL) that there are actual legal issues that would prevent polygamy. Due to the large number of benefits from state and local governments, it is actually in the best interest of the state to limit a marriage to two people. Think of the tangled web of benefits and the mess of divorce. (I think, back in the days of Mormon polygamy, divorce was very rare, correct?). If Bob and Sue marry, their property gets divided in half (theoretically). What happens when Bob then marries Alice? Does half of Bob's property belong to Alice, or half of his half, or every partner now get 33.3%. Does 1/2 of Alice's income then belong to Bob, and half of that to Sue?

    There are so many legal and financial difficulties, and actual state interests, that arise from polygamy that don't arise in a same-sex marriage, that it really isn't a fair comparison.

  • 52. AnonyGrl  |  March 1, 2011 at 12:26 am

    Whether or not Congress believed that an opinion in a ruling from over 100 years ago in a case that bears no relation to the one at hand was a valid basis for writing a discriminatory law or not, the point still stands that the law itself is discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

    That point has been argued and won in several court cases. That the President and the DOJ agree with those lower court rulings and have decided not to contest them further is the issue at hand.

    I also note, from the text you quote "More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the union…" does not say that the Supreme Court RULED that marriage is such a union, merely that they talked about it. That further indicates that the opinion expressed by the court in this case is merely that, an opinion. As such, the Congress may have thought it to be informative, but not precedent.

  • 53. AnonyGrl  |  March 1, 2011 at 12:34 am

    Logic? You want logic? Silly Tomato. :)

    Where is the logic of the party that is supposed to be for LESS government getting into people's bedrooms and legislating on what family types are not legal? Where is the logic of saying "Two married parents are better for children so whatever you do, don't let same sex parents marry!" Where is the logic in throwing out the rest of Leviticus wholesale, but saying "Oh, no… God MEANT us to keep that one little bit there!"

    Logic doesn't even BEGIN to enter into it.

  • 54. Steve  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:04 am

    @Chris

    That's why I'm against legal recognition of polygamy. I have nothing against polyamorous relationships. But all marriage laws are written with two people in mind. So extending those protections to gay couples is very easy. But given the many variations and configurations of poly-relationships, it's almost impossible to properly account for all of them in a law.

  • 55. Dan  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:05 am

    "That the President and the DOJ agree with those lower court rulings and have decided not to contest them further is the issue at hand."

    Yes, but the President is also bound by the decisions in Wilson v. Ake and In re Kandu, in which the government argued that DOMA was constitutional. Those are also lower court rulings.

    See the problem? The President cant pick and choose which cases he likes and which he doesnt. Thats why he is the executive branch. I didnt elect him to write law, that is the job of Congress.

    "As such, the Congress may have thought it to be informative, but not precedent."

    It doesnt matter. The question is does it constitute a rational basis for Congress to use a court opinion to write a law?

    "…the point still stands that the law itself is discriminatory…"

    Every law is discriminatory. For instance, I cant drink alcohol under 21. Thats age discrimination. Is it unconstitutional since it discriminates based on age?

  • 56. Steve  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:07 am

    Citing such cases (both then and now) is nothing but a post-hoc rationalization. There is no rational reason to create a law such a DOMA in the first place. The record shows pretty clearly that the only reason was animus. Just as with DADT.

  • 57. Steve  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:12 am

    Many presidents have decided not to defend certain laws. Starting with Thomas Jefferson (as VP) who campaigned heavily against the Aliens and Sedition Act. George Bush declined to defend various laws as well.

    Yes, not all kinds of discrimination is illegal. There has to be a reason for it and there need to be public benefits. Limiting the drinking age, decreases public disorder and traffic accidents for example. That's easily provable with statistics. You can argue that the limit should be 18 like in basically all other countries, but you can't really argue to get rid of it.

    DOMA (especially Section 3), on the other hand, has no benefits for anyone. Not for the public and not for the government. It protects nothing and no one. The harm for the affected couples is also demonstrably much greater than drinking age laws

  • 58. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:14 am

    "Every law is discriminatory. For instance, I cant drink alcohol under 21. Thats age discrimination. Is it unconstitutional since it discriminates based on age?"

    I don't even know where to start with that….I'm just going to go with…FAIL!!!!….&….Maude!!!….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 59. Sheryl Carver  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Michelle,

    The rhetoric sounds the same because it has the same base:
    fear of "the other," and ignorance of "the other" (which often leads to fear). The leaders know this & are very good at using the same emotional triggers that have worked for centuries to arouse that fear in the masses, making them so much easier to control. The only variation in the phrasing would depend on if the leaders are actually trying to prevent something (marriage; voting; etc.) or if they merely want a convenient scapegoat (Jews in Nazi Germany; the government of whatever country they want to invade; etc.).

    The leaders may or may not actually fear "the other" themselves, but I think often it's just a convenient way to get or stay in power. Of course, for professional bigots (do love that so-accurate term), there's the wonderful income that all the fear-mongering produces.

    All in all, the human species has a long way to go before we get our baser side under appropriate control. Fear of "the other" may have been an excellent evolutionary attribute thousands of years ago, leading to increased likelihood of the survival of one's group/tribe/whatever. The world has changed, but too many of our species still allow their primitive side to unthinkingly govern their behavior.

  • 60. Dan  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:24 am

    "Many presidents have decided not to defend certain laws."

    Yes but one president cant say its constitutional, and obtain a court ruling to that effect, and another president turn around a mere two years later and say its unconstitutional and try to obtain a court ruling to that effect.

    That will be a problem for the appellate court, a legal issue called collateral estoppel. It prevents a party (in this case the government) from arguing different sides of the same issue.

  • 61. Dan  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:44 am

    "DOMA (especially Section 3), on the other hand, has no benefits for anyone."

    While thats your personal opinion, and I respect it, I disagree.

  • 62. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:48 am

    “DOMA (especially Section 3), on the other hand, has no benefits for anyone.”

    I concur with Steve……<3…Ronnie

  • 63. AnonyGrl  |  March 1, 2011 at 2:07 am

    Dan,

    Please cite the benefits that section 3 of DOMA provides? And in doing so, please also demonstrate why those benefits are NOT discriminatory?

    Also, DOMA was enacted in 1996. It is now 15 years later, not 2, and, in fact, the President CAN "pick and choose which laws he wants to defend." In case you have missed it, he is not refusing to enforce DOMA, which is what his job is. He is refusing to defend it, which is entirely within his jurisdiction to do. The court is the one that will be deciding the issue, the President merely has removed himself and the DOJ from the equation.

    And your estoppel reasoning does not apply in these cases that are brought by citizens against the government. The President is not stepping in to argue on the side of the plaintiffs, he is merely removing himself as a defendant. Not at all the same thing, and perfectly legal for him to do. It is the same thing that happened in Prop 8 in California, where the Governor and AG refused to defend the case.

    If Congress wishes to step up, they can and most likely will do so.

  • 64. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2011 at 2:15 am

    So Obama gets to decide overturn US Supreme Court precedent..

    Obama hasn't overturned anything. He's choosing not to mount a defense in court cases challenging parts of this law. There's a huge difference. Only the courts will overturn precedent.

  • 65. Leo  |  March 1, 2011 at 2:18 am

    Dan, I think you misunderstand what rational basis review means. The test is that legislation has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Whether Congress rationally believed that the law wouldn't be overturned by courts is beside the point. Moreover, it's not a given that DOMA will be judged under rational basis standard. If strict scrutiny is applied (as the Administration believes it should be), then rational basis is plainly insufficient.

  • 66. Steve  |  March 1, 2011 at 2:27 am

    Another big change compared to 1996 is that no state back then had same-sex marriage or even civil unions. Today, nine states either perform or recognize same-sex marriages. The harm caused by DOMA was hypothetical then. It's very real now. And we've also learned that Section 3 serves no purpose. It certainly doesn't prevent states from legalizing SSM or people from marrying.

    So the reasons people had to enact the law are mostly academic. Lots of bad laws were enacted for a reason. That doesn't mean those reasons are good or that the laws in question are good. Let alone constitutional.

  • 67. AnonyGrl  |  March 1, 2011 at 2:31 am

    As an aside, Dan, thank you for coming in and rationally discussing this with us. While we are obviously not agreeing, I am quite enjoying this discussion with you, the banter back and forth about legal points.

    One thing we do a lot around here is discuss the law, and how it applies… and it is interesting to have someone who is from the "other side" come and present their thoughts. I hope that you are enjoying it too, and that we all are learning things as we go.

  • 68. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2011 at 2:34 am

    Dan, you clearly weren't paying attention in law school if you're trying to claim that a case from the Washington State courts and dicta in a case on the issue of voting somehow sets binding precedent for federal courts in determining whether or not Section 3 of DOMA is constitutional.

    I realize you don't like the position the DOJ is taking in the cases challenging DOMA. We get that. But there's nothing illegal, unconstitutional, nor unprecedented by his action. It is not a unilateral dismissal of a law. The gov will continue to defend the law until it is repealed by Congress or overturned in the courts. And if it's not repealed by Congress, ultimately, it is our court system that will determine whether or not it violates the U.S. Constitution.

    Our system of government is working just the way it was intended – with checks and balances among the various branches.

  • 69. Maggie4NoH8  |  March 1, 2011 at 2:47 am

    Those fancy-pants over at the NOM Blog have another action item where we can write to Boehner, Cantor and our respective representatives…

    BUT, they have Boehner listed as the “house minority leader” and Cantor listed as the “house minority whip”!
    Is that a typo? Or did they do that on purpose (as in, the majority of the House believes DOMA is unconstitutional, and Boehnor/Cantor are TRULY the minority leaders in this arena)?

    LMFAO!!!!

    I tried to paste a screen print, but I can’t…

    However, the next best thing is a link (feel free to use their tool to write your own letter opposing the House taking action to defend DOMA – I SURE DID!)…
    http://www.nationformarriage.org/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b….

  • 70. Jon  |  March 1, 2011 at 3:14 am

    I assume the Newterino was equally appalled by Shrub's signing statements.

    What? He wasn't? Didn't say nothin'?

    More right wing hypocrisy, folks.

  • 71. Dan  |  March 1, 2011 at 4:08 am

    "The test is that legislation has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest."

    In Lofton vs DCFS, the 11th circuit held:

    "The crafting and safeguarding of public morality has long been an established part of the States’ plenary police power to legislate and indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny."

    "In fact, the State’s interest in public morality is sufficiently substantial to satisfy the government’s burden under the more rigorous intermediate level of constitutional scrutiny applicable in some cases."

  • 72. Maggie4NoH8  |  March 1, 2011 at 4:15 am

    I had an epiphany 2 or 3 years ago… I had been thinking alot about Republicans and Democrats and what exactly is the core difference between the two parties.

    This was, in part, because of an older couple (the wife being from the Netherlands) that are neighbors and that I have become quite close friends with… They are very conservative in general, but every once in a while, they would (and still do) surprise me. The husband's only problem with marriage equality was basically what to call my partner – I said husband, but he thought that "strange", and wanted another word…

    I questioned myself how/why we became friends when we are so fundamentally and diametrically opposites on most levels – I won't, and don't have time to, disclose all the levels of discussions we've had (trust me, we've spent hours and days in deep philosophical exploration of each other).

    Anyway, back to my epiphany… it boils down to 2 defining characteristics (IMO):

    1) Democrats, in general philosophy terms, want a world where the playing field is level and equal. They don't care what others "have" vs. what they themselves "have". As long as EVERYONE has the freedom, and the equal opportunity, to seek and attain that for which they after, then that in itself adds to their own self-fulfillment.
    2) Republicans, on the other hand, have very little interest in anything other than giving others *just enough* to prevent outright rebellion and revolt. Sometimes, that becomes tangible (in the sense of civil rights of the 50's/60's) and other times, just the perception is enough (in the sense of "free market" – if *YOU* work hard enough, are smart enough, you too can be a billionaire, or if *YOUR* product is good enough, the demand will be there and you too can be successful).

    In other words, Democrats have benign philosophy that supports and encourages self-fulfillment and happiness – whatever that is – as long as it does not impinge upon others, or society at large.

    Republicans have a philosophy that is tiered and class based – with each tier interested in *just enough* for lower tiers and reserving the remaining resources for themselves and those tiers above them. It's the basis for sayings such as "let the buyer beware" – if someone buys a complete failure, a "lemon", then it is their own fault for being gullible and the seller's social responsibility of morality/fairness is abdicated.

    Take the case of Citizen's United – that basically says if you (and/or your corporation) have enough money that is validation enough – the "market" has spoken, and your input should be allowed (after all, you must be smarter right? You "succeeded" more so than others). Other individuals, or corporations in this case, that don't have the financial resources are just out-of-luck (again, the "market" has spoken).

    What we are seeing in Tunisia, Libya and across the Arab world is a mis-match in what the ruling class (Republican philosophy) thinks is *just enough* and what the people believe is enough.

    What has made NOM and its allies uncomfortable is a change in *just enough*. 50 years ago, GLBT thought being able to hide in the closet and just not be killed was *just enough*; 10-15 years ago civil unions was *just enough* but now, neither are *just enough*.

    The *Just Enough* goal-post has moved; it's encroaching upon *Fair and Equal*, and that just does NOT agree with the basic Republican philosophy, or with "religion's", or NOM's…

  • 73. Dan  |  March 1, 2011 at 4:16 am

    "Dan, you clearly weren’t paying attention in law school if you’re trying to claim that a case from the Washington State courts and dicta in a case on the issue of voting somehow sets binding precedent for federal courts in determining whether or not Section 3 of DOMA is constitutional. "

    No Kathleen, those cases are explicitly cited by Congress as the reasoning for enacting DOMA.

    So the question I'm asking is: Are those two cases a rational basis for Congress to enact DOMA?

  • 74. Maggie4NoH8  |  March 1, 2011 at 4:21 am

    You mean like the "Patriot Act" and "smaller, less-intrusive government"?

  • 75. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2011 at 4:46 am

    Congress can pass any law it can get enough votes for and they can cite anything they want as rationalization – from the Bible to Alice in Wonderland. Whether the law is constitutional is an entirely different question – one ultimately determined by the courts. And, no, I don't think either of these cases would provide precedent establishing that DOMA is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

    I will mention that the reason we're seeing every case out there that exists on the question of polygamy is because DOMA's supporters are trying to make a case that the federal government has authority and tradition on their side in the regulation of marriage.

    And I'm beginning to think that "Dan" is the realtor under a different name.

  • 76. AnonyGrl  |  March 1, 2011 at 5:00 am

    Dan,

    Lofton v DCFS upheld the Florida law against gay adoption, and that was in 2007. It is well and truly superceded by In re:Gill, where just this past September, Florida's 3rd District court upheld the lower court's ruling that Florida's adoption law was unconstitutional, and the state of Florida declined to pursue it any further.

    It seems that, in this case, the definition of "public morals" has moved to include gay adoption. This does not prove DOMA to be reasonable under any sort of scrutiny.

    Additionally, the case you cite indicates that the "public morals" issue relates to intermediate scrutiny, whereas the administration, in giving up its defense of DOMA feels that the case should be judged under strict scrutiny.

    So it falls to the courts to decide. Both on whether the issue is, in fact, one of intermediate scrutiny, and what "public morals" means if it is. My morality, and that of quite a lot of the rest of the country, says that marriage equality IS the moral and correct thing to do.

  • 77. Felyx  |  March 1, 2011 at 5:06 am

    Just catching up on posts but I thought this was funny…

    81. Kathleen | February 26, 2011 at 9:56 am

    "I remember Proponents’ citing some case in one of their briefs in the Perry, and consistently mis-citing it as being in the wrong century. And I remember thinking at the time that it accurately reflected their mindset."

    If the earth is only 6,000 years old, then an accurate reflection of time is obviously not an issue for these people!

  • 78. Michael Adrian  |  March 1, 2011 at 5:06 am

    Dan's citations: In Lofton vs DCFS, the 11th circuit held:

    “The crafting and safeguarding of public morality has long been an established part of the States’ plenary police power to legislate and indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny.”

    “In fact, the State’s interest in public morality is sufficiently substantial to satisfy the government’s burden under the more rigorous intermediate level of constitutional scrutiny applicable in some cases.”

    When are people going to finally realize that there is nothing immoral about being gay, gay couples, gay sex, gay families, anything/everything having to do with gay gay gay! Any state interest in public morality is not harmed by gay and lesbian couples marrying. Rather, I'd venture the state has an interest in binding all couples through marriage.

  • 79. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2011 at 5:14 am

    In the interest of accuracy, I must point out that the DOJ letter only indicates that DOMA, sect 3, should be subject to "heightened scrutiny." This is a somewhat ambiguous term that means a higher standard than rational review and may or may not mean strict scrutiny.

  • 80. AnonyGrl  |  March 1, 2011 at 5:16 am

    Fair enough, thanks Kathleen!

    I still maintain, however, that "public morals" in this case are now on the side of equality.

    :)

  • 81. Felyx  |  March 1, 2011 at 5:20 am

    Someone under the age of 21 CAN drink alcohol. I did so frequently and with social acceptance of law abiding citizens.

    However, if you are under 21, then purchasing alcohol can become an issue. (I will also point out that persons under the age of 21 can get married under certain circumstances.)

  • 82. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2011 at 5:25 am

    I'm with Michael Adrian on the issue "public morality" as it relates to lgbt civil rights.

  • 83. Felyx  |  March 1, 2011 at 5:32 am

    "Congress can pass any law it can get enough votes for and they can cite anything they want as rationalization – from the Bible to Alice in Wonderland. Whether the law is constitutional is an entirely different question – "Wonderful Kathleen

    An interesting side note…

    Republicans have passed a house rule (or some such) stating that the Constitution must be cited for each law brought to the floor.

    1) DOMA would never have had a citation on this one obviously! and…

    2) Republicans went to all the trouble passing the House rule (or whatever it is) but refuse to actually use it!
    (It is hard to cite the Constitution against abortion when the practice is constitutionally protected.)

    BTW Dan, 'Hi Louis'.

  • 84. Felyx  |  March 1, 2011 at 5:42 am

    @Maggie4NoH8

    I would point you to the book The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer.

    I think you will be shocked at how it will confirm what you just said.

    Of particular interest was a study done whereby the group you described managed to bring the 'world' (in the game) to near total destruction…. very scary!

  • 85. Bob  |  March 1, 2011 at 6:04 am

    Maggie4NoH8,,,,,,brilliant post,,,,, great run down of the present situation,,,, we've left behind "Just Enough" and heading for "Fair and Equal"

    watch the labour wars in Wisconsin, to see if the people are able to succeed in achieving "Fair and Equal" when it comes to the ruling class,,,,, they need help to break that barrier….

  • 86. Bill  |  March 1, 2011 at 7:00 am

    Kamala Harris, newly elect Attorney General in California, has just petitioned the court to allow our marriages to proceed!!!!

    I knew I voted for her for good reason!!!!

  • 87. Rhie  |  March 1, 2011 at 8:00 am

    Kathleen, I would LOVE to see what sort of law would use Alice in Wonderland as the basis.

  • 88. Rhie  |  March 1, 2011 at 8:17 am

    I have to agree with others – this is really insightful. It's also true based on my own experiences and the GOP stated goals too.

    I wish they would go back to the "America can't prosper unless all Americans prosper" of Eisenhower.

  • 89. Dan  |  March 1, 2011 at 11:44 am

    "And I’m beginning to think that “Dan” is the realtor under a different name."

    Not at all. I'm certainly no realtor! LOL!

    The problem I have with calling a law "unconstitutional" is that it expressly implies that Congress exceeded its power in enacting it.

    President Obama is not qualified to determine whether Congress exceeded its authority. Under our system, only a court can do that.

    My issue with Section 3 of DOMA is that one state cannot legislate for all of the other states. The state can only legislate for itself. So the issue becomes that if state 1 allows something is against a state 2's public policy, then why should state 2 have to recognize that act?

    So what you are saying is that Congress does not have the power to say that state 2 does not have to recognize state 1's law, and that it is against the Constitution for them to say that.

    I believe that is an incorrect position.

  • 90. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Section 3 of DOMA has only to do with the federal government extending federal benefits to those same-sex couples who are considered married under the laws in their state. It has nothing to do with whether other states recognize the out of state marriage of a same-sex couple.

  • 91. JonT  |  March 1, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    @Dan: 'The problem I have with calling a law “unconstitutional” is that it expressly implies that Congress exceeded its power in enacting it.'

    If he believes it is unconstitutional, he has every right to state that. Congress *does* make mistakes.

    'My issue with Section 3 of DOMA is that one state cannot legislate for all of the other states. The state can only legislate for itself. So the issue becomes that if state 1 allows something is against a state 2′s public policy, then why should state 2 have to recognize that act?'

    I think you are confused. You seem to be talking about Section 2 (requiring a state to recognize an SSM marriage from another state).

    Section 3 (the one Obama will no longer defend) concerns itself with the definition of marriage for the purposes of defining federal benefits and rights.

    Also keep in mind, that Obama is still enforcing the law. Only Congress or the Courts can actually change that.

    He does not have the authority to 'overrule' it, as so many in the rightwing blogosphere are claiming that he is doing.

    He is well within his rights to order the DOJ to stop defending it in court, specifically, Section 3.

  • 92. Rhie  |  March 1, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Bob,

    I'm not afraid the opposition. I know too much about them to be afraid. I've personally never found fear to be a great motivator. Anger is a different story.

  • 93. Rhie  |  March 1, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Steve —

    Very reasonable. And exactly why the argument that legalizing LGBT marriage is akin to legalizing poly marriages is really ludicrous.

  • 94. AnonyGrl  |  March 1, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Dan,

    *I* am calling the law unconstitutional. As such, I am not expressly implying anything, I am stating outright that Congress exceeded its power in enacting it. And I certainly am looking forward to the courts correcting that mistake forthwith. My opinion on the matter, however, carries no more legal weight in striking the bill down than does the President's.

    The President, with the advice of the Department of Justice certainly IS qualified to make such a determination about how HE WILL PROCEED (and how the DOJ will) in light of his considered opinion about the constitutionality of this law. He is not ruling the law unconstitutional, he does not have that power. The court will make that ruling. But the President is absolutely qualified to make the determination whether he will continue defending the law or not.

    You are concerned about the wrong thing. Section 3 of DOMA isn't about one state legislating over another. It is about the FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriage, so your issue is moot.

    Section 2 of DOMA, which currently is not being tried, says that states do not need to recognize same sex marriages performed by other states. That stands untouched by any of the cases currently in the court system.

    What the President, several of the courts, and lots of others are saying is that the Federal government defining marriage as only between one man and one woman, which is section 3 of DOMA, is unconstitutional.

    By the way, if you are not the realtor and you are not a lawyer… what do you do? Not important… just idle curiousity on my part… :)

  • 95. Dan  |  March 1, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    "If he believes it is unconstitutional, he has every right to state that. Congress *does* make mistakes."

    Agreed. Congress does make mistakes. I do not believe that the President should call any law "unconstitutional". That means the he does not respect the law as it is written. Our country can only work if the rule of law is respected.

    If he does not like the law, he has the power to ask Congress to change it.

    He can say "I do not like this law and I think it should be changed". That would be perfectly fine.

    But calling a law "unconstitutional" means that he does respect the actions of the Congress that enacted it.

    That I believe is firmly beyond the scope of his power, as the chief executor of the laws of this nation.

  • 96. Felyx  |  March 1, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    "I do not believe that the President should call any law “unconstitutional”. That means the he does not respect the law as it is written. Our country can only work if the rule of law is respected."

    So you advocate that the President should lose his right to free speech? If he wants to declare a law to be unconstitutional in his view then support him so long as he continues to ENFORCE the law… which he is doing. (god Knows Bush said a butt-load of stupid and immoral things!) As for respecting a law, if he ENFORCES the law then that is all the respect that is required. He is not required by his duty of office to support or defend a law… you heard me! He is NOT required by the Constitution itself to defend a law!

    "If he does not like the law, he has the power to ask Congress to change it.
    He can say “I do not like this law and I think it should be changed”. That would be perfectly fine."

    That is what he did. Stop whining already!

    "But calling a law “unconstitutional” means that he does respect the actions of the Congress that enacted it."

    You said he 'does respect the actions' which is of course true, but I suspect you meant the opposite. The truth is that he is not Constitutionally required to personally or even professionally respect Congress. Hell, nobody respects the lazy and disjointed Republican House right now! Week long vacations every two weeks, severe and direct job killing measures that are projected to SLOW DOWN the economy (even so says Goldman Sachs!) and not one job encouraged or produced!!! (Maybe they should extend the spending cuts to any anti-civil rights agenda they have. Why waste tax-payer money on stupid and idiotic defenses on something that cannot be harmed! What an absolute waste of time and money!)

    "That I believe is firmly beyond the scope of his power, as the chief executor of the laws of this nation."

    That is why we don't run government based on your personal beliefs.

    Face it Dan, you are barking without even knowing what you are talking about. Obviously you never even read the actual DOJ memo. Don't you know that Glen Beck has been declared the biggest and most profound liar by just about every political watch agency?… ! Rush Limbaugh doesn't really care about the Republican agenda either. He makes billions getting idiots like you to buy his products. He even admits to making outrageous stuff up just to keep his listeners interested. You are so used man. Totally pwned by the Radical Right Brainwashing Machine! (Ura Luzr dude!)

  • 97. Chris B  |  March 1, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    @Dan:

    By saying he believed the law is unconstitutional, Obama is giving his reason for not defending DOMA, Section 3. A Federal Judge has also earlier ruled that DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional, so the President's statement isn't just coming out of the blue. He's not declaring a law unconstitutional (that's up to the courts). He's merely stating his opinion.

    A President is free to declare his/her own opinion, isn't he?

    Let's take an extreme example and see what you think. Let's say Congress passed a law that prohibited Jehovah's Witnesses from going door-to-door. This law is clearly unconstitutional for several reasons. Can the President not state his opinion on that law? Can he decide not to defend that law in court because he believes it to be unconstitutional? Or is he supposed to defend that law and wait until the law makes its way through the court system?

    The President swore an oath to "defend the Constitution". How can he defend a law that he believes goes against the Constitution? That act would go against his oath to the Constitution.

  • 98. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    The President of the United States is first and foremost an American Citizen entitled to every right under the constitution including "Freedom of Speech". He has all the right to publicly state his opinion that a law is unconstitutional, not to mention he did so based on factual evidence from several court rulings that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. I'm also pretty sure President Obama is utilizing knowledge he gained of constitutional law from his B.A. in Political Science from Columbia University, his J.D. magnum cum laude from Harvard Law, his fellowship at the University of Chicago Law School, his job as a professor/lecturer teaching constitutional law, & his job as a civil rights attorney.

    President Barack Obama is an educated man and his education doesn't revolve around a holy book. It revolves around the Constitution & the laws of a Secular Society.

    I concur with Felyx's last statement…….<3…Ronnie

  • 99. AnonyGrl  |  March 1, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    Of course the President should call a law unconstitutional if he believes it to be. To do otherwise would be a violation of his oath to DEFEND the Constitution.

    And he does not need to respect a law that he believes to be unconstitutional, and in this case, that several COURTS have already declared it to be so. Our country can only work if the TRUTH is respected, and the truth is, this law is unconstitutional.

    The President HAS said that he does not like the law, and he thinks it should be changed. And one of the ways he is allowing that to happen is by ceasing the DOJ defense, which is not only his right to decide, but his duty, as he defends the Constitution.

    I am not sure where you got the impression that the President exists to rubber stamp everything that Congress does. Consider, if you will, that he has VETO power. If DOMA had been enacted by this Congress, President Obama would have expressed his belief in the unconstitutionality of the bill by vetoing it. You don't think THAT would have been wrong, do you? Well, this is another aspect of that. He has decided to stop DEFENDING the law.

    Note, again, he is still ENFORCING it. That he is required to do until the courts decide otherwise.

  • 100. Dan  |  March 2, 2011 at 12:44 am

    "The President of the United States is first and foremost an American Citizen entitled to every right under the constitution including “Freedom of Speech”. He has all the right to publicly state his opinion that a law is unconstitutional, not to mention he did so based on factual evidence from several court rulings that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional."

    Really? Then why the heck does he need a teleprompter at every speech?

    And as far as "several court rulings" there are MANY more holding that DOMA is constitutional – by like 10 to 1.

    DOMA has been challenged in court MANY times and been upheld MANY times.

  • 101. Chris B  |  March 2, 2011 at 1:01 am

    @Dan. Can you please reference the cases where DOMA was ruled constitutional? There have been 2 cases where it was ruled UNconstitutional, so, according to your statement, there must be at least 20 cases where it was ruled constitutional. Please let us know those 20 cases, because I searched and could not find a single one.

    (I don't even know the logic behind your "teleprompter" statement. Because he (along with all other presidents in the last 40+ years) uses a teleprompter he has no personal opinions? I don't get it.)

  • 102. Ronnie  |  March 2, 2011 at 1:04 am

    "Really? Then why the heck does he need a teleprompter at every speech?"

    Wow!! What an idiot you are…..are you really that dense?…Why does anybody need a teleprompter at any speech, or note cards, or a piece of paper with the speech written on it? Think about it …& were you publicly present at every speech he has given & know for a fact that there was a teleprompter…if not, then STFU…..

    It is his opinion & he is entitled to publicly state it as an American Citizen whether you like it or not. Get over it. Based on his education, credentials & resume he is more then qualified to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.

    Lastly…..O.T.I.O……. oIo …… : I …Ronnie

  • 103. Sheryl Carver  |  March 2, 2011 at 1:20 am

    How do you know when someone realizes they are running out of rational arguments in a discussion? When they desperately start bringing up totally irrelevant & ridiculous issues like a very public speaker using a teleprompter.

  • 104. Felyx  |  March 2, 2011 at 1:45 am

    Asking for proof Chris B?

    Good God Man!!!

    (I find it hilarious that even Dan cannot find the info 'on the internet'!!! Tam said it was there!)

  • 105. JonT  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:42 am

    'If he does not like the law, he has the power to ask Congress to change it.'

    Which he has done. Though I suspect the courts will probably beat Congress to it.

    'But calling a law “unconstitutional” means that he does respect the actions of the Congress that enacted it.

    That I believe is firmly beyond the scope of his power, as the chief executor of the laws of this nation.'

    Even though he is the president, he still has the right to free speech.

    One federal court has already ruled Section 3 unconstitutional. He can call it whatever he wants.

    I will repeat: Section 3 is still being enforced. Hopefully for not much longer though :)

  • 106. JonT  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:54 am

    'Really? Then why the heck does he need a teleprompter at every speech?'

    Oh jeez, really? You say Bush didn't? Clinton didn't? Who was the last president that didn't use a teleprompter?

    I remember (there is a youtube video somewhere) where Palin is complaining about Obama's teleprompter, while reading off of a freaking teleprompter!

    Next you'll be telling us about his (lack of a) birth certificate!

    So now we see the classic 'move the goalpost strategy'.

    Don't address or acknowledge that you are wrong, just move to a different topic.

    You've been pwnd. Not going to waste any more time on you. See ya.

  • 107. AnonyGrl  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:59 am

    Dan,

    We've wandered somewhat far afield here. Perhaps you should look up how a teleprompter actually works. The quick answer is, it is only for prepared speeches and everything is typed in ahead of time. There is no Wizard of Oz sitting in the back typing answers on the fly.

    None of which has anything to do with the fact that the President IS, in fact, a citizen, and DOES have a right to express his opinion. The teleprompter debate (started by Sarah Palin, as I recall, and ridiculous even then) has no bearing at all on that.

    Please do elucidate on the DOMA rulings to which you refer. I would be very interested to read them and to see what you are talking about.

  • 108. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:52 am

    These people who are giving Obama such grief would not be giving him nearly as much grief if he were white. I hate to say that, but it is the truth. My stepdaughter has even come out and said that Obama's skin color is her biggest problem with Obama. All of them really need to get over it. The man was elected fair and square, but the people who do not want to admit that they are racist will not stop at anything to discredit the man. I really wish they would crawl back under their rocks and leave the rest of society alone!

  • 109. Felyx  |  March 2, 2011 at 7:01 am

    Federal DOMA cases… Yes… PLEASE!!… by all means!!!

    Please show us the cases where Federal DOMA was ruled constitutional.

    Any Federal level case Dan…

    even just ONE case.

    Just one? Pretty please?

    (I will stop making Jesus cry with my boyfriend if you do…)

  • 110. Dan  |  March 3, 2011 at 8:02 am

    "Please show us the cases where Federal DOMA was ruled constitutional.

    Any Federal level case Dan…"

    Wilson v. Ake (354 F.Supp.2d 1298):

    "But, until then, this Court is constrained to hold DOMA and Florida Statutes § 741.212
    constitutionally valid."

    In re Kandu (315 BR 123):

    "The Court concludes that DOMA does not violate
    the principles of comity, or the Fourth, Fifth, or Tenth
    Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
    ".

  • 111. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 3, 2011 at 8:16 am

    So where are the other 18 you were bragging about. After all, you did say 10 to 1.

  • 112. Chris B  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:16 am

    I am not a lawyer, but Wilson v. Ake was dismissed. The judge made a ruling on a motion to dismiss the case. He wasn't ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA. He was ruling that he didn't believe the plaintiffs could make their case that DOMA was unconstitutional. It states:

    "This Court is bound to follow the precedent established by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. None of their precedent acknowledge or establish a constitutional right to enter into a same sex marriage."

    I hope a lawyer can explain the technical issues of a ruling on a case versus a ruling to dismiss a case.

    But, in any case, Dan, you say that DOMA has been ruled constitutional 10 times more than it has been ruled constitutional. Since DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional in at least 2 federal cases, where are all the other cases?

  • 113. Dan  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:22 am

    http://www.domawatch.org/case_names_index.html

  • 114. fiona64  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:26 am

    Heh, JonT. Your point is quite valid.

    Heck, remember Caribou Barbie screw up even with a teleprompter (during her recent "you hurt my feelings" video, you could see the reflection of the teleprompter in her glasses).

    As for Dan, obvious Tea "Party" troll is obvious. He's just mad that there's a black man (and an articulate, educated *Constitutional lawyer* at that) in the White House.

    Buh-bye, Danny-Boy.

    Feh.

  • 115. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:28 am

    ROFL……a source paid for by the Fascist ADF…..FAIL…… 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 116. Dan  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:30 am

    "I am not a lawyer, but Wilson v. Ake was dismissed. The judge made a ruling on a motion to dismiss the case. "

    The exact ruling he made was on Federal Rule of Civl Procedure 12(b)(6). That is what is known as a ruling on the merits, and is a binding decision, as well as precedent. It can also be immediately appealed, whereas some other dismissals cannot be appealed.

  • 117. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa……Maude!!!!…… XP ……Ronnie

  • 118. Dan  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:35 am

    "a source paid for by the Fascist ADF"

    Well, Shepards legal citations (lexis nexis) lists over 1,000 cases citing 1 USC 7 (aka DOMA section 3).

    Unfortunately, I dont have the funds to list all of the cases at $16 each.

  • 119. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:38 am

    I'll repeat:

    ROFL…..a source paid for by the Fascist ADF…..FAIL!!!…. XP ….Ronnie

  • 120. Dan  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:41 am

    So you're saying that simply because a list of cases is paid for by someone you happen not to agree with that makes it.. ?

    Its still a list of cases, complete with links just like scribd.

    You can poo-poo it all you want, but until you show the links not factual…

  • 121. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:49 am

    I’ll repeat:

    ROFL…..a source paid for by the Fascist ADF…..FAIL!!!…. XP ….Ronnie

  • 122. Kathleen  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:54 am

    The long list of cases at the link provided by Dan are not a list of cases that have found DOMA unconstitutional. It is a list of cases the people at the site have put together which they think are relevant to the issue of "support[ing] the preservation of marriage as a union of one man and one woman."

    Most of those cases are not federal challenges DOMA, but cases from various state courts having to do with marriage in some way or another. Of those that are federal, there are cases on there that don't rule on DOMA at all (note inclusion of Baker v. Nelson from 1976 and Perry v. Schwarzenegger), others where plaintiffs have had their DOMA challenge dismissed for lack of standing, and some, such as Gill v. OPM where DOMA was struck down.

    And for Dan and the other non-lawyers here, even a Shepard’s Citation to DOMA doesn't assure that the case has anything to do with DOMA specifically, or marriage generally, and certainly doesn't mean that DOMA was found unconstitutional in a federal court in any of those references cases.

    I find it a bit amusing that one of the cases Dan found, In re Kandu (bankruptcy court case), came to the same conclusion Walker did in Perry wrt to Baker v. Nelson: that ,for all the same factor Walker discussed, it is not binding precedent on the question of whether denial of marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. We all know that that particular case is the darling of the anti-equality wanna-be lawyers.

  • 123. fiona64  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Dan, I don't know where you got your JD … but saying that there is no Federal question and dismissing a case? That's not the same as ruling DOMA constitutional.

    Just so you know.

    Now, why don't you go color while the adults talk?

  • 124. fiona64  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:56 am

    I read a great description the other day:

    Republicans say "me," while Democrats say "we."

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 125. fiona64  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Kathleen? Dan seems to think his laundry list proves DOMA has been determined to be *constitutional* … because he doesn't understand how the law works.

    What is up with some of the wannabe lawyers who show up here thinking they can "prove" something ? They inevitably wind up showing their backsides …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 126. Kathleen  |  March 3, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Sorry, my typo. I meant to that read "…are not a list of cases that have found DOMA to be unconstitutional."

  • 127. Dan  |  March 3, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Fiona –

    Why dont you show me where the adults are? I have yet to find any on this board.

    As to your other point –

    In a 12(b)(6) motion the court accepts the complaint as true. So if the court grants the motion and dismisses, that means that not only is the complaint not true, it is not possible to amend it to be true.

    Here that complaint was:

    "Plaintiffs allege that the two statutes violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution."

    And the defense:

    "Defendant Ashcroft has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P, on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The United States, in a well-written Memorandum, argues that Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred as a matter of law because DOMA does not infringe on any of Plaintiffs' fundamental rights and is a legitimate exercise of the power granted to Congress by the Full Faith and Credit Clause."

    So the simple truth: The court, in dismissing the complaint, found the complaint not true, and therefore DOMA was ruled constitutional.

  • 128. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    ROFLMGAYAO…..MAUDE!!!!!…. XP … O.T.I.O….. oIo…… <3….Ronnie

  • 129. Chris B  |  March 3, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    @Dan:

    I would like to say I am a little embarrassed by some of the ad hominem attacks on you. I have been following this thread because I think it is interesting and would like to hear a conversation about the legality of DOMA from both sides.

    I am tired of hearing silly remarks about gay marriage, such as 'if gays are allowed to marry, the human race will die out", so this thread about the legality of DOMA is an interesting back and forth. Of course, to people who are denied marriage by various laws, this is a very emotional situation, so sometimes their anger comes out in personal attacks.

  • 130. AnonyGrl  |  March 3, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    "Why dont you show me where the adults are? I have yet to find any on this board"

    And with that, Dan, you have lost ALL the respect that I offered you earlier.

    And you will just have to believe me when I tell you, that it is your great loss.

  • 131. Dan  |  March 4, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Anonygrl –

    It was meant to be a glib response to fiona.

    I will be sad.

  • 132. fiona64  |  March 4, 2011 at 1:53 am

    You were not being glib, Dan. You were being childish — again. You have not yet shown a case that shows DOMA as constitutional. Not one. Being dismissed for want of a question is not the same as saying that DOMA is constitutional.

    I'm guessing "Close Cover While Striking University." Am I right?

  • 133. AnonyGrl  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:26 am

    Dan, you inccorectly claim "… The court, in dismissing the complaint, found the complaint not true, and therefore DOMA was ruled constitutional."

    From Wikipedia: "The Rule 12(b)(6) motion is how lawsuits with insufficient legal theories underlying their cause of action are dismissed from court."

    Basically, the court is NOT ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA, they are SPECIFICALLY not ruling, they are merely dismissing the case because there is not a sufficient case being made.

    Do you have any cases where the ruling read "DOMA is constitutional" or something functionally equivalent? I started to go through the list of cases you provided… after getting through about half a dozen and not finding one that ruled anything about DOMA, and in fact only finding one that MENTIONED DOMA but did not rule on that law itself, I have stopped.

    We are still waiting for you to back up your claim of 10 to 1 rulings that DOMA is constitutional. At this point, I think we are all willing to cut that back and let you off that hook at 5 to 1, or even 2 to 1.

  • 134. Dan  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:22 am

    AnonyGrl –

    Wikipedia is incorrect. The supreme court has expressly articulated the standard for a rule 12(b)(6) motion (Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal):

    "Here, in contrast, we do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed."

    When a complaint is dismissed under 12(b)(6), it means that the complaint is not plausible, and not only is it not plausible, but there is no way to amend it to be plausible.

    As you can see from the Supreme Court case, 12(b)(6) is not used for legal theories but for facts .

    Thus a judge dismissing a complaint for unconstutionality is saying there are no facts to prove the claim of unconstitutionality.

  • 135. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:27 am

    Yeaaaaaaaaah…NO!!!….(rolls eyes) ……. 8 / …..Ronnie

  • 136. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:28 am

    That was supposed to go here (works in the first place it posted though)….anyway, repost….

    Yeaaaaaaaaah…NO!!!….(rolls eyes) ……. 8 / …..Ronnie

  • 137. Dan  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:32 am

    "Do you have any cases where the ruling read “DOMA is constitutional” or something functionally equivalent?"

    In re Kandu, 315 BR 123:

    "This Court concludes that DOMA does not violate
    either the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

  • 138. Dan  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:34 am

    And further"

    "The Court concludes that DOMA does not violate
    the principles of comity, or the Fourth, Fifth, or Tenth
    Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

  • 139. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:35 am

    Kathleen already corrected you on that you benighted troglodyte….TROLL…> I …….Ronnie

  • 140. fiona64  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:37 am

    Except that Dan is wrong again.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm

    Quote (emphasis added): Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

    (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;

    (2) lack of personal jurisdiction;

    (3) improper venue;

    (4) insufficient process;

    (5) insufficient service of process;

    (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;

    As you can see, what Ashcroft was saying is that there was NO FEDERAL QUESTION. There was no claim upon which relief can be granted. That is not the same as saying that DOMA is constitutional — it is saying that there is NO FEDERAL QUESTION ON WHICH TO CLAIM RELIEF.

    Perhaps if I shout you will understand it more clearly. Gah.

    If you're a lawyer, Dan, I'm the Queen of Sheba, an astronaut and a soprano with the Met.

  • 141. fiona64  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:40 am

    Kandu? Really? It's a bankruptcy case from 2003. The Bankruptcy court did not recognize their Canadian marriage for purposes of filing a joint bankruptcy petition. The case was dismissed, BTW, for failure to prosecute.

    Again, no Federal question demonstrating the alleged constitutionality of DOMA. Nice try, Danny-boy.
    http://www.samesexconflicts.com/kandu/

  • 142. AnonyGrl  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:43 am

    Dan,

    Much like people who misunderstand the definition of "theory" when discussing evolution, I believe you have misunderstood it here.

    "Theory" in this context refers to the legal groundwork laid out to support a case. Theory specifically means the COLLECTION OF FACTS AND LAWS that a case is based on. So when a court dismisses a case because the "legal theories are insufficient" what it is doing is saying that the facts do not come together in such a way as to support the case.

    Which is precisely what the ruling you post is saying.

    Now, the thing is, when a case is dismissed on such grounds, that does not constitute a ruling that the opposing case has any merit or truth. The ONLY thing it says is that there is no merit in the side that is causing the case to be dismissed.

    Look at it this way. Were you to get a law passed that said "All women over 5'6" tall must be deported", and I were to sue, claiming this to be unconstitutional, if I used as my legal theory (case of facts and law that I lay out to support my claim) the fact that basketballs are round and the repeal of prohibition, my case could be dismissed on the grounds that my theory did not, nor would it ever, prove my case.

    That dismissal would, in no way, say that YOUR law was constitutional, and no judge would agree that it was. But the judge would not be even TOUCHING on the case itself, merely on the issue of what *I* was proposing to use as my legal theory to prove it.

    Dismissal of a case is absolutely NOT a ruling in favor of one side, it is only a refusal of the court to even take up consideration of that case.

  • 143. fiona64  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:43 am

    And, if I would have read back in the thread — I would have seen Kathleen's ever-so-tidy dismissal of Dan's allegation that the Kandu case has *anything* to do with DOMA.

    What a strange, sad little man you are, Dan …

    How are you harmed in any way, shape or form if gay and lesbian couples are permitted to marry? Is your marriage affected at all? I ask because I'm straight and married, and I have (shockingly enough) discovered that the only affect on my marriage comes from my husband and me. We attended a lesbian wedding a couple of years ago and are a) still married and b) all celestial objects are still in their orbits.

    If your marriage is so shaky that some other couple getting married, gay or straight, has a negative impact on it? I suggest counseling, stat.

  • 144. Dan  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:48 am

    Ronnie –
    http://legalworkshop.org/2010/07/08/the-new-rule-

    Take a read.

  • 145. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:53 am

    No thank you…your credibility has been shot quicker then Bambi's mother….moving on….. 8 / …..Ronnie

  • 146. Dan  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:53 am

    Fiona –

    Really? From the link you provided:

    "The federal bankruptcy court refused to recognize the women's Canadian marriage as entitling them to file jointly as spouses because of the opposite-sex definition of marriage contained in the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

    "The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of that Act, but the bankruptcy court upheld it"

  • 147. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:00 am

    pffftt….(rolls eyes again)…… 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 148. Dan  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:01 am

    Anonygrl –

    "Now, the thing is, when a case is dismissed on such grounds, that does not constitute a ruling that the opposing case has any merit or truth."

    Thats not quite true. When ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, if the court considers extrinsic evidence in making the dismissal, then the ruling is considered to be a functional summary judgment.

    Thats what happened in Wilson v. Ake, so even though its a dismissal, its a functional summary judgment.

  • 149. Dan  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:05 am

    Fiona –

    Did you happen to look at part D of Rule 12?

    "If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion."

    Thats what happened in the cited case (Wilson v. Ake).

  • 150. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:07 am

    Nope….not really…FAIL….moving on… 8 / …..Ronnie

  • 151. AnonyGrl  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:08 am

    Your reference for Ronnie is interesting, but only in that it explains the change in the standards required for a dismissal.

    It does not change the fact that a dismissal is NOT a ruling FOR the opposite case. Let's go back to looking for cases that actually ruled FOR DOMA and were not dismissed.

  • 152. Kathleen  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:08 am

    Actually, it's true that the first two cases Dan came up with are federal cases that implicate DOMA.

    The case out of Florida (Wilson v. Ake) involved a Florida couple who tried to have their Mass. marriage recognized in their home state. As such, it was a challenge to Sect 2, not Sect. 3. The couple also challenged state marriage laws under Due Process and other theories. I don't have time to fully analyze or discuss the case, but with a quick skim, it appears that the DOMA challenge was dismissed by giving full precedential weight to Baker v. Nelson. The judge did so w/out analysis of why he should, given that it's a summary dismissal under the old rules granting mandatory dismissal. (As an aside – Am I the only one puzzled as to how it is the federal government can specifically legislate on the issue of the marriages of same-sex couples and at the same time claim there is no federal question if someone challenges that law in federal court? – yet another way in which Baker is obsolete)

    In re Kandu does challenge Sect 3 of DOMA and it's true the judge held there was no constitutional violation. However, it's important to note in this case that the couple bringing the suit was not considered married in the state in which they resided. They were married in Canada and the state of Washington did not recognize their marriage. As such, some of the claims – that DOMA overstepped the feds' authority by pre-empting states' rights; that DOMA constituted a "taking" of property, etc. – were lost because of this fact.

    I will make a general observation – both of these cases did the Due Process analysis based on the idea that the claim was to a fundamental right to "same-sex marriage." I contend that's missing the point and I don't know if that's a result of mis-guided pleadings or mis-direction by the judge. The fundamental right is to "marriage." Because marriage is a fundamental right, if the gov't passes a law which denies that right to any group of people, it will have to show that it does so to further a compelling governmental interest and that the law is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive to accomplish that interest.

    This is the last I'm going to contribute to this discussion.

  • 153. fiona64  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:25 am

    And … Dan moves the goalposts again. You cited a rule, and I showed it to you. Now you're citing a different rule.

    As with Kathleen, I'm finished here. I notice you couldn't be bothered to answer the question I asked about how you are affected by same-sex marriage — because you can't.

    You, like many bigots before you and (I am sadly confident) many to come, just don't want gay and lesbian couples to enjoy the same rights you do. And for that I am truly sorry. Something horrible must have happened in your life if you hate GLBT people so much that you don't think that they have the right to equal protection under the law.

  • 154. Kathleen  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:37 am

    the last I’m going to contribute to this discussion – except to correct an error in my comment above.

    re: Baker v. Nelson.
    "The judge did so w/out analysis of why he should, given that it’s a summary dismissal under the old rules granting mandatory dismissal review."

  • 155. Dan  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:56 am

    Fiona –

    No, you cited a part of the rule. Specifically you cited Rule 12, part B,

    You have to read the WHOLE rule to understand it.

    Peace out.

  • 156. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 6:00 am

    ROFL…that is farcical coming from you…. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 157. fiona64  |  March 4, 2011 at 6:21 am

    Dan, anyone who is literate enough to click the link can see that I cited Rule 12(b)(6), which is what you kept harping on — until I showed you that you were wrong and then you brought up section D, which is not what you cited — until, of course, you were shown (again) to be wrong.

    FOAD. I'm done with you.

  • 158. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Richard

    I agree with you. Look at the two biggest complaints against Obama: That he isn't a citizen and that he is "elite". The first one strongly implies – and sometimes outright says – that he can't possibly be an American-born citizen and that color. The other is interchangeable with "uppity", and anyone who has paid any attention to history the last 50 years or more knows what that means.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!