Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

morningfog

(18,115 posts) Fri May 11, 2012, 06:47 PM May 2012

Apologies for the source [View all]

Last edited Fri May 11, 2012, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Jonathan H. Adler • May 10, 2012

http://volokh.com/2012/05/10/the-incoherence-of-president-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage/

I've been informed this is a RW source. I honestly didn't know this. I came across volokh from regular reading of another legal blog, SCOTUSBlog.

While I thought the critique had some merit, I don't want to support a RW blog or writer. Sorry for the source.

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Apologies for the source [View all] morningfog May 2012 OP

Haters gonna hate Capt. Obvious May 2012 #1

+1 n/t 11 Bravo May 2012 #4

I don't know about this author, but I am no hater. morningfog May 2012 #9

Yes, they are...nt SidDithers May 2012 #21

Gay Marriage Moves Closer to Supreme Court Tx4obama May 2012 #2

It seem like every poster in this threads disagrees with Obama. morningfog May 2012 #6

Federal Powers are Enumerated. Period. DevonRex May 2012 #12

And Obama could order the DOJ to join challenges to Prop 8 and others. morningfog May 2012 #19

OR you can do what he did, which is provide the BASIS for its overturning. DevonRex May 2012 #22

Wait a minute SunsetDreams May 2012 #27

The Supreme Court can overrule the state's laws. Tx4obama May 2012 #14

Exactly, and he could lend the DOJ and the federal resources and support to challenging the laws. morningfog May 2012 #20

Obama and his justice dept provided the fucking BASIS for overturning Prop 8. DevonRex May 2012 #23

. SunsetDreams May 2012 #28

Complete mis-characterization and wrong conclusions. DevonRex May 2012 #3

Section 3 of DOMA is enforced, just not defended. morningfog May 2012 #7

DOMA is headed to the Supreme Court. n/t Tx4obama May 2012 #16

All steps in the right direction bhikkhu May 2012 #5

maybe so ibegurpard May 2012 #8

Indeed. I think this marks an end to a POTUS ever being against marriage equality. morningfog May 2012 #11

First of all ProSense May 2012 #10

Character assassination notwithstanding, he makes good points. morningfog May 2012 #13

No he doesn't. n/t ProSense May 2012 #15

Fuck no he does NOT. He's a RW hater who does NOT want to overturn DOMA. nt DevonRex May 2012 #18

To you maybe. Ikonoklast May 2012 #24

I don't take my points from a right wing hack or blog SunsetDreams May 2012 #26

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!1 DevonRex May 2012 #17

bitch if he does, bitch if he doesn't. bitch, bitch, bitch spanone May 2012 #25

Here .... you might need this ... JoePhilly May 2012 #29

not necessarily correct dsc May 2012 #30

If an OPPOSITE sex marriage takes place in any state, it is recognized in ALL states Lex May 2012 #31

The full faith and credit clause has to do with DevonRex May 2012 #32

Umm, no, sorry that's not true. Lex May 2012 #33

Of course it has to DO with this topic. But not for the reason DevonRex May 2012 #34

In the summary Lex May 2012 #39

Isn't it beautiful? We know this is where it's going and we'll get to see it in our lifetime. DevonRex May 2012 #43

Not in all cases. Kaleva May 2012 #36

If you meet the minimum age requirements in SC, you are still married Lex May 2012 #37

You appear to be correct. My mistake. Kaleva May 2012 #38

Who is jonathan alder? Why should I care what he says? "sexual preference"? Really? (edited) Cerridwen May 2012 #35

Seriously. He apparently DevonRex May 2012 #40

And, he's an "environmental" lawyer arguing for private property and Cerridwen May 2012 #41

Thank you for the edit. Cerridwen May 2012 #42