Latest Breaking News

former9thward

(33,424 posts)

3. The DOJ is NOT required to argue for the upholding of the current law.

Mon Apr 28, 2014, 08:14 PM

Apr 2014

You have rewritten the history of DOMA. The DOJ refused to defend the law.

On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement regarding lawsuits challenging DOMA Section 3. He wrote:
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case [View all] IDemo Apr 2014 OP

American Democracy, (1787-2001) Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #1

Plaintiffs challenged the law, claiming it allowed for their indefinite detention. 2nd Circuit ruled struggle4progress Apr 2014 #9

Bullcrap. "Can the NDAA be read to allow the president to detain indefinitely anyone he wants? rhett o rick Apr 2014 #10

It seems you still haven't read the 2nd Circuit decision: struggle4progress Apr 2014 #11

Since apparently you have nothing to add but snark rhett o rick Apr 2014 #12

So they find that the plaintiffs have no standing and dismiss. The Stranger Apr 2014 #17

Would you rather have had the court agree with the plaintiffs' rightwing crackpot view of the law? struggle4progress Apr 2014 #18

This isn't something the Court should defer on. The Stranger Apr 2014 #19

Plaintiffs challenged NDAA section 1210, which (with respect to citizen plaintiffs) essentially said struggle4progress Apr 2014 #20

The support for the NDAA and indefinite detention is unbelievable. Would these rhett o rick Apr 2014 #29

Absolutely! Kelvin Mace May 2014 #35

Let's look at your logic here. The current law allows indefinite detention. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #26

I do not call the plaintiffs rightwing crackpots: I say that their case unwisely advanced struggle4progress Apr 2014 #27

You are wrong. The law currently allows indefinite detention. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #28

He can detain Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #13

I'm afraid you wouldn't be a good lawyer. The legislative history of the NDAA, as described struggle4progress Apr 2014 #15

Let's just look at the text you highlight Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #21

The problem, as I expect we've discussed previously, is the Beltway consensus struggle4progress Apr 2014 #22

The use of the military to attack Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #23

Well, large numbers of DUers understood a decade ago that the AUMF meant war within a few weeks, struggle4progress Apr 2014 #24

Yes, many of us Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #30

Yes, the death of Democracy, and with the support of the American people depending on sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #32

As you can see in this thread, there are some try to rationalize away the rhett o rick Apr 2014 #33

People are arguing HARD Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #34

The case is very simple. Jose Padilla was arrested, detained without council, tortured until rhett o rick May 2014 #36

They don't want to see their own complicity Kelvin Mace May 2014 #37

The head title guys at Reuters and AP are paid talent to twist the news with anti-Obama hints, in Fred Sanders Apr 2014 #2

The DOJ is NOT required to argue for the upholding of the current law. former9thward Apr 2014 #3

True, they finally changed their minds, but that is rare as rare can be. Fred Sanders Apr 2014 #4

In other words, they don't have to defend it. caseymoz Apr 2014 #7

The outrage comes from an inability to rise above Faux Nooz level trained responses. freshwest May 2014 #39

More SCOTUS corruption blackspade Apr 2014 #5

Night of the Living Dead Democracy blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #6

IIRC the 2nd Circuit determined, that plaintiffs did not have standing, was based struggle4progress Apr 2014 #8

Thanks for the facts. The outrage machine feeds the Ignoratti who hate PBO. The Idiocracy cometh. freshwest May 2014 #38

This is a simple case. The SCOTUS said that the NDAA words that allow rhett o rick Apr 2014 #14

The courts held that the law doesn't authorize geek tragedy Apr 2014 #16

Wrong. The courts held that those that challenged the law didnt have STANDING. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #25

The script has already been written in too many people's heads. It writes itself. n/t freshwest May 2014 #40

It's double plus good. Octafish Apr 2014 #31