Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Inconsistent Defense In Front Of The Ussc?  
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5365 posts, RR: 14
Posted (2 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 1711 times:

First: I don't want to debate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) nor the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). If you want to debate the merits of either act, start a thread or piggyback on one of the others.

I want to discuss whether President Obama and his Administration will defend DOMA with the vehemence (and alleged vitriol) that they defended PPACA.

Recently, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared that parts of the DOMA are un-Constitutional.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ppeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html

A little less recently, The United States Supreme Court heard arguments on the PPACA and is expected to rule this month.

During, or shortly after the arguments, President Obama said the following:

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...a-healthcare-idUSBRE8310WP20120402

Based on the information below, I suggest that the DOMA was passed by a much stronger majority in both The House and The Senate, than the PPACA.

So, will Mr. Obama defend DOMA based on his statement or was that political posturing and blustering?

The PPACA passed The House 219-212, with bi-partisan opposition only. The Senate passed it 60-39 on a party line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppaca

The DOMA passed The House 342-67, with bi-partisan support. The Senate passed it 85-19 with bi-partisan support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Marbury v. Madison basically sets the precedent to allow The Court to rule on the constitutionality of an act passed by Congress. After this case was pointed out to me in another thread (thanks Maverick623), it helped me change my mind (sorry, my position evolved) on the subject of judicial review.

So, Mr. Obama (Harvard Law School graduate, President of the Harvard Law Review and Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School), can The USSC overturn "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,..."?

So, is he a hypocrite or will he take on the USSC again?


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 1699 times:

Obama already told Holder not to defend the DOMA about a year into office.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/41739019#41739019

Apparently Obama missed class the day they discussed seperation of powers between the 3 seperate but equal branches of government. This is what tinpot dictators do in banana republics do to get their way or maybe he just doesn't like checks and balances.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5365 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 1):
Obama already told Holder not to defend the DOMA about a year into office.


Oh, I know it. I may have even commented in the resulting thread on this site that it is not up to the President to determine the constitutionality of the law, that job belongs to The Supreme Court.

I would like to see some of the Obama apologists, or more broadly, the apologists for Executive Power defend President Obama's position that it would be "unprecedented, extraordinary " for the USSC to overturn a law, passed by The US Congress and sitting president, yet, not say a word in defense of the DOMA.

It does put the administration in quite the quandary, doesn't it?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
First: I don't want to debate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) nor the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). If you want to debate the merits of either act, start a

You are making the wrong argument in this whole thread. DOMA isn't being supported because it is consistantly being proven to be unconsitutional and an overreaching federal poilicy that tramples on states rights in certain provisons. It hasn't had it's full USSC date yet.


PPACA is different item that will get settled soon by the USSC. It has to do with finding a federal solution to a national problem , that may or may not trample on the constitution.

If you really want to look at it in the right light. PPACA is at least an attempt to solve a real financial crisis and health issues.

DOMA is pure politcal bs for social design

[Edited 2012-06-01 08:30:23]


Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinen229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1938 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

For me this issue is that the administration's defense of the health care act was flawed and badly planned in every way--including failure to foresee this very situation.

Nevertheless, I hope he is inconsistent. The mistake was in the earlier claim, so I would rather have him (and the court) do the right thing now.

For the record: I am not saying that it was wrong of him to defend the health care act (which, watered down though it became I am in favor of and believe is constitutional). I am saying that he and the administration defended it incompetently, chosing the wrong arguments in several ways.

I'm sure too that the USSC isn't the first court that will see lawyers use "inconsistent" or morally dubious methods to try to win cases...   



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1635 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 1):
Apparently Obama missed class the day they discussed seperation of powers between the 3 seperate but equal branches of government. This is what tinpot dictators do in banana republics do to get their way or maybe he just doesn't like checks and balances.



He was probably there the day they talked about the equal protection clause. The President probably realizes he would be hard pressed to make an argument that the equal protection clause does not apply to gay people wanting to get married.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5365 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 3):
You are making the wrong argument in this whole thread. DOMA isn't being supported because it is consistantly being proven to be unconsitutional and an overreaching federal poilicy that tramples on states rights in certain provisons. It hasn't had it's full USSC date yet.

Yes, but when it sees its day in front of the USSC, will the Obama Administration protest that:

it "...would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

I really don't care about the cases involved, for this argument. The issue is that the Obama Administration has claimed that the USSC shouldn't overturn his legislation because it was passed The Congress. But, it appears that he will not have a problem with the USSC overturning someone else's legislation that was also passed by The Congress.

That's my problem with this...and him. PPACA and DOMA are just the glaring examples.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
So, will Mr. Obama defend DOMA based on his statement or was that political posturing and blustering?

There is a big difference. Healthcare regulation and reform is not an issue of fundamental civil rights. The Constitution, having been written at a time when anesthesia consisted of whiskey and hemp and penicillin did not exist, is silent on healthcare. It is not silent on the issue of whether all citizens should be treated equally under the law.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 1607 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 6):
I really don't care about the cases involved, for this argument. The issue is that the Obama Administration has claimed that the USSC shouldn't overturn his legislation because it was passed The Congress. But, it appears that he will not have a problem with the USSC overturning someone else's legislation that was also passed by The Congress.

That is not the end all of the argument. You are oversimplifying the cases. These are complex issues and should not be wrapped up in 2 second sound bytes like some sort of conservative radio talk show host that can't handle a deeper inspection of an issue without breaking for an add on viagra or gold bullions.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 1606 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 6):

it "...would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

Didn't he walk back from this a bit though? I know this statement caused quite a hue and cry and he had to "clarify" it which is usually politician-speak for, well, walking back.

Still, I don't think it matters. The Supreme Court has proven itself to be a thoroughly political animal, and I don't think the administration's decision to defend or not defend these laws in front of it is nearly as important as whatever Anthony Kennedy thinks this week.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5365 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
There is a big difference. Healthcare regulation and reform is not an issue of fundamental civil rights. The Constitution, having been written at a time when anesthesia consisted of whiskey and hemp and penicillin did not exist, is silent on healthcare. It is not silent on the issue of whether all citizens should be treated equally under the law.


So, you're saying that it's ok for a president to pick and choose what he's going to defend in front of The Court, even if it makes him look like a hypocrite?

The Executives' job is to execute, enforce and defend the laws of the land. I don't think the Chief Executive gets to choose which ones he defends. He has other avenues to address the problem if he disagrees with a law.

And please, don't get me wrong...I'm sure the Executive has thumbed its collective nose at The Court and Congress before, but this is just the most recent, glaring example of it.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
That is not the end all of the argument. You are oversimplifying the cases. These are complex issues and should not be wrapped up in 2 second sound bytes like some sort of conservative radio talk show host that can't handle a deeper inspection of an issue without breaking for an add on viagra or gold bullions.


Then inspect it. Again, I don't care what the merits of the individual cases are. President Obama, on one hand, says he can't believe that the USSC will overturn PPACA because it would be unprecedented that The Court overrule Congress and on the other, he clearly wants DOMA overruled, even though it was also passed by Congress. He is talking out of both sides of his presidential ass.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 1530 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 3):
DOMA is pure politcal bs for social design

You could say the exact same regarding PPACA and the Democrat's social vision for the country.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 1521 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
I don't care what the merits of the individual cases are.

TAH DAH
and that is why all you care about are talking points, and short 2 second outblurbs.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 11):
You could say the exact same regarding PPACA and the Democrat's social vision for the country.

Nope DOMA doesn't have ill effects on everyone .



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5365 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 1512 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
and that is why all you care about are talking points, and short 2 second outblurbs


But, they aren't talking points.

I'll say it again:

In one case he says that it is unprecedented that The Court would overrule a democratically elected congress, even though that's exactly what was decided in Marbury v. Madison, and has happened plenty of times. In the other case he has directed his attorney general NOT defend the DOMA in the courts. And, by extension, allow the courts to overrule a democratically elected congress.

That is pretty inconsistent. If Mr. Obama doesn't like the DOMA, he should lobby The Congress to repeal it. He can't (or at least shouldn't) abandon it to private citizens to take up its defense. I believe the man has no choice but to defend it. Otherwise, why have a Congress?

You see sound bites....I see an imperial presidency, of the worse sort.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months ago) and read 1499 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 11):
You could say the exact same regarding PPACA and the Democrat's social vision for the country

Lenin said "medicine was the arc of socialism (or communism)"



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 14):
Lenin said "medicine was the arc of socialism (or communism)"

So you follow Lenin's teachings?


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
So you follow Lenin's teachings?

I am a student of history.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1364 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 1):
Apparently Obama missed class the day they discussed seperation of powers between the 3 seperate but equal branches of government. This is what tinpot dictators do in banana republics do to get their way or maybe he just doesn't like checks and balances.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 16):
I am a student of history.

Clearly not. If you had paid attention in history, you'd remember that the Department of Justice isn't a branch of government, it's part of the Executive branch.

Separation of powers has absolutely nothing to do with this.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1350 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
Nope DOMA doesn't have ill effects on everyone .

It doesn't matter if PPACA is bad for everyone and DOMA is only bad for some people. They are both, as you say, "political bs" aimed at achieving a given "social design." Sometimes it doesn't feel good when the shoe is on the other foot.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
In Honour Of The UK Election.... posted Wed May 5 2010 08:45:00 by Andz
Petitioners And Charities In Front Of Your Store posted Mon May 25 2009 22:27:39 by 2707200X
Pelosi In Violation Of The Logan Act? posted Fri Apr 6 2007 20:36:42 by UALPHLCS
Drunk And With Car Keys In Front Of My House posted Fri Feb 2 2007 07:45:23 by Derico
In Search Of The Caspian Sea Monster posted Tue Oct 24 2006 14:45:55 by TedTAce
2 Trips To Iwo Jima, In Honour Of The Men Who Died posted Fri Oct 13 2006 07:47:09 by Jetjack74
8 Hours In Front Of My Computer Everyday! posted Wed Jun 7 2006 15:03:48 by TurkishWings
In Praise Of The Police posted Sat Jun 3 2006 01:36:37 by Jafa39
Mummified Body Found In Front Of TV posted Tue Jan 10 2006 19:26:46 by JetboyTWA
College WS: USC Loses In A Travesty Of The Game posted Sat Jun 11 2005 07:19:11 by S12PPL