fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4238 posts, RR: 12 Posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1072 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.
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?
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.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4238 posts, RR: 12 Reply 2, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1043 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?
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1032 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.
n229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1850 posts, RR: 36 Reply 4, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1031 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...
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 996 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.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4238 posts, RR: 12 Reply 6, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 973 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.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16802 posts, RR: 57 Reply 7, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 972 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.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 968 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.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 967 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.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4238 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 896 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.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 882 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.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4238 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 873 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.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16802 posts, RR: 57 Reply 15, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 817 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 14): Lenin said "medicine was the arc of socialism (or communism)"
elmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1515 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 725 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.
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.
dfwrevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 711 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4238 posts, 
From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
