What is he force feeding exactly?
I can live with that, rather than an expanded health bureaucracy or military one.
Now we're left with not taking the law seriously, or better, a lack of clarity on what the law actually is because it is subject to the whims of the executive after the fact.
False dichotomy. Prosecuting all the cases does not eliminate any other part of government but it sure does add a lot too it.
I do find it interesting you'd rather see your fellow citizens prosecuted as opposed to given health care though.
This is a legitimate concern but one best applied to a case where the law has not been ruled uncons utional or is actually worthy of being taken seriously. The justice department isn't ignore an important law. Thats an issue of judgement, but thats why its important to keep tabs on the decisions the make but not the fact that decisions have to be made itself.Now we're left with not taking the law seriously, or better, a lack of clarity on what the law actually is because it is subject to the whims of the executive after the fact.
MB would you rather the US Justice Dept raided places doing business for medicinal MJ or not?
Your assumption was that I shouldn't support it because it would add to the scale of government.
Actually, I'd rather they not be penalized for not complying with the individual mandate and I'd rather the state not be involved in marriage whatsoever. What does that have to do with anything?I do find it interesting you'd rather see your fellow citizens prosecuted as opposed to given health care though.
And this discussion included the enforcement of laws, rather than just the appeal process. Selective enforcement of law is a bad thing.
Does this mean we can marry multiple people now?
False choice. The actual choice is whether or not the law should be enforced. I am in favor of the law being upheld. I also happen to be in favor of a limited scale and scope of the law, especially at the federal level.
Would I rather? No. But I expect the law to be enforced until it is changed by the legislative process.
It's not like them saying that overturns the law. Their just saying they won't go out of their way to keep it on the books. The article didn't even say they wouldn't continue to enforce it, only that they weren't going to continue defending against challenges to it's cons utionality.
And as has been said, at all levels of government, laws are selectively enforced according to the interpretations of those in charge. I don't get tickets for jaywalking, other people don't get tickets for changing lanes without signaling, etc.
If you are that upset about it, you can sue the executive branch and try to make a case that they have the obligation to defend the cons utionality of all parts of the US Code, but that seems kind of absurd. (Basically like states did a few years ago to try and make the EPA regulate CO2).
I made no assumption I simply applied your complaints in other situations to this. Ignoring the bloat in the justice department enforcing every law on the books equally would cause is rather convenient for you here. That qualification doesn't need to be the end all be all but it should certainly factor into reality.
Selective enforcement is not necessarily a bad thing if applied with good judgement. It is far from ideal but ignoring the fact that one person's ideal is not another does not make idealism any more practical.Actually, I'd rather they not be penalized for not complying with the individual mandate and I'd rather the state not be involved in marriage whatsoever. What does that have to do with anything?
And this discussion included the enforcement of laws, rather than just the appeal process. Selective enforcement of law is a bad thing.
Enforcement of the laws necessitates judgement and there is no way to remove that from the system.
Even with additional money/resources in the Justice Dept, I think we can all agree that they will not be able to work each case presented to them.
Given this, what do you think the most "fair" way to determine caseload/cases taken is?
Not that word again!
I put it in quotes for a reason. Though I'm pretty sure that MB will actually answer, unlike VY, who threw out a lot of philosophical names but seemingly couldn't debate morality when questioned. (Even after throwing out a "Bring it on" picture.)
True, but in this case it seems appropriate that he uses a backdoor way around the law.
I think there's a fundamental difference between selective enforcement of criminal law and selective defense of the government's position in court.
I think this sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. I can see where a future Republican administration would find defending Obamacare, or any one of a Democrat administration's initiatives, a back burner issue.
What's good for the goose...
I agree, but don't all presidents end up selecting which cases they want the DoJ to focus on prosecuting?
From what I'm reading, Obama is forging new territory on this one...
Orin Kerr at Volokh
Point of Law BlogBy taking that position, the Obama Administration has moved the goalposts of the usual role of the Executive branch in defending statutes. Instead of requiring DOJ to defend the cons utionality of all federal statutes if it has a reasonable basis to do so, the new approach invests within DOJ a power to conduct an independent cons utional review of the issues, to decide the main issues in the case — in this case, the degree of scrutiny for gay rights issues — and then, upon deciding the main issue, to decide if there is a reasonable basis for arguing the other side. If you take that view, the Executive Branch essentially has the power to decide what legislation it will defend based on whatever views of the Cons ution are popular or associated with that Administration. It changes the role of the Executive branch in defending litigation from the traditional dutiful servant of Congress to major ins utional player with a great deal of discretion.
And, as Ed Whelan concluded...I'm not a fan of the Defense of Marriage Act, but I do have a large problem with the politicization of the role of the Department of Justice. Strip away the gay-rights issue and consider the question: what would Democrats say if, in 2013, President Sarah Palin announced that her Department of Justice would refuse to defend the cons utionality of Obamacare in court? There is no provision in the Cons ution for a retroactive veto. Compare and contrast the Bush administration Department of Justice, which steadfastly (and successfully) defended McCain-Feingold and enforced FACEA.
"...if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense." I'm pretty sure that's a new position on the part of the Executive.Attorney General Holder has the gall to claim to be acting consistent with DOJ’s “longstanding practice of defending the cons utionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense.” There are lots of reasonable arguments in defense of DOMA. The Obama administration has abandoned those arguments for purely political reasons.
Well we know at least one democrat (Manny) would have no problem with it at all.what would Democrats say if, in 2013, President Sarah Palin announced that her Department of Justice would refuse to defend the cons utionality of Obamacare in court?
Who was the victim in that case, Darrin?
Choose whatever will give the administration the best pub and protect your cronies, obviously.
Random law enforcement creates an environment of arbitrariness in the law. We are then not a nation of laws, but of men, who curry favor with the executive to not be prosecuted.
Perhaps fewer laws are needed. That would seem to be the most "fair."
WHAT THE ???
Since when can he dictate to the Justice department?
Agreed, but none of those signing statement were directing to disregard cons utional issues.
The president is the "executor of law." Not the interpreter of the cons ution.
Again, I think y'all are confusing selective enforcement with selective defense.
The Obama administration has said it will continue to enforce DOMA but will stop defending it in court.
Think about that for a minute.
That's like saying, a prosecutor will arrest you, throw you in jail, and let you pony up for your own defense and legal fees but, when the time comes for trial; he won't prosecute you.
Seems like a waste.
What the administration is doing is fundamentally different than just not enforcing the law -- or determining, through a signing statement, that a particular law conflicts with his Article II powers. This administration has said they will enforce a law they believe is uncons utional while refusing to defend it, in court, because of that uncons utionality.
That's pretty novel, if you ask me.
Hm. Thanks for the distinctions provided Yoni.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/us...x-couples.htmlA federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday threw out a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, becoming the latest court to rule that the law passed by Congress to prohibit federal recognition of same-sex marriage violated the cons utional rights of same-sex couples.
Jeffrey S. White, a United States District Court judge appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, ruled that the act violated the equal protection clause of the Cons ution by denying Blue Cross health benefits to the spouse of Karen Golinski, who works as a staff lawyer in the United States Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit. She married her partner of 20 years, Amy Cunninghis, in August 2008 during the brief period when same-sex marriages were permitted in California.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote