It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House GOP spending $500,000 in taxpayer money to defend DOMA

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
House GOP spending $500,000 in taxpayer money to defend DOMA


Help me understand how the party of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, and ran on the premise of creating jobs is wasting tax payer money to stop gay people from getting married.
I understand the whole "We don't want them getting married" thing they have going on and I understand it will nto go away soon. But reality is not waiting. They ran on jobs. Where are the jobs? They claim smaller government and less spending while spending money to keep government in wedding chapels? Help me out here.


Remember how the GOP’s top priority right now is creating jobs? Oh wait, nevermind. Remember how the GOP’s top priority right now is reducing the deficit? I mean, as long as it’s done mainly solely by cutting spending, instead of raising taxes on the wealthy? Ya know, “make the tough choices,” “tighten our belts” and all that jazz? Remember that?


And as Joe Solmonese of the HRC points out, given that there are at least 9 cases currently challenging the constitutionality of DOMA, even at a discounted (!) hourly rate of $520, that figure will probably end up being a “lowball estimate.”


GOP Spending Big Bucks Defending DOMA

Earlier this week, Speaker John Boehner demanded that the Department of Justice foot the bill for defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in court. Now we know why Boehner wanted the money so badly--the House has retained former Bush II Solicitor General Paul Clement, and they're paying his firm a lot of money


Yay, smaller government can put jobs on the backburner to spend tax dollars making sure only the right folks get married!


edit on 25-4-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I understand and agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, the government is somewhat bound to defend the laws that are passed even if they suck. Legal tricks like not showing up in court or failing to oreoare for a case are sometimes used, but usually at the expense of the lawyers who get caught in the middle and risk their jobs.

Broken system is broken.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
So Obama orders the Justice Dept to stop defending an actual law... is that what I just read?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
You should be relieved it was only 500k, could have easily been several million gone. You know money is being wasted all the time without care or regard -- a 500k drop in the bucket is practically good news.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
I understand and agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, the government is somewhat bound to defend the laws that are passed even if they suck. Legal tricks like not showing up in court or failing to oreoare for a case are sometimes used, but usually at the expense of the lawyers who get caught in the middle and risk their jobs.

Broken system is broken.


Then why is DOMA in effect to begin with? How is it constitutional? What is the Republican justification for not just repealing it, saving us money, and creating jobs instead of watching weddings?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
So Obama orders the Justice Dept to stop defending an actual law... is that what I just read?


So you skipped the part about Boehner insisting you foot the bill for his obsession with gay people getting married as opposed to creating jobs, cutting spending?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by KnowledgeIsPowre
 


I agree the number is actually quite relieving but it aint over yet. My problem is really with the justification. I do not understand how the smaller government, less spending, liberty, freedom, personal responsibility party justifies spending one dime deciding who can and who cannot get married. That seems like the perfect definition of the opposite of those things to me.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


One has to keep in mind that when the republican/tea party ran on creating jobs, "It Was Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement." I think they may have even adopted that phrase as part of their party platform.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


One has to keep in mind that when the republican/tea party ran on creating jobs, "It Was Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement." I think they may have even adopted that phrase as part of their party platform.


LMAO!
I completely forgot all about the new paradigm in politics where lying is not enough, obliterating the truth in a blatant and publicly embrassing manner is what you gotta do. Thanks for the reminder.

#Notintendedtobeafactualstatement
Politics can be fun.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The law is doomed to fail, and with good reason in my opinion. The Repubs are more than happy to spend your money to try and get a few more rightwing christians to vote for them in 2012. Thats all this really boils down to is vote buying.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Apparently, the law firm retained by the Republicans has decided to (pardon the expression) pull out of the case.
onlinejournal.com...



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join