Speaker Boehner Triples Fund to Deny Protections to Gay and Lesbian Couples

Speaker Boehner Triples Fund to Deny Protections to Gay and Lesbian Couples

www.hrc.org

When the Obama Administration determined that they couldn’t mount a legal defense to the Defense of Marriage Act – the law that denies federal recognition to legally married gay and lesbian couples – House Speaker John Boehner entered into a contract with private attorneys to defend the law in court with a cap of legal fees at $500,000. A new contract that was revealed today increases that amount to $1.5 million.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.hrc.org
thehill.com
blog.sfgate.com
www.huffingtonpost.com

So.. I see the "cut spending" politicians actually only believe in spending when it suits their points of view... how convenient. Doesn't that mean they are no better than those "other" politcians they are villifying?

Apparently, the original contrct was for $500K. It had provisions in it to allow for a cap increase, which was enacted with this new action. What's worse is that this was done with no voting that have been able to discern because it was the hiring of lawyers to "represent Congress in defense of DOMA" so it wasn't an act of law, just an act of spending.

www.hrc.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by rogerstigers


if marriage cannot defend irself - let it fall

Originally posted by rogerstigers


So.. I see the "cut spending" politicians actually only believe in spending when it suits their points of view... how convenient. Doesn't that mean they are no better than those "other" politcians they are villifying?

Apparently, the original contrct was for $500K. It had provisions in it to allow for a cap increase, which was enacted with this new action. What's worse is that this was done with no voting that have been able to discern because it was the hiring of lawyers to "represent Congress in defense of DOMA" so it wasn't an act of law, just an act of spending.

www.hrc.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Exactly if we don't support it we cry about it but if we do support it we can spend as much as we want on it. Just shows how Boehner thinks people in this country shouldn't be treated equally.

reply to post by SirMike


Off topic, you should look a bit more closely to what I wrote.

The administration, by its statutory mandate, cant decide not to enforce or defend a law in court. The decided that they WOULDN’T defend DOMA, not that they “couldn’t”. Its not up to them to decide what laws they do and don’t defend, that’s for congress and the court.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
So.. I see the "cut spending" politicians actually only believe in spending when it suits their points of view... how convenient.

I think all politicians only believe in what suits their point of view. I'm sickened, but not surprised by Boehner. (My spell check is telling me his name is misspelled and should be Boner.)

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by SirMike

 

Off topic, you should look a bit more closely to what I wrote.

The administration, by its statutory mandate, cant decide not to enforce or defend a law in court. The decided that they WOULDN’T defend DOMA, not that they “couldn’t”. Its not up to them to decide what laws they do and don’t defend, that’s for congress and the court.

edit on 4-10-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)

If the point you were making is that the actions of John Boehner are a direct result of Obama not fulfilling Article II of the US Constitution, you could probably have stated as such more eloquently than spinning the article. And to that point, Obama's actions on this are not unheardof.

[H]istory shows that this "long-standing practice" is not always followed. Federal law requires the Justice Department to notify Congress when it decides not to defend a statute, and the list, while not lengthy, is significant -- 13 notifications since 2004.

For example, then-acting Solicitor General Paul Clement in 2004 told Congress "the government does not have a viable argument to advance" in defense of a federal law that barred mass-transit agencies receiving federal funds from allowing ads on buses and subways promoting the use of medical marijuana. The reason: The law amounted to viewpoint discrimination, which the U.S. Supreme Court was unlikely to permit.

Sometimes the reason is strategic. In 2008, the Justice Department reported it was not appealing a district judge's finding that certain provisions of the federal child pornography law were unconstitutional in the case of an Iowa man. The judge had allowed the rest of the prosecution to proceed, however, and the government decided that an appeal defending the rejected parts of the law would delay the trial too long. The letter promised that the department would defend the law in other cases.

sonoflibertyandamericanrevolution.blogspot.com...

It is not uncommon for a lawyers to choose not to take on a case they feel they cannot win. In the case of DOMA, is was assesed and determined that if it was defended, the law would eventually be overturned by SCOTUS. So thy chose not to defend it. Interestingly, the law is still being "faithfully executed" given that no federal office recognizes a same-sex marriage. So the Executive branch is in the tenuous position of enforcing a law that they will not defend. *shrug*

Regardless, though there are statutes that allow Congress to defend a law when the DOJ wont (2 U.S.C. § 288e(a)), I don't see how it can be JUSTIFIED to spend money on defending this law when it does not help the economy, reduce the deficit, or create jobs.

reply to post by rogerstigers


The Obama DOJ is specifically arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional, thats not within their authority to make that determination.

In a major reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday that the Defense of Marriage Act - which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman -- is unconstitutional.

And to make that point, the White House has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending it in court.

"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," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

1.5 million to keep others from fighting this.. is that's what is happening here?

if that's the case and it's used as a deturant, I say thats peanuts. We spend Billions on black budget ops, heck they could raise that to 50 million. If it works, that would be a good American cause I'd support the spending of.

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

The Obama DOJ is specifically arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional, thats not within their authority to make that determination.

In a major reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday that the Defense of Marriage Act - which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman -- is unconstitutional.

And to make that point, the White House has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending it in court.

"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," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

Yes, they said it was unconstitutional.. as I said in my post..

It is not uncommon for a lawyers to choose not to take on a case they feel they cannot win. In the case of DOMA, is was assesed and determined that if it was defended, the law would eventually be overturned by SCOTUS. So thy chose not to defend it.

The DOJ and POTUS are allowed to have an opinion and make a strategic decision NOT to defend a law, so long as they still ENFORCE the law while it is on the books.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
1.5 million to keep others from fighting this.. is that's what is happening here?

if that's the case and it's used as a deturant, I say thats peanuts. We spend Billions on black budget ops, heck they could raise that to 50 million. If it works, that would be a good American cause I'd support the spending of.

1.5 Million to defend the law in court -- not to prevent others from challenging it.

It is an inappropriate expenditure of money at this time. Why don't we get the economy fixed, wars stopped, and job market healthy again before we waste money telling people who they should marry.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
The DOJ and POTUS are allowed to have an opinion and make a strategic decision NOT to defend a law, so long as they still ENFORCE the law while it is on the books.

To that end, they are not enforcing it either:

Earlier this month, the Obama administration said it would allow financially stressed gay and lesbian couples to file jointly for bankruptcy. The government had previously required individual filings under the 1996 law.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
1.5 Million to defend the law in court -- not to prevent others from challenging it.

It is an inappropriate expenditure of money at this time. Why don't we get the economy fixed, wars stopped, and job market healthy again before we waste money telling people who they should marry.

I'm just gonna tag on to you.

This is SO STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!

And its Religious based.

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by rogerstigers
The DOJ and POTUS are allowed to have an opinion and make a strategic decision NOT to defend a law, so long as they still ENFORCE the law while it is on the books.

To that end, they are not enforcing it either:

Earlier this month, the Obama administration said it would allow financially stressed gay and lesbian couples to file jointly for bankruptcy. The government had previously required individual filings under the 1996 law.

Hmm.. that is a tricky one... technically, this is not a matter of enforcement (something that would be a police/fbi kind of matter), it is a matter of defence (going to court to ask for something to be legally acted upon). But it is really kind of a gray area in legal terms..

About the department-wide policy, Schmaler wrote to Metro Weekly that the decision was made after consulting with the BLAG went on to note, "This decision is consistent with and follows the Administration's notification to Congress in February of this year that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to legally married same-sex couples but would seek to provide Congress an opportunity to enter litigation to argue in favor of DOMA's constitutionality. This decision to stop filing motions to dismiss bankruptcy petitions avoids generating costly and time-consuming constitutional litigation that neither the BLAG nor the Department plans to defend."

metroweekly.com...

If, however, Obama told a federal agency, such as the IRS, to allow same sex marriages to file together, in direct contravention of DOMA, that would definately be a violation of the constitution.

rogerstigers,

I really enjoyed your most recent post, I appreciate the research you put into it and I think it clarifies the issue considerably.

I have modified the quote you posted by adding underlining. I hope that's not a violation of any rules.

I was on the fence with the issue, but I can now safely say that I agree completely with Speaker Boehner and any amount of money spent in this case is perfectly all right with me. I think you'll agree.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Federal law requires the Justice Department to notify Congress when it decides not to defend a statute, and the list, while not lengthy, is significant -- 13 notifications since 2004.

Sometimes the reason is strategic. In 2008, the Justice Department reported it was not appealing a district judge's finding that certain provisions of the federal child pornography law were unconstitutional in the case of an Iowa man. The judge had allowed the rest of the prosecution to proceed, however, and the government decided that an appeal defending the rejected parts of the law would delay the trial too long. The letter promised that the department would defend the law in other cases.

It is not uncommon for a lawyers to choose not to take on a case they feel they cannot win. In the case of DOMA, is was assesed and determined that if it was defended, the law would eventually be overturned by SCOTUS. So thy chose not to defend it. Interestingly, the law is still being "faithfully executed" given that no federal office recognizes a same-sex marriage. So the Executive branch is in the tenuous position of enforcing a law that they will not defend. *shrug*

Regardless, though there are statutes that allow Congress to defend a law when the DOJ wont (2 U.S.C. § 288e(a)), I don't see how it can be JUSTIFIED to spend money on defending this law when it does not help the economy, reduce the deficit, or create jobs.

You notice all the underlining, of course. Your post pointed out, over and over, that DOJ was just not defending the law. I can see a case for that, maybe not a winning case, but a good one. But then, as I'm beginning to expect, the administration blew it.

Metro Weekly - Golinski's benefits case

Unlike in other cases where DOJ has stopped defending DOMA in accordance with President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder's decision that Section 3 of DOMA -- the federal definition of marriage -- is unconstitutional, DOJ lawyers today made an expansive case in a 31-page filing that DOMA is unconstitutional. Previously, the government had attached the Feb. 23 letter from Holder to House Speaker John Boehner (R) that announced the DOJ position to filings to courts about the decision to stop defending the law, but it had not laid out any more expansive reasoning.

OK, fine, don't defend it. But when the administration attacks a law, properly passed and signed into law by the President (Clinton, in this case), it has stepped over a boundary. This is an attack on the legislative system of our country. I might wonder if it is wise for the Congress to defend a law instead of DOJ, but it is certainly right to defend it from DOJ.

And if you're concerned about how Congress is justified in spending money to defend it, how is DOJ justified in spending money to attack it?

Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

OK, fine, don't defend it. But when the administration attacks a law, properly passed and signed into law by the President (Clinton, in this case), it has stepped over a boundary. This is an attack on the legislative system of our country. I might wonder if it is wise for the Congress to defend a law instead of DOJ, but it is certainly right to defend it from DOJ.

And if you're concerned about how Congress is justified in spending money to defend it, how is DOJ justified in spending money to attack it?

Charles1952

Thank you for this information. In my opinion, you are correct that they have violated the spirit of their office. Typically, I would expect that the courts would throw a case brought by the DOJ out because the DOJ has no standing, and I think would be suing itself. But in this case, I could see the DOJ arguing that the Executive Branch is being compelled to enforce a law that is unconstitutional. Dunno how that would play out.

To be honest, they should have just let the original Bankruptcy case go up to SCOTUS instead of backing out.

reply to post by rogerstigers


I have always believed that it is NOT the federal government's business who or what I love or marry, what I read or draw or write for entertainment, or whether I go to church or not. Social issues have no place in federal policy-making.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama swore upon inauguration "to faithfully execute the Office of President" and to protect and defend the Constitution.

As Chief Executive, he is to carry-out the laws enacted by the Congress.
Failing to defend those laws is a breach of his oath and abrogation of his duties.

Boehner, as Speaker of the House, is correct to defend lawfully-enacted legislation if the president refuses to perform his duties.

If the law is subject to constitutional challenge, that is the purview of the courts under separation of powers and Marbury v. Madison.

Obama is an incompetent ideologue who cares only for America's "transformation" and his own re-election.

deny ignorance.