AND?

Collective bargaining with Public Unions is inherently corrupt!

You can’t have people writing laws that enable mandatory union dues, and then use that clout to elect politicians that give you more of whatever you want – using as much taxpayer money as they need!

Lay the case out & Humiliate the Leftstream Media for trying to deliberately misrepresent it!

So……the president and the head of the Department of Justice just put their heads together and said, hey, we don’t like this law so we won’t defend it any more.

All hail the king.

Where does this stop? People on the left and the right should have alarm bells ringing over this. Our president, who swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, has just given the nod to stop enforcing a law duly passed in Congress and signed by another president (Clinton).

What’s next? If you give this thrity seconds of serious thought it should scare the hell out of you.

Oh….and before anyone says, well, there’s Harry on another of his conservative hobby horses, know this….I’m anti DADT and I’m glad its gone, and believe that gay marriage should be a state’s rights issue with each state deciding for itself through the vote. when that happens eventually all the states will accept it without the culture shock associated with it now.

It ain’t about gays. It’s about The Man Who Would Be King, Barack Obama.

This is a outlaw administration. They defy court orders telling them they can’t stop the oil drilling. They won’t enforce immigration laws. The sue people that enforce the law.

Gas prices are going to go through the roof and the president still won’t start drilling in the Gulf. He is trying to drive the coal mines out of business. He is truly CRAZY.

Obama has ordered Holder not to defend a duly passed & signed Law – doesn’t matter what law – because he deems it unconstitutional!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

I really think we need to add a “Mubarak corollary” to Godwin’s Law.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Obama has ordered Holder not to defend a duly passed & signed Law – doesn’t matter what law – because he deems it unconstitutional!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

Somewhere, at a rest stop bathroom, Norbit is crouched in the fetal position screaming this during breaks between giving fellatio.

That’s outrageous! You compare an elected official to an Egyptian dictator, unless you’re talking about Scott Walker!

HAHAHAHA!

Look at the FOX ‘news’ Monkeys jump up and down screeching while throwing their excrement!

Like Clockwork! And making me Money!!!!

BadGenome said:
That’s outrageous! You compare an elected official to an Egyptian dictator, unless you’re talking about Scott Walker!

Can’t compare, even! Yeah!

Mubarak Obama…. ok that’s a little over the top, ridiculous, and hypocritical.

Especially coming from the same woman who was complaining about Obama not backing Mubarak last week.

THE FACT IS the white house said they would not defend the law. they did NOT ask for the law to be changed. how can someone get on television and broadcast misinformation to people like this?

and of course, 80% of mediaite readers will actually believe what she said that the administration is trying to “change” the law.. oh, and also take their country from them, and their guns, churches, and babies.

i like fox news, but this is disappointing. oh well….. *shrugs*

In all fairness, lots of those Muslim names are easily mixed up.

Monica always tells it like it is.

@ torii

Meh. Mubarak will be forgotten by the summer.

NORBIT Jr. said:
AND?

Collective bargaining with Public Unions is inherently corrupt!

You can’t have people writing laws that enable mandatory union dues, and then use that clout to elect politicians that give you more of whatever you want – using as much taxpayer money as they need!

Lay the case out & Humiliate the Leftstream Media for trying to deliberately misrepresent it!

But she doesn’t matter – she too is a Koch Whore/Teabagger.

Where is Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin and Boehner’s “Sacrifice”?

The Republicans have NEVER asked the Corporate Citizen whom they work for to sacrifice. As matter of fact, they just gave themselves another Trillion US Tax Dollars to do – NOTHING; then turn on the tax paying American middle-class and poor and ask them TO PICK UP THE TAB.

Nice work GOP. Screwing the people after 8 years of Bush is no small feat. Of course, you didn’t explain to them this when you lied running for office – just that “tough decisions” had to be made – then of course you made them at the expense of the country. The Koch Bros. are very happy with your work. You are truly Koch Whores.

Hey Koch loving Republicans – you’re boy Scott Walker just screwed the POOCH!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/scott-walker-buffalo-beast-phone-prank_n_827058.html

I wonder if conspiracy Beck will have anything to say? Fox is in a full emergency containment mode on how to spin this – AND I can guarantee you – just like BECK – that they’ll all have the same story and support for Koch Bros. and Scott Walker! I didn’t even have to go to Glenn Beck University for that!! Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Palin, Fox, AM Hate Talk Radio – will all have a Republican spin on Walker’s screw up today – you betcha!

writer said:
In all fairness, lots of those Muslim names are easily mixed up.

They don’t have to be “muslin” to confuse this crowd of dimwits. Sorry. If you get your NewZ from Fox – you’re predisposed to stupid.

Anthony said:

“THE FACT IS the white house said they would not defend the law. they did NOT ask for the law to be changed.”

Exactly.

It is within the purview of the Department of Justice to defend federal law. They have the standing to do so. No one else does. To NOT defend this law ids dereliction of their duty in fine style. And to be so presumptuous as to decide for themselves what is constitutional and what is not is outrageous.

That’s the purview of the courts, not The Man Who Would Be King or his minions like Holder.

THINK IT THROUGH.

JazzyJim says

sock alert!

All you lefties applauding this need to step back and take a breath. Why?

Because Obama and the left won’tt be in office forever and this is a dangerous precedent to set. The next president may not be so left friendly and might decide not to enforce a law that works in the left’s favor.

What song will you sing then?

This is wrong. Period.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Obama has ordered Holder not to defend a duly passed & signed Law – doesn’t matter what law – because he deems it unconstitutional!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

Your party DOESN’T like to READ. How would you are they know? It’s those damn Liberal Elitists and their Ivy League Schools!! LOL.

Harry Flashman said:
All you lefties applauding this need to step back and take a breath. Why?

Because Obama and the left won’tt be in office forever and this is a dangerous precedent to set. The next president may not be so left friendly and might decide not to enforce a law that works in the left’s favor.

What song will you sing then?

This is wrong. Period.

Where were you between 2000-20008?

Harry Flashman said:
All you lefties applauding this need to step back and take a breath. Why?

Because Obama and the left won’tt be in office forever and this is a dangerous precedent to set. The next president may not be so left friendly and might decide not to enforce a law that works in the left’s favor.

What song will you sing then?

This is wrong. Period.

Okay – too fast: 2000-2008. Corrected.

Under “You Lie!” hussein’s imbecile AG (and Black Panther Party supporter and defender) holder, the Department of IN-Justice has become a sham of a joke of a travesty of a parody of a farce of a law-respecting and law-enforcing organization. It’s time for the total failure, racist, incompetent joke and disgrace to America known as “holder” to be fired. And, if the DOJ continues to not do the proper job, IT MUST BE DE-FUNDED.

Olby Sucks said:
JazzyJim says

sock alert!

Koch Whore! Or Koch Puppet?

Let’s let the supreme court sort it out, not these two idiot bimbos on FOX.

Stinger, ay, patsy?

TeaPartyPatriot said:
Under “You Lie!” hussein’s imbecile AG (and Black Panther Party supporter and defender) holder, the Department of IN-Justice has become a sham of a joke of a travesty of a parody of a farce of a law-respecting and law-enforcing organization. It’s time for the total failure, racist, incompetent joke and disgrace to America known as “holder” to be fired. And, if the DOJ continues to not do the proper job, IT MUST BE DE-FUNDED.

I know you get your misinformation from Fox, so let me help you hear. Bush’s Attorney General looked into the 3 man “New Black Panther Party”. They should have looked into the Teabagers as “New KKK” don’t you think. There is more than 3 and they’re organized by the Koch Whores outlets and Fox.

In other MuBarak Obama news:

(LA Times) — The community organizer who became president has launched a massive pre-reelection year campaign to assemble and train an army of new community organizers to carry Obama’s “movement forward for years to come.”

Strengthening “our democracy” presumably has something to do with reelecting the revered leader in 2012.

However, the recruiting message says nothing about politics or election campaigns and strangely talks in military terms of “a grassroots program that aims to put boots on the ground and help foster a new generation of leaders — not just to help win elections but to strengthen our democracy in communities across the country.”

The message about what it calls the “Summer Organizing Fellowship” adds: “Effective organizing doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It takes commitment, time, and hard work to build a movement around a cause.” It does not specify what the “cause” is, other than promoting Obama and his agenda.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/02/obama-campaign-community-organizer-.html

TeaPartyPatriot said:
Under “You Lie!” hussein’s imbecile AG (and Black Panther Party supporter and defender) holder, the Department of IN-Justice has become a sham of a joke of a travesty of a parody of a farce of a law-respecting and law-enforcing organization. It’s time for the total failure, racist, incompetent joke and disgrace to America known as “holder” to be fired. And, if the DOJ continues to not do the proper job, IT MUST BE DE-FUNDED.

Wow, I’m impressed with the sheer number of buzzwords you were able to cram that statement. You’re still batsh*t insane, but congrats! You managed to fit in every word on the list! You’ve successfully passed first grade! Yayyyy!!

jjay7381 says

Not much imagination, ay? Btw, sock alert!

I hope the right wing starts saying MuBarak Obama, it’s hilarious and it fits with his name in a really catchy way.

Plus, there is also the irony factor, the fact the Tea Party would be on Mubarak’s side and they would be the ones trying to kill the people protesting.

So please, call Obama by your true leaders name, us liberals just chuckle at you guys.

So the Arrogant Organizer ‘s political team tries to try stop the slide in the polls by announcing Barry ” has decided ” that a law is unconstitutional . That is not the way it works in a free country . And even you nasty Barack Robots know it .

The Lantern of Truth said:
So the Arrogant Organizer ’s political team tries to try stop the slide in the polls by announcing Barry ” has decided ” that a law is unconstitutional . That is not the way it works in a free country . And even you nasty Barack Robots know it .

Is organizing things bad? Still can’t figure out how “organizer” is an insult. Would you rather him be a community de-organizing? Oh I guess you’re just ****ing stupid, nevermind.

Snowspot said:
nevermind.

You’ll always be an idiot , Jon .

“Someone at the Fox News desk might have better prepared Dr. Crowley by letter her know that reports claim that, in a letter sent to House Speaker John Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the administration would continue to enforce the law until the court rules differently. So there’s that. ”

.
So, what was the point of the letter?

I find that paragraph a bit confusing and somewhat contradictory.

The Lantern of Truth said:
So the Arrogant Organizer ’s political team tries to try stop the slide in the polls by announcing Barry ” has decided ” that a law is unconstitutional . That is not the way it works in a free country . And even you nasty Barack Robots know it .

It’s like I said before…MuBarak didn’t study the Constitution because he wanted to protect and preserve it…he was looking for ways in which he could exploit it.

Snowspot said:
Is organizing things bad? Still can’t figure out how “organizer” is an insult. Would you rather him be a community de-organizing? Oh I guess you’re just ****ing stupid, nevermind.

A better name is community agitator. Stirring the pot for the perpetually aggrieved. Shakedown artist, think: Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson. Race baiters. Rabble rousers. 0bama is in good company. All clear now? Puts a whole new shine on that name, huh?

Crowley has ruined the McLaughlin Group. When she’s not spitting venom about the room she is blabbering incessantly. Bye! Bye!

jjay7381 said:
TeaPartyPatriot said:
Under “You Lie!” hussein’s imbecile AG (and Black Panther Party supporter and defender) holder, the Department of IN-Justice has become a sham of a joke of a travesty of a parody of a farce of a law-respecting and law-enforcing organization. It’s time for the total failure, racist, incompetent joke and disgrace to America known as “holder” to be fired. And, if the DOJ continues to not do the proper job, IT MUST BE DE-FUNDED.

Wow, I’m impressed with the sheer number of buzzwords you were able to cram that statement. You’re still batsh*t insane, but congrats! You managed to fit in every word on the list! You’ve successfully passed first grade! Yayyyy!!

Barely. He omitted “common sense solutions”.

The Real Royal King said:
Crowley has ruined the McLaughlin Group. When she’s not spitting venom about the room she is blabbering incessantly. Bye! Bye!

You would know so much about blabbering incessantly.

Harry Flashman said:
All you lefties applauding this need to step back and take a breath. Why?

Because Obama and the left won’tt be in office forever and this is a dangerous precedent to set. The next president may not be so left friendly and might decide not to enforce a law that works in the left’s favor.

What song will you sing then?

This is wrong. Period.

Harry Flashman said:
Anthony said:

“THE FACT IS the white house said they would not defend the law. they did NOT ask for the law to be changed.”

Exactly.

It is within the purview of the Department of Justice to defend federal law. They have the standing to do so. No one else does. To NOT defend this law ids dereliction of their duty in fine style. And to be so presumptuous as to decide for themselves what is constitutional and what is not is outrageous.

That’s the purview of the courts, not The Man Who Would Be King or his minions like Holder.

THINK IT THROUGH.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Obama has ordered Holder not to defend a duly passed & signed Law – doesn’t matter what law – because he deems it unconstitutional!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

There is no federal law that requires the DoJ to defend the constitutionality of a federal statute. It is long standing tradition for the Department of Justice to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes, but they are not bound by federal law to do so. All that is required by federal law is that the DoJ must notify Congress when it decides not to defend a statute. The DoJ is then able to refuse to defend a statute’s constitutionality, leaving that responsibility to the Congress.

That means that the DoJ will still enforce the law and the law still exists, they just will not defend the law against any legal challenges.

So, no, it’s not like the law no longer exists. It’s not like Obama just struck down a law enacted by Congress. It still does and it will still be enforced. Although this is not a common practice, it happens every now and then. There have been around 14 instances of the DoJ refusing to defend a statute’s constitutionality since 2004.

The Real Royal King said:
Crowley has ruined the McLaughlin Group. When she’s not spitting venom about the room she is blabbering incessantly. Bye! Bye!

Yeah, I hate when guests speak and disagree with me.

Darn her!

Harry Flashman said:
Anthony said:

“THE FACT IS the white house said they would not defend the law. they did NOT ask for the law to be changed.”

Exactly.

It is within the purview of the Department of Justice to defend federal law. They have the standing to do so. No one else does. To NOT defend this law ids dereliction of their duty in fine style. And to be so presumptuous as to decide for themselves what is constitutional and what is not is outrageous.

That’s the purview of the courts, not The Man Who Would Be King or his minions like Holder.

THINK IT THROUGH.

. Perhaps our friends on the other side might grasp the enormity of such an action if they think back to the pre Civil Rights era in the Deep South.

There were laws in all those areas against murder. Black men were lynched for such things as a wrong glance at a white woman. The duly elected officials had simply decided to not prosecute those law breakers in those circumstances. That changed with the Justice Dept enforcing federal law even when the locals wouldn’t.

Would you have been so sanguine if a President jim Crow had instructed AG Bull Conner to not enforce those laws?

Grammie said:
“Someone at the Fox News desk might have better prepared Dr. Crowley by letter her know that reports claim that, in a letter sent to House Speaker John Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the administration would continue to enforce the law until the court rules differently. So there’s that. ”

.
So, what was the point of the letter?

I find that paragraph a bit confusing and somewhat contradictory.

The letter is essentially required by federal law. The DoJ has the right to refuse to defend the constitutionality of a federal statute, they just have to notify Congress of their intent and reasoning.

And it really isn’t contradictory, although it is a little confusing. Basically, Holder is stating that the DoJ will no longer defend DOMA against legal challenges but the law will still be enforced until it is changed.

The Real Royal King said:
Barely. He omitted “common sense solutions”.

And comprehensive reforms.

Grammie said:
Would you have been so sanguine if a President jim Crow had instructed AG Bull Conner to not enforce those laws?

But DOMA will still be enforced.

This is what Michael medved meant; independents see this crazy talk and run to the open arms of the calm black guy.

The Real Royal King said:
Crowley has ruined the McLaughlin Group. When she’s not spitting venom about the room she is blabbering incessantly. Bye! Bye!

I’d rather listen to and see Monica Crowley any day over Eleanor Clift.

Grammie said:
. Perhaps our friends on the other side might grasp the enormity of such an action if they think back to the pre Civil Rights era in the Deep South.

There were laws in all those areas against murder. Black men were lynched for such things as a wrong glance at a white woman. The duly elected officials had simply decided to not prosecute those law breakers in those circumstances. That changed with the Justice Dept enforcing federal law even when the locals wouldn’t.

Would you have been so sanguine if a President jim Crow had instructed AG Bull Conner to not enforce those laws?

Selective law enforcement goes hand in hand with their selective outrage.

Stephen Hogan said:
But DOMA will still be enforced.

.
What do the distinctions mean in practical terms or that non lawyer would understand?

Stephen Hogan said:
There is no federal law that requires the DoJ to defend the constitutionality of a federal statute. It is long standing tradition for the Department of Justice to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes, but they are not bound by federal law to do so. All that is required by federal law is that the DoJ must notify Congress when it decides not to defend a statute. The DoJ is then able to refuse to defend a statute’s constitutionality, leaving that responsibility to the Congress. That means that the DoJ will still enforce the law and the law still exists, they just will not defend the law against any legal challenges. So, no, it’s not like the law no longer exists. It’s not like Obama just struck down a law enacted by Congress. It still does and it will still be enforced. Although this is not a common practice, it happens every now and then. There have been around 14 instances of the DoJ refusing to defend a statute’s constitutionality since 2004.

Does it really matter what legal machinations they use?
Why do you think they’re scrambling for the gay vote now?

As they say, “The writing is on the wall”!

The Real Royal King said:
Crowley has ruined the McLaughlin Group

RRKING says . And I ‘m one of the few people who can call John McLaughlin ” Kid ” .

Grammie said:
. Perhaps our friends on the other side might grasp the enormity of such an action if they think back to the pre Civil Rights era in the Deep South.

There were laws in all those areas against murder. Black men were lynched for such things as a wrong glance at a white woman. The duly elected officials had simply decided to not prosecute those law breakers in those circumstances. That changed with the Justice Dept enforcing federal law even when the locals wouldn’t.

Would you have been so sanguine if a President jim Crow had instructed AG Bull Conner to not enforce those laws?

Are you honestly trying to compare something that allowed the murder of individuals to something that restricts a group of people from getting married?

Grammie said:
.
What do the distinctions mean in practical terms or that non lawyer would understand?

There is a difference between defending a law and enforcing a law.

What the Obama administration is doing is refusing to defend the law. It means that if someone sues the federal government claiming that DOMA is unconstitutional, the DoJ will not defend DOMA in a court of law. That role, instead, will fall on Congress. There is no dereliction of duty because it is not the duty of the DoJ or the President to defend a law’s constitutionality.

The duty of the President and the DoJ is to enforce the law, which will continue. That will not change until the law is changed.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Are you honestly trying to compare something that allowed the murder of individuals to something that restricts a group of people from getting married?

As much as I support gay marriage… the office of the President isn’t allowed to create and manipulate laws like this.

JazzyJim said:
They don’t have to be “muslin” to confuse this crowd of dimwits. Sorry. If you get your NewZ from Fox –

JazzyJim said:
They don’t have to be “muslin” to confuse this crowd of dimwits. Sorry. If you get your NewZ from Fox – you’re predisposed to stupid.

JazzyJim said:
They don’t have to be “muslin” to confuse this crowd of dimwits. Sorry. If you get your NewZ from Fox – you’re predisposed to stupid.

JazzyJim said:
Your party DOESN’T like to READ. How would you are they know? It’s those damn Liberal Elitists and their Ivy League Schools!! LOL.

you’re predisposed to stupid.

JazzyJim said:
Koch Whore! Or Koch Puppet?

JazzyJim said:
But she doesn’t matter – she too is a Koch Whore/Teabagger. Where is Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin and Boehner’s “Sacrifice”? The Republicans have NEVER asked the Corporate Citizen whom they work for to sacrifice. As matter of fact, they just gave themselves another Trillion US Tax Dollars to do – NOTHING; then turn on the tax paying American middle-class and poor and ask them TO PICK UP THE TAB. Nice work GOP. Screwing the people after 8 years of Bush is no small feat. Of course, you didn’t explain to them this when you lied running for office – just that “tough decisions” had to be made – then of course you made them at the expense of the country. The Koch Bros. are very happy with your work. You are truly Koch Whores. Hey Koch loving Republicans – you’re boy Scott Walker just screwed the POOCH!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/scott-walker-buffalo-beast-phone-prank_n_827058.html I wonder if conspiracy Beck will have anything to say? Fox is in a full emergency containment mode on how to spin this – AND I can guarantee you – just like BECK – that they’ll all have the same story and support for Koch Bros. and Scott Walker! I didn’t even have to go to Glenn Beck University for that!! Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Palin, Fox, AM Hate Talk Radio – will all have a Republican spin on Walker’s screw up today – you betcha!

Out of all this babbling there is not one rational or original word spoken. Every thing said by this thing is just the same regurgitated oral fecal matter spewed out by every other goose stepping progressive moron! Can we even be sure that this even an actual person? No free thinking individual could attack people it hasn’t even met with such barbaric hate and think it’s opinions matter. Sh!t even most progs have the programming to speak with rational words. My advice to progs out there is that they have to bring this jazzyjim unit in, it appears to be defective.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Does it really matter what legal machinations they use?
Why do you think they’re scrambling for the gay vote now?

As they say, “The writing is on the wall”!

Well, it does matter what ‘legal machinations’ they use.

Had Obama refused to enforce the law, he would be violating his oath. This just makes it a little easier for the law to be struck down by the Judiciary.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Why do you think they’re scrambling for the gay vote now?

As they say, “The writing is on the wall”!

I don’t understand where you’re coming from. What ‘writing on the wall’?

ImNotBlue said:
As much as I support gay marriage… the office of the President isn’t allowed to create and manipulate laws like this.

But to compare that to jim crow is a wild and absurd overreach. There’s a difference between allowing murder and allowing gay marriage, wouldn’t you agree? And as Stephen hogan has stated, they’re not “creating and manipulating” it, it will still be enforced, they can’t stop that. They’re simply saying that if the issue comes up in court, they won’t defend it.

Stephen Hogan said:
Stephen Hogan says:
February 23, 2011 at 3:46 pm

.
Thank you. That was just what I was looking for and based on all your comments before was almost there but just not certain.

If you don’t mind how common or uncommon is such a move by any Admin? I would hope that it is not very common b/c it just seems to me that it injects an unseemly amount of politics into the system and could be very easily used to unduly thwart the Congressional will

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
But to compare that to jim crow is a wild and absurd overreach. There’s a difference between allowing murder and allowing gay marriage, wouldn’t you agree? And as Stephen hogan has stated, they’re not “creating and manipulating” it, it will still be enforced, they can’t stop that. They’re simply saying that if the issue comes up in court, they won’t defend it.

Yes… it is an exaggeration to compare gay marriage with racist murder. That tactic, however, is nothing new, and has been used by various gay-rights groups in attempting to state their case.

Anyway… the government saying it’s not going to “defend it,” is inappropriate. The President doesn’t have that authority to make that demand. It is an over reach, and should be condemned by supporters and opponents of gay marriage alike.

Stephen Hogan said:
Well, it does matter what ‘legal machinations’ they use.

Had Obama refused to enforce the law, he would be violating his oath. This just makes it a little easier for the law to be struck down by the Judiciary.

I don’t understand where you’re coming from. What ‘writing on the wall’?

I think he must be referring to the atrocity that gays will have rights.

Grammie said:
.
Thank you. That was just what I was looking for and based on all your comments before was almost there but just not certain.

If you don’t mind how common or uncommon is such a move by any Admin? I would hope that it is not very common b/c it just seems to me that it injects an unseemly amount of politics into the system and could be very easily used to unduly thwart the Congressional will

It doesn’t happen very often, but it isn’t too rare of an occurrence. Last I read, it’s happened about 14 times since 2004.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
But to compare that to jim crow is a wild and absurd overreach.

.
I was comparing the concepts (as I understood it to be at the time) by using the best example I could think of based on the long term tension between the Feds and Deep South states over such matters.

Offhand I still haven’t thought of a similar area with such clear cut dividing lines. I guess I could have used immigration but again nothing concrete with easy to use shorthand comes to my mind.

Stephen Hogan said:
It doesn’t happen very often, but it isn’t too rare of an occurrence. Last I read, it’s happened about 14 times since 2004.

.
Just one last question before you start charging me tuition.

What were the areas or what google terms would you suggest I use to find out more?

BTW, thanks again for help and the manner (sad when this becomes praiseworthy) in which you’ve given it.

ImNotBlue said:
Anyway… the government saying it’s not going to “defend it,” is inappropriate. The President doesn’t have that authority to make that demand. It is an over reach, and should be condemned by supporters and opponents of gay marriage alike.

Obama does have that authority, since he is the head of the executive branch and the DoJ are part of it. And there is no reason to put defend into quotation marks. It is a legitimate statement that means exactly what it says: they will no longer defend DOMA against legal challenges. Obama is not violating any federal laws or the Constitution, he’s just flying in the face of tradition.

As a hard supporter of gay rights I do not condemn the President’s actions at all.

Grammie said:
.
Just one last question before you start charging me tuition.

What were the areas or what google terms would you suggest I use to find out more?

BTW, thanks again for help and the manner (sad when this becomes praiseworthy) in which you’ve given it.

It’s my pleasure, Grammie :)

‘Duty to Defend’ is a good one. With google, I’d probably combine that with ‘President’ or ‘DoJ’. In regards to legal news websites, law.com is a good aggregate. They actually had a pretty good article about this very thing less than a few months ago. I’ll try to find it for you.

Does this mean the End of Days is nigh?

Stephen Hogan said:
I’ll try to find it for you.

.
I hope to save you the trouble. I just found it very easily with your suggested search terms.

Thanks again and hope to see you again. :)

ImNotBlue said:
Yes… it is an exaggeration to compare gay marriage with racist murder. That tactic, however, is nothing new, and has been used by various gay-rights groups in attempting to state their case.

Anyway… the government saying it’s not going to “defend it,” is inappropriate. The President doesn’t have that authority to make that demand. It is an over reach, and should be condemned by supporters and opponents of gay marriage alike.

It’s not really the entire government, it’s the executive branch. The executive branch is bound by the Constitution to execute laws, not to defend them. now if the law were part of the Constution, THEN they would HAVE to defend it. So it’s not really an overreach, he’s operating within the limitations placed on him by the Constitution. The job to defend laws doesn’t rest upon him, only to enforce.

Grammie said:
.
I hope to save you the trouble. I just found it very easily with your suggested search terms.

Thanks again and hope to see you again. :)

Great! I actually just found it myself and came back to post it!

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202473959808

Grammie said:
.
I hope to save you the trouble. I just found it very easily with your suggested search terms.

Thanks again and hope to see you again. :)

Oh, and once again, it was my pleasure :)

Hope to see you around, as well!

Right down to the hair colour, she’s doing Ann Coulter’s shtick. At least she looks much better.

Stephen Hogan said:
There is no federal law that requires the DoJ to defend the constitutionality of a federal statute. It is long standing tradition for the Department of Justice to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes, but they are not bound by federal law to do so. All that is required by federal law is that the DoJ must notify Congress when it decides not to defend a statute. The DoJ is then able to refuse to defend a statute’s constitutionality, leaving that responsibility to the Congress. That means that the DoJ will still enforce the law and the law still exists, they just will not defend the law against any legal challenges. So, no, it’s not like the law no longer exists. It’s not like Obama just struck down a law enacted by Congress. It still does and it will still be enforced. Although this is not a common practice, it happens every now and then. There have been around 14 instances of the DoJ refusing to defend a statute’s constitutionality since 2004.

Thank you for posting this, Stephen. I was about to go mad that no one had said this yet.

You’d think that as smart as Monica Crowley is supposed to be that she’d realize this.

I also thought about this: for those of you that think he should defend the law that he and his Justice Department feels is unconstitutional, would some of you on the right have this same indignation if the next Republican President decided to not defend the health care law in the same manner?

Its good to see that Monica has graduated from wiping Richard Nixon’s invalid ass, to saying our President is Hosni Mubarak. Be proud.

stoogedudes said:
Thank you for posting this, Stephen. I was about to go mad that no one had said this yet. You’d think that as smart as Monica Crowley is supposed to be that she’d realize this. I also thought about this: for those of you that think he should defend the law that he and his Justice Department feels is unconstitutional, would some of you on the right have this same indignation if the next Republican President decided to not defend the health care law in the same manner?

That’s terrific. Would you be supporting this law if Bush used something tantamount to it to go into Iraq?
Or better yet, let’s use it to gut Obamacare, FedReg & the rest of Stimulus!

The Real Royal King said:
Does this mean the End of Days is nigh?

.
For all your airs of urbane international man of mystery and high finance you are really just a milquetoast guy careful around your own shadow who is common as dirt, aren’t you?

You know that, don’t you?

That is why you preen and strut on anonymous blogs, isn’t it?

Pathetic pitiful little man that you are you just can’t help yourself, can you?

that’s a bit of a stretch.

mark thuesen

Mark Thuesen said:
that’s a bit of a stretch.

mark thuesen

.Are you addressing me?

Color Me Badd said:
Its good to see that Monica has graduated from wiping Richard Nixon’s invalid ass, to saying our President is Hosni Mubarak. Be proud.

No kidding!

@ Stephen

I think you need to separate you feelings on the issue of gay marriage, and your view of this situation.

Imagine it was something you didn’t support. Would your response be the same?

And while a legal or illegal argument can be made, I’m sure, there is no denying this is bad form, and sets a poor precedent.

I saw a Monica Crowley blow up doll on eBay a few weeks ago. I just assumed she was some porn star. Now I find out she works for Fox. Who knew?

@ Weasel

Being disrespectful to women who don’t think they way you demand they do.

Misogyny… Who knew?

Obama has removed a federal roadblock for state innovation on the issue. One of the benefits of federalism is that it allows the states to operate a laboratories for policy…removing a national barrier to open regional articulation of civil rights is not the work of a dictator. Crowley understands nothing of this as… she traffics in loose and demeaning generalizations.

Monica should look better than Eleanor Clift. Eleanor looks all right to me, she was born in 1940, the year I was born. I feel a little guilty when I peak at Monica’s legs when she is on The McLaughlin Group since she is of my daughters generation, being born in 1968, Monica does put the legs out there. Monica probably needs her makeup.

As Red Foxx said “There’s nothing uglier than an old white woman.” My grandson says “O ish” when he sees my flabby bare chest.

I love how Fox likes to swim in the Sewer with Rush. They do this with a little eye candy so people don’t realize all the false garbage that gets thrown out there.

@ I’mNotBlue

It is what it is. Go buy you one and see.

@ Sprocket

I’m sorry… did I get caught in one of those double standards, again? The left can make angry and crude statements towards women who don’t fall in line, but the right can’t say “boo” about women… ever.

How did I forget that rule?

NORBIT Jr. said:
That’s terrific. Would you be supporting this law if Bush used something tantamount to it to go into Iraq?Or better yet, let’s use it to gut Obamacare, FedReg & the rest of Stimulus!

I think the Bush thing is comparing apples and oranges. But, if our next Republican President decides to not defend the health care law in court, I would understand as it’s something they feel is unconstitutional, and they may not want to defend it. Fine. It’s still a law, until the Supreme Court, if it were to happen, overturned the law. His/her administration would still be enforcing it as they took the Oath to do. But it’d be perfectly legal for this GOP Pres. to decide to have his/her administration not defend the law in court. I wouldn’t be as indignant as many of you on the right are with this.

And he’s not gutting DOMA. He’s simply not having his Justice Department defend it in court.

ImNotBlue said:
@ Stephen I think you need to separate you feelings on the issue of gay marriage, and your view of this situation. Imagine it was something you didn’t support. Would your response be the same? And while a legal or illegal argument can be made, I’m sure, there is no denying this is bad form, and sets a poor precedent.

Going back to what I said, what would your feelings be if it were a Republican President deciding not to defend the health care law? Would that be setting a poor precedent? I understand what you’re saying, but it seems as if there is too much outrage over this when he’s not doing anything wrong by choosing not to defend it. Why would he have his Justice Department defend it in court when they don’t believe it is unconstitutional?

stoogedudes said:
don’t believe it is unconstitutional?

That should read “when they believe it’s unconstitutional”, BTW.

yawn. she wants publicity. yawn.

Greg said:
Obama has removed a federal roadblock for state innovation on the issue. One of the benefits of federalism is that it allows the states to operate a laboratories for policy…removing a national barrier to open regional articulation of civil rights is not the work of a dictator. Crowley understands nothing of this as… she traffics in loose and demeaning generalizations.

.
Actually it is the current law that specifically leaves the definition of marriage to each individual state and does not require that the states must have/recognize a gay marriage law.

If DOMA is declared unconstitutional then it will become a national/federal issue similar to Roe.

That has worked out so well in unifying us why not bring DOMA into all the fun and games considering that over 30 states have had referendums/constitutional amendments defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.

Grammie said:
.
Actually it is the current law that specifically leaves the definition of marriage to each individual state and does not require that the states must have/recognize a gay marriage law. have had referendums/constitutional amendments defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.

You have that backwards. DOMA, as a federal statute actually undermines states that recognize gay marriage laws. It is NOT ambivalent. That is why it was challenged in MA by the AG there!

Yes, focus on what Monica Crowley said, don’t focus on the lawlessness of this administration. Don’t focus on the administration’s violation of a Federal judge’s ruling declaring the moratorium of oil drilling in the gulf void. Don’t focus on the administration’s violation of a Federal judge’s ruling declaring Obamacare unconstitutional and unenforceable. Don’t focus on the administration’s irrational suit to prevent states from upholding immigration laws the Feds won’t uphold themselves. Don’t focus on the administration’s racially biased justice department. Don’t focus on this administration’s propensity to think of itself as above the laws of congress and rulings of the judiciary and capable of rule by decree via Executive Orders, czar decrees and thousand page regulations.

@ Stooge

I think that they have a responsibility to uphold (and defend) the laws that previous administrations signed into law. If they want to change the law because they disagree with it, they can do that. If they feel they can’t, in good faith defend it in court, they have an obligation to appoint a special team to do so. They cannot simply drop the ball because they disagree with a law.

Snowspot said:
Somewhere, at a rest stop bathroom, Norbit is crouched in the fetal position screaming this during breaks between giving fellatio.

Snowspot. Instead of offering a rebuttal, or really any meaningful response to Norbit’s point, you stoop (or maybe I should say ‘kneel’ to better comport with your parlance) to sophomoric snark. Great if you want to be a writer for John Stewart; not so great if you want to appear reasonable and intelligent.

You need to look up the term ‘latency’.

Grammie said:
Actually it is the current law that specifically leaves the definition of marriage to each individual state and does not require that the states must have/recognize a gay marriage law.

“Section 7. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Grammie said:
If DOMA is declared unconstitutional then it will become a national/federal issue similar to Roe.

If and when the DOMA falls, state prohibitions on same-sex marriage won’t necessarily (or even likely) fall with it. There are other reasons why it is legally unworkable in the long-term to allow some states to recognize marriage and others not to. At some point, the Full, Faith and Credit Clause has to kick in, doesn’t it? And don’t forget Proposition 8! But this isn’t that.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/10-takeaways-from-obamas-doma-reversal/71633/

F*x and it’s anchor babes are going to get awfully sore in a sensitive spot if they keep straddling all those fences. They want Obama to stop enforcing AHCA, because they don’t like the individual mandate. But, AHCA is the law. They want Obama to fund defense of DOMA, which he feels is unconstitutional. He has said he will enforce DOMA as long as it is on the books, but will not defend it in court. The f**ks at F*x can’t have it both ways.

How does a group of emotionally sick people (Homosexual) numbering less than 2.5% of the population garner this much attention? They have exactly the same Civil Rights as any other legal citizen of this country. They can also enter into a legal spousal contract on the same order as that of heterosexuals. The only thing missing is a formal religious ceremony recognized by the citizens of the state. A ceremony that would validate their union in an effort to give homosexuals an emotional excuse for their sickness.

Projection, that is what the repugs are really good at doing. Democrats know how to govern because they really do take “public trust” seriously, while the repugs know how to rule the board rooms and think all people are suckers to be manipulated. They are really good at manipulation, from the FOX media empire, Wall street criminals, political hacks and of course the soldiers on the ground the gullible tbaggers.
Obama is a duly elected President of the US and the republicans can’t stand the fact that a black man has so much power. So, they have spent the last two years trying to make him fail, and have offered up to the god of wealth the future of the democracy in america. After the Walker incident in WI, the repugs were exposed: their ultimate goal is to enhance business interests on the backs of workers in america with unjust labor practices and demeaning wages taking the nation backward. The BOARD ROOM REpublican want to bees are the real dictators. Walker cut taxes, manufactured a financial crisis, demonzed unions and got AUTOCRATIC, absolute power over the Energy assets of WI. He can do a lot of damage in the year before he is recalled and he is on track to destroy almost two centuries of hard won worker’s rights. The dictators are in the governor’s mansion in WI, FL, OH and NJ.

NORBIT Jr. said:
AND?

Collective bargaining with Public Unions is inherently corrupt!

You can’t have people writing laws that enable mandatory union dues, and then use that clout to elect politicians that give you more of whatever you want – using as much taxpayer money as they need!

Lay the case out & Humiliate the Leftstream Media for trying to deliberately misrepresent it!

Having a Boehner shoved up your rear by a Koch Whore is inherently corrupt! Corporate Welfare States should not be able to take Bush Tax Gift Money to assualt the working American Tax payers. Or are you a communist. You sound like a communist. Does your party know this? Hmmm.

You have no credibility for your insanity (like Beck), but you may want to see a doctor; the good ones are all liberal because they went to school. So it’s going to cost you – market value. Maybe that’s the problem, you can’t afford it. Eh Comrade?

Harry Flashman said:
So……the president and the head of the Department of Justice just put their heads together and said, hey, we don’t like this law so we won’t defend it any more.

All hail the king.

Where does this stop? People on the left and the right should have alarm bells ringing over this. Our president, who swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, has just given the nod to stop enforcing a law duly passed in Congress and signed by another president (Clinton).

What’s next? If you give this thrity seconds of serious thought it should scare the hell out of you.

Oh….and before anyone says, well, there’s Harry on another of his conservative hobby horses, know this….I’m anti DADT and I’m glad its gone, and believe that gay marriage should be a state’s rights issue with each state deciding for itself through the vote. when that happens eventually all the states will accept it without the culture shock associated with it now.

It ain’t about gays. It’s about The Man Who Would Be King, Barack Obama.

No, but if you’re hearing it from Fox, you’re hearing what idiocy you want. The President WAS TOLD IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL – he didn’t MAKE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Really are there any Republicans in here with a third grade education? I

TeaPartyPatriot said:
Under “You Lie!” hussein’s imbecile AG (and Black Panther Party supporter and defender) holder, the Department of IN-Justice has become a sham of a joke of a travesty of a parody of a farce of a law-respecting and law-enforcing organization. It’s time for the total failure, racist, incompetent joke and disgrace to America known as “holder” to be fired. And, if the DOJ continues to not do the proper job, IT MUST BE DE-FUNDED.

You get all your brainwashing at Fokkks aka Faux NewZ. Your mind is not a terrible thing to waste, though I do feel for anyone that has to listen to you repeat the Glenn Beck Conspiracy Theory Hour everyday. The agony.

illusive man said:
you’re predisposed to stupid.

Out of all this babbling there is not one rational or original word spoken. Every thing said by this thing is just the same regurgitated oral fecal matter spewed out by every other goose stepping progressive moron! Can we even be sure that this even an actual person? No free thinking individual could attack people it hasn’t even met with such barbaric hate and think it’s opinions matter. Sh!t even most progs have the programming to speak with rational words. My advice to progs out there is that they have to bring this jazzyjim unit in, it appears to be defective.

I know most of it is hard on your brain muscle. Try reading it slower this time.

Paleoconservatarian said:
Yes, focus on what Monica Crowley said, don’t focus on the lawlessness of this administration. Don’t focus on the administration’s violation of a Federal judge’s ruling declaring the moratorium of oil drilling in the gulf void. Don’t focus on the administration’s violation of a Federal judge’s ruling declaring Obamacare unconstitutional and unenforceable. Don’t focus on the administration’s irrational suit to prevent states from upholding immigration laws the Feds won’t uphold themselves. Don’t focus on the administration’s racially biased justice department. Don’t focus on this administration’s propensity to think of itself as above the laws of congress and rulings of the judiciary and capable of rule by decree via Executive Orders, czar decrees and thousand page regulations.

You may have missed all the laws broken by Reagan and GWBush, but the rest of the world didn’t. This isn’t even on par of the crimes agains our constitution by the Bush Administration. Our crime as citizens is that we let him get away with it.

The Jack Burton said:
Snowspot. Instead of offering a rebuttal, or really any meaningful response to Norbit’s point, you stoop (or maybe I should say ‘kneel’ to better comport with your parlance) to sophomoric snark. Great if you want to be a writer for John Stewart; not so great if you want to appear reasonable and intelligent.

You need to look up the term ‘latency’.

When replying to Norbit – she used the exact and appropriate response. Talk to them on their level.

Regarding this non-issue that the GOP likes to distort and use on the knee-jerk bible belt sheep – This “law” or lack thereof, does not affect your inability to make your “family” work (another Right-Wing pavlovian trigger to get you to vote stupidly; like abortion). If you spent have the time working on your own relationships there wouldn’t be a 90% divorce rate in this country – and that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Your hypocrits and wrong on this one, but you need to feel “superior” to a way of life most of you don’t understand. God will judge – if you belive that. He reserved that right for Himself. Get off your horse and give it up.

*half the time (not proofed for there are too many snarky remarks on dumb rhetoric to make).

JazzyJim said:
When replying to Norbit – she used the exact and appropriate response. Talk to them on their level.

Regarding this non-issue that the GOP likes to distort and use on the knee-jerk bible belt sheep – This “law” or lack thereof, does not affect your inability to make your “family” work (another Right-Wing pavlovian trigger to get you to vote stupidly; like abortion). If you spent half the time working on your own relationships there wouldn’t be a 90% divorce rate in this country – and that has nothing to do with gay marriage. You hypocrits are wrong on this one, but you need to feel “superior” to a way of life most of you don’t understand. God will judge – if you belive that. He reserved that right for Himself. Get off your horse and give it up.

Don’t believe me? Ask 3 time losers Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

This idiot should get married to Michelle Bachman. They would be 2 peas in a pod in their alternate universe where personal stupidity reigns supreme.

But I thought we weren’t supposed to call him that!