Simply Unprecedented

[sirs]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when in modern day U.S. politics, has a sitting President taken an established law of the land, signed into law by a prior President (of the same party I might add), obligating its Justice Dept to defend said law, any and every time its case it brought forth to them, to decree he doesn't like it, that he, a non-sitting judge, judges the law himself to be unconstitutional, and orders the Justice dept to no longer defend such cases? 

Oh, like Obama telling his Justice Dept to no longer defend DOMA

Where's the check & balance now??   

[BT]

It's a political move to ignite a wedge issue.

Congress has the power to defend its own laws. And the Congressional GOP majority most likely will have to vote along party lines to authorize the expenditure.

Which deflects focus on fiscal conservatism and shifts the spotlight back to social conservatism.

[sirs]

Which doesn't refute that its unprecedented, and slowly devolves the check & balance built into our system of Government

We're talking cases brought before the Supreme Court, Bt.  Not some congressional hearing.  When the next case regarding DOMA appears before the supreme court, who's supposed to defend the law vs the plaintiffs who are claiming DOMA as unconstitutional??

[BT]

Which doesn't refute that its unprecedented, and slowly devolves the check & balance built into our system of Government

We're talking cases brought before the Supreme Court, Bt.  Not some congressional hearing.  When the next case regarding DOMA appears before the supreme court, who's supposed to defend the law vs the plaintiffs who are claiming DOMA as unconstitutional??

Who says it is unprecedented?

And Congress can defend the law in front of SCOTUS if they so choose.

You do realize they have a legal staff.

[kimba1]

the problem with DOMA is I have not once heard anybody prove marraige needs defending.
I`m single and the only way for me to not get married is to almost alienated all my relatives and friends. people should not worry about the state of marraige and put the energy in making marraige tolerable.

don`t worry about the institution,worry about having a peaceful home.

I`m guessing the term misery loves company is why people want others to get bad marraiges

[sirs]

the problem with DOMA is I have not once heard anybody prove marraige needs defending.
I`m single and the only way for me to not get married is to almost alienated all my relatives and friends. people should not worry about the state of marraige and put the energy in making marraige tolerable.

don`t worry about the institution,worry about having a peaceful home.  I`m guessing the term misery loves company is why people want others to get bad marraiges

Put DOMA aside Kimba, and replace it with any law of the land.  ANY standing law, that went into effect at the stroke of the President's signature.  So, no one would have any problem if the next President happened to be a Republican and simply decreed, Obamacare is unconstitutional.  We are not going to participate or defend any suits brought before the Justice dept on behalf of Obamacare.  Just like that, end of story. 

There's no problem with that?

[sirs]

Which doesn't refute that its unprecedented, and slowly devolves the check & balance built into our system of Government

We're talking cases brought before the Supreme Court, Bt.  Not some congressional hearing.  When the next case regarding DOMA appears before the supreme court, who's supposed to defend the law vs the plaintiffs who are claiming DOMA as unconstitutional??

Who says it is unprecedented?

I just provided the parameters........when in modern day U.S. politics, has a sitting President taken an established law of the land, signed into law by a prior President, obligating its Justice Dept to defend said law, any and every time its case it brought forth to them, to then decree he doesn't like it, that he, a non-sitting judge, judges the law himself to be unconstitutional, and orders the Justice dept to no longer defend such cases?

If it hasn't been done in modern times, then that is largely by definition, unprecedented

And Congress can defend the law in front of SCOTUS if they so choose.

Since when?  IIRC, that's the pervue of the Justice dept & the executive branch, not the legislative branch.  You're rationalizing why Obama is doing it, while ignoring it's breathtaking level of arrogance.  Why such a defense of Obama?....because sirs disagrees with it, so you must take up the mantle to prove sirs wrong?

You do realize they have a legal staff.

Yea, and....?  To help shape pending legislation to pass the constitutional sniff test, usually.  Not to argue in front of SCOTUS.  You do realize the seperation and function of the different branches, I would assume

But by all means, please provide these many examples of Congress arguing cases in front of SCOTUS.  I'm willing to be educated

[BT]

FYI

The decision effectively throws the defense of DOMA into the lap of Congress, which can instruct its own attorneys to defend federal laws. Mr. Holder said he had informed members of Congress of the decision so that ?members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option.?

Even before the Justice Department?s withdrawal from the case, advocates for traditional marriage had turned to Congress in an effort to persuade the new Republican-majority House to vote to intervene in the case. If the House agrees, then the Office of House Counsel can file its own brief in support of DOMA.

One such example emerged in Wisconsin in 2009. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, refused to defend a recently passed domestic partnership law, saying he believed it violated the state?s constitution.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/23/obama-administration-ends-its-defense-doma/?page=1

BTW Schwarzenegger didn't defent Prop 8 when the courts ruled against it.

Unprecedented means it has never happened.

 

[sirs]

No, unprecedented, is precisely how I framed it.  Again, you're using Obama's say so as justification.......so, any examples of Congress arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court??  Please, I'd like to be enlightened

[BT]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/07/republicans-file-amicus-brief-in-supreme-court-case-on-energy-policy/

[sirs]

Ok, I'm seeing a brief filed......so.......where's the example of congress actually arguing a case before SCOTUS again

[BT]

Ok, I'm seeing a brief filed......so.......where's the example of congress actually arguing a case before SCOTUS again

They have lawyers that do that. When is the last time the President of the United States argued a case before SCOTUS?

[sirs]

Ok, you're not understanding the question....when's the last time a lawyer representing Congress argued a case before the supreme court

[sirs]

Ok, I'm seeing a brief filed......so.......where's the example of (a lawyer for) congress actually arguing a case before SCOTUS again

When is the last time the President of the United States argued a case before SCOTUS?

You could easily argue every time the Justice Dept, and in particular, the AG argues/defends established law.  The President doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he's going to enforce, and which ones the Justice Dept can turn a blind eye to.   

[BT]

I understand the question completely. Do you think the Supreme Court conducts hearings based on the trial model?

No.

It accepts briefs and listens to arguments based on those briefs concerning questions arising from those briefs. When you think about it what the court does is try to sort out conflicting rulings from the lower appellate courts. Lots more paper than drama.

I'm not surprised that the administration is abandoning defense though they still will enforce the law until modified by congress or ruled invalid by the courts. I never did think DOMA would pass SCOTUS scrutiny it was just a holding action.

  Why such a defense of Obama?....because sirs disagrees with it, so you must take up the mantle to prove sirs wrong?

Where am I defending Obama? I offered an opinion as to motivation. You are free to express all the outrage about this as you wish. I wouldn't expect otherwise.