BREAKING: Obama DOJ Announces It Will Not Defend DOMA

[thundley4]

Attorney General Mark Levin: Won't Enforce Roe v. Wade

Barely twenty-four hours after her inauguration as America's first woman chief executive, President Sarah Palin announced today that Attorney General Mark Levin has been instructed to stop defending Roe v. Wade and abortion in a wave of fresh lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

...

[JohnnyReb]

Attorney General Mark Levin: Won't Enforce Roe v. Wade

Barely twenty-four hours after her inauguration as America's first woman chief executive, President Sarah Palin announced today that Attorney General Mark Levin has been instructed to stop defending Roe v. Wade and abortion in a wave of fresh lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

...

I think I'd be able to see the liberal head exploding pink mist from here.

[AllosaursRus]

If any Repub administration tried what ObieOne is doing, every newspaper in the country would be screaming for impeachment!

Where the **** are our reps in DC? How long is congress, Republican and Democrat, going to allow this prick to wipe his ass with our Constitution?

It's like I said yesterday, it's like peering thru the "looking glass" in Alice In Wonderland, for cripes sake!

Snuggles, is this your fault????

[Bertram]

In the United States, the Executive Branch has a long standing history of pushing the constitution aside if its inconvenient. Lincoln with the habeas corpus, Parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional, Truman seizing the steel mills...

I'm not sure if Mr. Obama is whipping his dick on the Constitution, just merely pushing an agenda.

[MrsSmith]

For 200 years, the Constitution said nothing about changing the definition of marriage or slaughtering the unborn.  Yet now it seems those "rights" are in there.   

[FreeBorn]

Attorney General Mark Levin: Won't Enforce Roe v. Wade

Barely twenty-four hours after her inauguration as America's first woman chief executive, President Sarah Palin announced today that Attorney General Mark Levin has been instructed to stop defending Roe v. Wade and abortion in a wave of fresh lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

...

This from Rush yesterday-
[youtube=425,350]akOjS6t4Lfl[/youtube]

JohhnyReb is exactly right, the Libtard's reaction would be way beyond blown fuse tantrum and be right up there with "this is your brain, this is your brain on hollow points".
This isn't too far down the road either. Once the socialist union parasites have their collective ass handed to them in Wisconsin and are blown away by the blowback in '12 we are going to see the continuation of the conservative movement in middle America -the same middle America that elected Soetoro- rejecting the liberal socialist agenda wholesale at the polls by electing a conservative President.
The Libtards had it all, the White House, the Senate and Congress. They could have proceeded with common sense but no, they blew it. They blew it with Obamascare rammed down out throats, they blew it with leaving the southern border wide open and siding with the illegals and they most of all blew it with the stimulus fiasco by running a gasoline bucket brigade on a house fire.
It's the ****ing spending, stupid, and they still don't get it.
Now with these union apes in the streets demanding more, more, more while everyone else is cut to the bone and bled white with taxes they want everyone else to keep the buffet table open for them with the burden on everyone else's backs and they're belligerent about it. **** them.
Same with this DOMA thing, the current regime sticking its nose into areas which have always been the purview of the states themselves.
They had it all, they could have been sensible and played to the middle, in so doing likely keeping their grasp on power indefinitely but no. They went extreme right out of the gate and now in the aftermath of the midterms they realize their time is short and they are wildly pushing for whatever they can cram down our throats as they go down in flames.

[AllosaursRus]

In the United States, the Executive Branch has a long standing history of pushing the constitution aside if its inconvenient. Lincoln with the habeas corpus, Parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional, Truman seizing the steel mills...

I'm not sure if Mr. Obama is whipping his dick on the Constitution, just merely pushing an agenda.

You're not serious are ya?

Lincoln had a Civil War in his lap, and as Commander In Chief made do with what he could with his executive power, seein' as half the Union sure as hell wasn't goin' to abide by the Constitution in the first ****in' place!.

Conservatives have been scremin' for 70 years FDR's "New Deal" was unConstitutional and believe it to this day!

Truman was knocked down by the Supreme Court because it was unConstitutional!

Ya got one where a Pres has refused to defend the "Law of the Land"?

[docstew]

You're not serious are ya?

Lincoln had a Civil War in his lap, and as Commander In Chief made do with what he could with his executive power, seein' as half the Union sure as hell wasn't goin' to abide by the Constitution in the first ****in' place!.

Conservatives have been scremin' for 70 years FDR's "New Deal" was unConstitutional and believe it to this day!

Truman was knocked down by the Supreme Court because it was unConstitutional!

Ya got one where a Pres has refused to defend the "Law of the Land"?

No, he doesn't, cuz every other POTUS before him knew they weren't kings

[AllosaursRus]

No, he doesn't, cuz every other POTUS before him knew they weren't kings

Must be why every time he logs in I get another BS! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[NHSparky]

Bottom line, whether you agree with the law or not, until the Judicial Branch, in this case the SCOTUS, rules in unconstitutional, you MUST as a member of the Executive Branch enforce it.  You can't refuse to enforce law of the land until the SCOTUS strikes it down.

And it's true--were Bush (or other Republican presidents) not to have carried out laws that were signed into law by previous Congresses, the hue and cry from the left would be deafening.

Then again, Jackson with his, "Let him enforce it" mentality is pretty par for the course with Democrats.  180 years and counting of pissing on the Constitution.

[Bertram]

For 200 years, the Constitution said nothing about changing the definition of marriage or slaughtering the unborn.  Yet now it seems those "rights" are in there.   

That's not how the Constitution works. It sets up the government and procedure and and says what the gov can't do. (For the most part)
They can do things as long as the constitution doesn't say that they can't.

[Duke Nukum]

That's not how the Constitution works. It sets up the government and procedure and and says what the gov can't do. (For the most part)
They can do things as long as the constitution doesn't say that they can't.

That's...insane.

[Bertram]

For example, the constitution doesn't say that Gov can subsidize farms, that doesn't mean it can't.

[NHSparky]

That's not how the Constitution works. It sets up the government and procedure and and says what the gov can't do. (For the most part)
They can do things as long as the constitution doesn't say that they can't.

Kid, you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Here we have a LAW, passed by Congress, signed by the President.  Now unless and until the SCOTUS declares all or part of said law unconstitutional, the Executive does NOT have a choice as to whether or not they get to enforce it.  To NOT enforce it would be gross dereliction of duty.

And no, dear boy, the Constitution has been pissed on in many ways, shapes, and forms, because it is a document which specifically places limits on what it CAN do.  It's one of those, "Unless we say you can, you can't do it" type of setups, not the other way around.

[Bertram]

Kid, you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Here we have a LAW, passed by Congress, signed by the President.  Now unless and until the SCOTUS declares all or part of said law unconstitutional, the Executive does NOT have a choice as to whether or not they get to enforce it.  To NOT enforce it would be gross dereliction of duty.

And no, dear boy, the Constitution has been pissed on in many ways, shapes, and forms, because it is a document which specifically places limits on what it CAN do.  It's one of those, "Unless we say you can, you can't do it" type of setups, not the other way around.

The Executive branch doesn't want to defend these cases because they feel it would be unethical to do so. Sure you may not like the means of the branch, but it's shitty unjust law.

Whatever powers are not addressed in the constitution are allocated to state governments, no?

[NHSparky]

The Executive branch doesn't want to defend these cases because they feel it would be unethical to do so. Sure you may not like the means of the branch, but it's shitty unjust law.

Whatever powers are not addressed in the constitution are allocated to state governments, no?

Not necessarily.  While the 10th Amendment does reserve the rights of the states to legislate what the feds cannot, it does NOT mean that they can impose laws that would run contrary to federal law, such as banning gun ownership, etc.

And no, you do not simply pick and choose which laws you enforce simply based on whether you like them or not.  Unless and until the SCOTUS has ruled them unconstitutional or other laws or acts are passed and signed into law override said law, you are in fact breaking the law with regards to your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the law.

IOW, you don't get to be a ****ing little child and say you won't do something because you don't agree with it.  You have your political allies in Congress pass new legislation which you can then sign, etc.  The "I don't wanna" excuse is for 2-year olds.

[Bertram]

Not necessarily.  While the 10th Amendment does reserve the rights of the states to legislate what the feds cannot, it does NOT mean that they can impose laws that would run contrary to federal law, such as banning gun ownership, etc.

And no, you do not simply pick and choose which laws you enforce simply based on whether you like them or not.  Unless and until the SCOTUS has ruled them unconstitutional or other laws or acts are passed and signed into law override said law, you are in fact breaking the law with regards to your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the law.

IOW, you don't get to be a ****ing little child and say you won't do something because you don't agree with it.  You have your political allies in Congress pass new legislation which you can then sign, etc.  The "I don't wanna" excuse is for 2-year olds.

I'm not condoning their means, but I think the ends in this case justify the means. Section 3 of DOMA leads to discrimination based largely on religious ethics, we should be guided based on secular ethics.

[NHSparky]

I'm not condoning their means, but I think the ends in this case justify the means. Section 3 of DOMA leads to discrimination based largely on religious ethics, we should be guided based on secular ethics.

Fine--if a couple of peter puffers want to get "married"--and let's be honest here, marriage has been a RELIGIOUS institution for far longer than it has been a legal one--and they can find a church that will recognize it, have at it.  Frankly, the whole "marriage" crap is overblown.  Two people can love each other, and through Power of Attorney can have the same "rights" as heterosexual couples.  And no, don't try to throw in spousal privilege because even that isn't constant from state to state.

Problem is, even the 7 states which have legalized gay marriage (of which I live in one) did it without the consent of the governed.  EVERY SINGLE TIME the issue of gay marriage or the definition of marriage has been brought to a vote, the public has gone AGAINST gay marriage.

EVERY.  SINGLE.  TIME.

Now granted, what Clinton did in signing DOMA into law was a load of horseshit power grabbing, but it IS law of the land until otherwise stated or ruled unconstitutional.  So what next?  Not enforcing drug laws?  Immigration (oh wait--bad analogy.)  Oh wait--voter intimidation--shit, another bad example  You get the point, yes?

Obama and his administration are shitting on OUR (yours AND mine) rights in ways that had this happened under GWB, would be front page, above the fold of the NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, and all the MSM networks from now until he was frogmarched along with Rove, et al.  But we hear nary a peep.  Aren't you the least bit curious as to why?

[Doc]

Fine--if a couple of peter puffers want to get "married"--and let's be honest here, marriage has been a RELIGIOUS institution for far longer than it has been a legal one--and they can find a church that will recognize it, have at it.  Frankly, the whole "marriage" crap is overblown.  Two people can love each other, and through Power of Attorney can have the same "rights" as heterosexual couples.  And no, don't try to throw in spousal privilege because even that isn't constant from state to state.

Problem is, even the 7 states which have legalized gay marriage (of which I live in one) did it without the consent of the governed.  EVERY SINGLE TIME the issue of gay marriage or the definition of marriage has been brought to a vote, the public has gone AGAINST gay marriage.

EVERY.  SINGLE.  TIME.


Obama and his administration are shitting on OUR (yours AND mine) rights in ways that had this happened under GWB, would be front page, above the fold of the NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, and all the MSM networks from now until he was frogmarched along with Rove, et al.  But we hear nary a peep.  Aren't you the least bit curious as to why?

It's a bit presumptuous to assume a what if, but I do think your right. Although, the Bush administration did have a bit worse of a track record and was a bit more scrutinized by the media after the invasion of Iraq. It takes a president to really **** up to be terribly scrutinized. But, that's another discussion for another day.
Maybe it's a sign that the people who do do read the papers would be in favor of the action? Maybe there's far less Obama hate than there was Bush hate?
And it was on the cover of the times website.

[AllosaursRus]

I'm not condoning their means, but I think the ends in this case justify the means. Section 3 of DOMA leads to discrimination based largely on religious ethics, we should be guided based on secular ethics.

I'm curious Bert, just what are your "secular" ethics? Mine still define marriage between a male and female of the same species. Without it, no species could propagate. Let me know when turd taggin' produces an offspring of one of our, or any other species, will ya?

You have some other kind of couplin' in mind I'm not aware of?

[AllosaursRus]

It's a bit presumptuous to assume a what if, but I do think your right. Although, the Bush administration did have a bit worse of a track record and was a bit more scrutinized by the media after the invasion of Iraq. It takes a president to really **** up to be terribly scrutinized. But, that's another discussion for another day.
Maybe it's a sign that the people who do do read the papers would be in favor of the action? Maybe there's far less Obama hate than there was Bush hate?
And it was on the cover of the times website.

You're kiddin' right? A bit more? What happened when gas hit $3? What is happenin' right now with it hittin' $3.25? You really have a knack for understating the obvious!