"...At The Old Ball Game"

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a very good refutation of this attack on Obama/Holder re: DOMA


More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA

Posted by Ed Brayton on March 12, 2011


"As the right wing continues its ignorant rage at the Obama administration for no longer defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, NPR provides a list of previous administrations choosing not to defend laws they believed to be unconstitutional:


While the administration’s DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

(1) During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals.

(2)The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

(3)The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote.

(4)It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court.

(5)The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive.

(7)The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana.

(8) And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr’s deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

In other words, every Republican administration for the past 60 years has done the same thing. And the Republicans are outraged — outraged, I tell ya — that Obama has done the same thing.

How convenient for them."

More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA – Dispatches from the Creation Wars

 

[Si modo]

Here's a very good refutation of this attack on Obama/Holder re: DOMA


More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA

Posted by Ed Brayton on March 12, 2011


"As the right wing continues its ignorant rage at the Obama administration for no longer defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, NPR provides a list of previous administrations choosing not to defend laws they believed to be unconstitutional:


While the administration’s DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

(1) During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals.

(2)The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

(3)The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote.

(4)It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court.

(5)The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive.

(7)The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana.

(8) And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr’s deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

In other words, every Republican administration for the past 60 years has done the same thing. And the Republicans are outraged — outraged, I tell ya — that Obama has done the same thing.

How convenient for them."

More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA – Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Soooooooo, if true - if they think it's unconstitutional - why won't they challenge its constitutionality in the SCOTUS?

Put their money where their mouth is, so to say.

Hmmmm.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a very good refutation of this attack on Obama/Holder re: DOMA


More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA

Posted by Ed Brayton on March 12, 2011


"As the right wing continues its ignorant rage at the Obama administration for no longer defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, NPR provides a list of previous administrations choosing not to defend laws they believed to be unconstitutional:


While the administration’s DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

(1) During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals.

(2)The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

(3)The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote.

(4)It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court.

(5)The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive.

(7)The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana.

(8) And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr’s deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

In other words, every Republican administration for the past 60 years has done the same thing. And the Republicans are outraged — outraged, I tell ya — that Obama has done the same thing.

How convenient for them."

More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA – Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Soooooooo, if true - if they think it's unconstitutional - why won't they challenge its constitutionality in the SCOTUS?

Put their money where their mouth is, so to say.

Hmmmm.

I'm not a lawyer, but let me try 2 points:

1. it's already being challenged in court.

2. lol, do you need the other point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a very good refutation of this attack on Obama/Holder re: DOMA


More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA

Posted by Ed Brayton on March 12, 2011


"As the right wing continues its ignorant rage at the Obama administration for no longer defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, NPR provides a list of previous administrations choosing not to defend laws they believed to be unconstitutional:


While the administration’s DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

(1) During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals.

(2)The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

(3)The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote.

(4)It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court.

(5)The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive.

(7)The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana.

(8) And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr’s deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

In other words, every Republican administration for the past 60 years has done the same thing. And the Republicans are outraged — outraged, I tell ya — that Obama has done the same thing.

How convenient for them."

More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA – Dispatches from the Creation Wars

lol, how many points do I get for shutting PC up on an issue? She has quietly disappeared. That's disappointing. I was hoping to hear her acknowledgment that Ronald Reagan was a traitor to the constitution as well. lol.

 

[freedombecki]

In the absence of a functional Congress, The President has no other choice

DOMA is a disgrace

This president is a disgrace.

 

[freedombecki]

I wonder which part of Congress LW is talking about??

The House? That has sent many bills to the Senate?

Or the Senate? Where King Harry just shelves all those bills??

The part of Congress that has been brought to its knees by Republicans throwing a temper tantrum because they can't get their way

Filibuster needs to be repealed. It is a quaint custom that is being abused

A Democrat abused it most.

 

[freedombecki]

I wonder which part of Congress LW is talking about??

The House? That has sent many bills to the Senate?

Or the Senate? Where King Harry just shelves all those bills??

I like that "LW"....
...so true.

Wingy...LW...has his limitations, and fails to see the panorama...
I'm gonna guess that he agreed with Justice Roberts re: ObamaCare...a view premised on the correct idea that each branch is charged with considering the constitutionality of a bill before passing it, or signing it.

We have an imperial President who sees his office not bound by the Constitution, nor an understanding of his legitimate powers.

LW...the same.

Seems wingy loses the ability to reason once the letter "D" comes into view.

I enjoy the simplistic views that conservatives have of our Constitution

Anything we disagree with must be UN-constitutional

You are correct. Anything we disagree with is because it is against the spirit of the Constitution.

Obama hates playing by the rules, so he bends them.

We're going to stop him and the cowards he rode in on, one way or the other.

 

[rightwinger]

I like that "LW"....
...so true.

Wingy...LW...has his limitations, and fails to see the panorama...
I'm gonna guess that he agreed with Justice Roberts re: ObamaCare...a view premised on the correct idea that each branch is charged with considering the constitutionality of a bill before passing it, or signing it.

We have an imperial President who sees his office not bound by the Constitution, nor an understanding of his legitimate powers.

LW...the same.

Seems wingy loses the ability to reason once the letter "D" comes into view.

I enjoy the simplistic views that conservatives have of our Constitution

Anything we disagree with must be UN-constitutional

You are correct. Anything we disagree with is because it is against the spirit of the Constitution.

Obama hates playing by the rules, so he bends them.

We're going to stop him and the cowards he rode in on, one way or the other.

I understand your grief conservatives

Anything that actually helps working Americans must be socialist......so therefore unconstitutional

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a very good refutation of this attack on Obama/Holder re: DOMA


More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA

Posted by Ed Brayton on March 12, 2011


"As the right wing continues its ignorant rage at the Obama administration for no longer defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, NPR provides a list of previous administrations choosing not to defend laws they believed to be unconstitutional:


While the administration’s DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

(1) During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals.

(2)The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

(3)The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote.

(4)It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court.

(5)The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive.

(7)The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana.

(8) And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr’s deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

In other words, every Republican administration for the past 60 years has done the same thing. And the Republicans are outraged — outraged, I tell ya — that Obama has done the same thing.

How convenient for them."

More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA – Dispatches from the Creation Wars

lol, how many points do I get for shutting PC up on an issue? She has quietly disappeared. That's disappointing. I was hoping to hear her acknowledgment that Ronald Reagan was a traitor to the constitution as well. lol.

Oh, nooooooo....

You have re-awakened my fear that folks will think I pay you to post!!!!


People must be saying "He can't be so stupid that he pitches right into her wheel-house, lobbing softballs that she can rocket over the wall!!!!"


Well, I'm here to tell you: yes he can!!

He is actually as dumb as he appears!

Every slip is unplanned, inadvertent,....and earned.


OK...it is imperative that his expose be performed verrrrrrry slooooowly...so that this dunce can understand how this fly...er, maggot....has entered my parlor.

Carby crows: "...how many points do I get for shutting PC up...???"

OMG...I expound daily that this is the aim of the Left!

The Left is so very fearful of opposing viewpoints that, rather than debate, compare ideas, their aim is "...how many points do I get for shutting PC up...???"

a. Chick-fil-A has an opposing viewpoint: hey, the Left's response is "put 'em out of business!"

b. Remember how the Left responded to those who supported Prop 8, in California?
" Some Prop. 8 supporters had their businesses boycotted or picketed; some had their homes picketed; some Yes on 8 yard signs were vandalized or stolen; and cars of some Yes on 8 supporters were keyed or vandalized as well."
Proposition 8 anonymity? Grow up. - Cut&Paste - Opinions - November 17, 2011 - Sacramento News & Review

c. Rush Limbaugh had the temerity to voice disapproval of a Leftist mouthpiece...
"We urge you to contact our local advertisers whose ads are running on Rush's program. Even though these smaller local businesses aren't actual Rush sponsors [read why here] they should be asked to tell their station they don't want their ads affiliated with Rush's program anymore."
Boycott Rush Limbaugh and his advertisers and sponsors

For the Left, oppose any of their policies, and one is not 'wrong,' but evil!! They must be destroyed, silenced!!!

Enter, fool, stage Left, right on cue: "...how many points do I get for shutting PC up...???"

Why?
Because the Left is painfully aware that in the marketplace of ideas, theirs don't hold up.

(Somehow, I almost feel I should be paying this creep.)



Here is the lesson to be learned. Those good-natured, well-intended folks who have aligned themselves with the Left, take heed. These are not good folks.
Take that into the voting booth with you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wonder which part of Congress LW is talking about??

The House? That has sent many bills to the Senate?

Or the Senate? Where King Harry just shelves all those bills??

I like that "LW"....
...so true.

Wingy...LW...has his limitations, and fails to see the panorama...
I'm gonna guess that he agreed with Justice Roberts re: ObamaCare...a view premised on the correct idea that each branch is charged with considering the constitutionality of a bill before passing it, or signing it.

We have an imperial President who sees his office not bound by the Constitution, nor an understanding of his legitimate powers.

LW...the same.

Seems wingy loses the ability to reason once the letter "D" comes into view.

Obama didn't sign the DOMA.

Tell us your opinion of all those Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration is doing,

or does the letter 'R' coming into view cause you to lose your ability to reason????

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a very good refutation of this attack on Obama/Holder re: DOMA


More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA

Posted by Ed Brayton on March 12, 2011


"As the right wing continues its ignorant rage at the Obama administration for no longer defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, NPR provides a list of previous administrations choosing not to defend laws they believed to be unconstitutional:


While the administration’s DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

(1) During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals.

(2)The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

(3)The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote.

(4)It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court.

(5)The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive.

(7)The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana.

(8) And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr’s deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

In other words, every Republican administration for the past 60 years has done the same thing. And the Republicans are outraged — outraged, I tell ya — that Obama has done the same thing.

How convenient for them."

More Precedents for Not Defending DOMA – Dispatches from the Creation Wars

lol, how many points do I get for shutting PC up on an issue? She has quietly disappeared. That's disappointing. I was hoping to hear her acknowledgment that Ronald Reagan was a traitor to the constitution as well. lol.

Oh, nooooooo....[irrelevant blather removed]

.

The question is,

what is your opinion of the Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration is doing?

Or do you have a reasoning problem when the letter 'R' appears?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I wonder which part of Congress LW is talking about??

The House? That has sent many bills to the Senate?

Or the Senate? Where King Harry just shelves all those bills??

I like that "LW"....
...so true.

Wingy...LW...has his limitations, and fails to see the panorama...
I'm gonna guess that he agreed with Justice Roberts re: ObamaCare...a view premised on the correct idea that each branch is charged with considering the constitutionality of a bill before passing it, or signing it.

We have an imperial President who sees his office not bound by the Constitution, nor an understanding of his legitimate powers.

LW...the same.

Seems wingy loses the ability to reason once the letter "D" comes into view.

Obama didn't sign the DOMA.

Tell us your opinion of all those Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration is doing,

or does the letter 'R' coming into view cause you to lose your ability to reason????

"Obama didn't sign the DOMA"

And....where did you get the idea that anyone said he did???


Was it those voices that only you hear?

 

[PoliticalChic]

lol, how many points do I get for shutting PC up on an issue? She has quietly disappeared. That's disappointing. I was hoping to hear her acknowledgment that Ronald Reagan was a traitor to the constitution as well. lol.

Oh, nooooooo....[irrelevant blather removed]

.

The question is,

what is your opinion of the Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration is doing?

Or do you have a reasoning problem when the letter 'R' appears?

What are you so afraid of???

Why did you remove most of the post???


Nailed you, huh?

Even you realize what a moron it revealed you as....



And, the removal validates everything the post said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I like that "LW"....
...so true.

Wingy...LW...has his limitations, and fails to see the panorama...
I'm gonna guess that he agreed with Justice Roberts re: ObamaCare...a view premised on the correct idea that each branch is charged with considering the constitutionality of a bill before passing it, or signing it.

We have an imperial President who sees his office not bound by the Constitution, nor an understanding of his legitimate powers.

LW...the same.

Seems wingy loses the ability to reason once the letter "D" comes into view.

Obama didn't sign the DOMA.

Tell us your opinion of all those Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration is doing,

or does the letter 'R' coming into view cause you to lose your ability to reason????

"Obama didn't sign the DOMA"

And....where did you get the idea that anyone said he did???


Was it those voices that only you hear?

Yeah, only I saw this:

"...a view premised on the correct idea that each branch is charged with considering the constitutionality of a bill before passing it, or signing it...."


to quote teapartysamurai,

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, nooooooo....[irrelevant blather removed]

.

The question is,

what is your opinion of the Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration is doing?

Or do you have a reasoning problem when the letter 'R' appears?

What are you so afraid of???

Why did you remove most of the post???


Nailed you, huh?

Even you realize what a moron it revealed you as....



And, the removal validates everything the post said.

You didn't check to see if Republican administrations, or any others for that matter, had done the same thing, did you?

Now why do you suppose I would take about 10 seconds to think of that, but it never occurred to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, nooooooo....[irrelevant blather removed]

.

The question is,

what is your opinion of the Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration is doing?

Or do you have a reasoning problem when the letter 'R' appears?

Why did you remove most of the post???


.

Because none of it was on-topic. YOUR topic, btw.

The question is, what is your opinion of the Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration did?

Is that too hard a question? Does your ability to reason leave you when the 'R' appears?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The question is,

what is your opinion of the Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration is doing?

Or do you have a reasoning problem when the letter 'R' appears?

What are you so afraid of???

Why did you remove most of the post???


Nailed you, huh?

Even you realize what a moron it revealed you as....



And, the removal validates everything the post said.

You didn't check to see if Republican administrations, or any others for that matter, had done the same thing, did you?

Now why do you suppose I would take about 10 seconds to think of that, but it never occurred to you?

Admit it......

Post #29 is sheer brilliance!!!


And you made it all possible....

....I have to give you props!
No one else slips on a banana peel as often or with a greater splash!!!


Looking forward to your repeat of that highlight-reel faceplant.


But....on the bright side, with your foot that firmly planted in your mouth, you are probably very attractive to Rex Ryan.




Oh, man...post #29....I'm still chuckling over it!

I have to go back and re-read that one.

Can't wait for your next flub.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I love how when PC loses an argument, the first tell is that her snottiness goes up a few notches.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The question is,

what is your opinion of the Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration is doing?

Or do you have a reasoning problem when the letter 'R' appears?

Why did you remove most of the post???


.

Because none of it was on-topic. YOUR topic, btw.

The question is, what is your opinion of the Republican administrations who did the same thing the Obama administration did?

Is that too hard a question? Does your ability to reason leave you when the 'R' appears?

I understand why you want to change the subject...'cause, after all, you were the perfect foil....

...but to expect to go from the sublime to the mundane would be anticlimactic.


It was sooooooo good....it should have been a stand-alone OP!!!

Don't you agree? Now...I know it informed your reputation as a imbecile, but,...you know...try to be objective....it was great, wasn't it.


Go ahead....admit it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I love how when PC loses an argument, the first tell is that her snottiness goes up a few notches.

Post #29 should be on my resume.....

....and your epitaph.



Every time I read it, it gets better!