emptystep
VIP Member
- Jul 17, 2012
- 3,654
- 221
- 83
For the first part, how many rights make a wrong, there are two possible correct answers. 4 or 228.
4
For the second part all of the follow are part of the correct answer.
The rules for the most part were without contention. The wrong part as stated by Ariane de Vogue:
Boehner Bolsters Support of Defense of Marriage Act - ABC News
Defense Of Marriage Act: House Republicans Tie Federal Gay Marriage Ban To House Rules
The amount might be one issue. As posted by Joel Connelly:
Republicans hide $$ to defend Defense of Marriage Act | Strange Bedfellows Politics News - seattlepi.com
What also might be considered a wrong is the vechile with which House is using to enact this rule.
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well at least the House is fighting for something with is legally defensible. Maybe not according to David Lat.
Second Circuit Strikes Down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts
If the republicans of the house were to argue against funding the rest of the Sandy relief bill, raising the debit ceiling, or any number of other issues on the biases that they are the responsible ones with tax payers money they want to look to what Carolyn Lockhead brought attention to.
GOP continues DOMA defense among first acts of new Congress | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog
Will this be a thorn in republicans side until they cease giving lawyers blank checks to argue legal cases they feel should be fought on moral grounds? Well, it just might be.
So in conclusion how many wrongs make a right? Apparently a lot of wrongs make the right.
4
because that is how many are on the Republican Conference, namely John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Greg Walden, and James Lankford.
228 because that is how many members of the House who voted on H.Res. 5: Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress. Introduced by Rep. Eric Cantor [R-VA7] on January 3, 2013 That is every single republican except Walter Jones of the 3rd district of North Carolina and not one democrat.
For the second part all of the follow are part of the correct answer.
The rules for the most part were without contention. The wrong part as stated by Ariane de Vogue:
Boehner Bolsters Support of Defense of Marriage Act - ABC News
de Vogue points out:Today, House Republicans included DOMA language in the Opening Day Rules package authorizing the continued use of taxpayer funds.
A draft obtained by the Huffington Post reads as follows:
(1) CONTINUING AUTHORITY FOR THE BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP.
(A) The House authorizes the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 113th Congress
(i) to act as successor in interest to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 112th Congress with respect to civil actions in which it intervened in the 112th Congress to defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code, including in the case of Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012), aff'd, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012), cert. granted, No. 12307 (Dec. 7, 2012), cert. pending No. 1263 (July 16, 2012) and 12-ll (Dec.___2012);
(ii) to take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure continuation of such civil actions; and
(iii) to intervene in other cases that involve a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code.
(B) Pursuant to clause 8 of rule II, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears, including in Windsor v. United States.
The proposed language reads: The Bipartisan Legal advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of , the House in all litigation matters in which it appears, including in Windsor v. United States.
Huffington Post also mentioned:Despite poll numbers showing the majority of Americans now support gay marriage, House Speaker John Boehner sent a strong message today authorizing the continued use of taxpayer funds to defend a federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
Defense Of Marriage Act: House Republicans Tie Federal Gay Marriage Ban To House Rules
Let's look at some reasons the above might be considered a wrong.Hammill also noted that the rules package "for the first time" explicitly states that BLAG speaks for the full House on DOMA matters -- something he said is definitely not the case.
The amount might be one issue. As posted by Joel Connelly:
Republicans hide $$ to defend Defense of Marriage Act | Strange Bedfellows Politics News - seattlepi.com
Might be the way it was presented to the House. Connelly continues:The Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have already spent $1.7 million in taxpayer dollars for legal defense of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). On Thursday, hidden in rules for the 113th Congress, they gave a blank check to fight for a law abandoned by the Obama administration and even some who once voted for it.
The House did not get to vote on spending the money. The Defense of Marriage Act was not mentioned in the rules, which contained only an oblique, buried reference to continuation of the independent bipartisan legal advisory group.
Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and aide Kinsey Kiriakos scoured the 23-page rules package on Thursday, hunting for the language authorizing and paying for the defense of DOMA. Here it is, on page 17, said the veteran Seattle congressman.
What also might be considered a wrong is the vechile with which House is using to enact this rule.
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2011, when President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), House Speaker John Boehner convened BLAG to authorize the House Office of General Counsel or other outside attorneys to take the place of the DOJ in defending the law.[10] On March 9, 2011, BLAG by a vote of 32 directed the Office of General Counsel to defend DOMA.[11] Attorneys representing BLAG filed a brief in U.S. District Court in San Francisco in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, opposing an action brought by a federal employee to invalidate Section 3 of DOMA under which health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse was denied.[12] In Golinski and a series of lawsuits challenging DOMA, BLAG's role has not been limited to filing amicus briefs. Without opposition from opposing counsel, several District Courts have granted BLAG intervenor-defendant status.[13] In one DOMA case, McLaughlin v. Panetta, plaintiffs' attorneys asked the court to limit BLAG to filing an amicus curiae brief rather than participating as intervenor-defendant as it did in other DOMA cases. They argued that the House did not properly authorize BLAG to intervene and that BLAG's direct participation violated the separation of powers doctrine.[14] The DOJ also questioned BLAG's standing to appeal a District Court decision, relying on Buckley v. Valeo (1976).[15] Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has questioned the funding of BLAG's defense of DOMA.[16][17]
On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court, in agreeing to hear another DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, asked the parties to address "whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case".[18][19] Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts the judiciary to hearing cases and controversies, which the Supreme Court has long interpreted to require parties to a case to have a direct interest in the outcome, rather than the "generalized interest" that the Department of Justice claims BLAG has in the defense of DOMA. BLAG has countered, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Chadha that "Congress is ... a proper party" to defend the validity of a statute" in such circumstances.[20]
Well at least the House is fighting for something with is legally defensible. Maybe not according to David Lat.
Second Circuit Strikes Down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts
Lat also comments on who is getting paid by the American taxpayer to execute the legal battle.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an opinion written by a prominent conservative jurist, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, just voted to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The court issued its 2-1 decision just three weeks after hearing oral argument, which is extremely fast for a case of this complexity and importance .
UPDATE (11:55 AM): From Judge Jacobss opinion:
We conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional. Judge STRAUB dissents in part and concurs in part in a separate opinion.
One lose is not so bad, is it? Lat also comments on progress.Coming a few months after the Obamacare ruling, its another high-profile loss for former Solicitor General Paul Clement, one of the nations most talented Supreme Court advocates. When a lawyer as skilled as Paul Clement cant successfully defend an act of Congress before the likes of Judge Michael Boudin (1st Cir.) and Judge Dennis Jacobs (2d Cir.), maybe its a sign that the law in question has some issues?
It would appear that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which is defending DOMA, has now lost at least six cases in a row and spent about $1.5 million doing so.
If the republicans of the house were to argue against funding the rest of the Sandy relief bill, raising the debit ceiling, or any number of other issues on the biases that they are the responsible ones with tax payers money they want to look to what Carolyn Lockhead brought attention to.
GOP continues DOMA defense among first acts of new Congress | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog
Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, lambasted Republicans for not allowing an up-or-down majority vote on a stand-alone DOMA defense, instead of hiding it in the rules package.
On this defining issue of our time, House Republicans are continuing to fight for discrimination and using the Rules package to make it seem as if all Members of the House feel that way, Honda said in a statement.
Will this be a thorn in republicans side until they cease giving lawyers blank checks to argue legal cases they feel should be fought on moral grounds? Well, it just might be.
So in conclusion how many wrongs make a right? Apparently a lot of wrongs make the right.