It's Official

[Avorysuds]

To me this is a blaring example of just how incredibly lazy Obama is. Change the laws if you believe in them so much and take the heat if you pass something that's BS, like Obamacare. Be a great President that upholds the constitution if that's what you're doing and the future will judge you well.

Again, while I agree the law is crap, how can liberals be proud of a president that gets literally NOTHING done? Going off *passed* policy Obama is STILL nothing more than Bush III... "Be a man"

Obama, show up for work and CHANGE something... Even if people expected change overnight, it’s been well over 700 nights, it’s time to pass something meaningful and constitutional.

 

[whitehall]

Need more examples? A federal judge ruled the entire health care mess to be unconstitutional. The administration ignores it. A federal judge held the Obama administration in contempt for the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. The administration ignores it. The truth of the matter is that Americans are busy with their own lives. They depend on the media to alert them to allegations that the government may be violating the law. When the media ignores criminal behavior or supports criminal behavior in the government.... anything is possible.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Typical dimwits, thinking they can pick and choose which laws can be enforced. Obama and his admin. has been a complete and utter failure.

next time you want to type something this stupid, dont, take your keyboard and smack yourself in the face with it. whatever comes out will actually be more useful.

Next time you want to type something this stupid, dont. Learn about capitol letters, periods, and little shit like that.........You know, basic writing skills?

Glass houses, stones?

 

[drsmith1072]

Given that his Injustice Department refused to prosecute the blatant violation of voting rights by the New Black Panthers, it's been evident for some time now that they have no qualms about selective enforcement of standing laws.

If you are referring to the 2008 black panther case the obama justice department did not refuse to prosecute but thanks for the flat out lie.
W's justice department dropped the initial criminal case and then a few week before W left office the civil rights division of the justice department filed a CIVIL suit in which the primary defendant had an injunction filed against him by the court.

So why did W's Injustice Department refused to prosecute the blatant violation of voting rights by the New Black Panthers?

 

[old navy]

He ignored the gays for two years and now has to pander to them because he is about to lose the unions. They are his next cash cow. No offense intended.

 

[percysunshine]

From Morrissey:

"the AG’s DOMA decision applies only to DOMA sec. 3, which sets a federal definition of marriage. That’s the part that overrode state primacy in family issues like marriage. DOMA sec. 2, which holds that states do not have to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages from other states, is not at issue in any federal litigation and is not disturbed by the AG’s 530D notice."

Breaking: Obama to abandon DOMA defense « Hot Air

 

[Oddball]

Given that his Injustice Department refused to prosecute the blatant violation of voting rights by the New Black Panthers, it's been evident for some time now that they have no qualms about selective enforcement of standing laws.

If you are referring to the 2008 black panther case the obama justice department did not refuse to prosecute but thanks for the flat out lie.
W's justice department dropped the initial criminal case and then a few week before W left office the civil rights division of the justice department filed a CIVIL suit in which the primary defendant had an injunction filed against him by the court.

So why did W's Injustice Department refused to prosecute the blatant violation of voting rights by the New Black Panthers?

Wrong again, numbnuts.

Lexington Libertarian: Holder Refuses To Prosecute Black Panthers

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/07/holder’s-justice-department-has-a-racism-issue/

 

[Avorysuds]

He ignored the gays for two years and now has to pander to them because he is about to lose the unions. They are his next cash cow. No offense intended.

I agree. Give in without actually doing anything for them because once he "fixes" the issue he can't hold it over their heads during elections.

 

[Big Black Dog]

We are no longer a "Nation of Laws" We get to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws we will or will not follow.. Good luck to you my Fellow Americans. Good luck to youl.

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama's misgivings with the policy. The administration's attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

If we get to pick and choose, then I choose to not pay anymore taxes.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We are no longer a "Nation of Laws" We get to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws we will or will not follow.. Good luck to you my Fellow Americans. Good luck to youl.

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama's misgivings with the policy. The administration's attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

If we get to pick and choose, then I choose to not pay anymore taxes.

Lol, I was thinking the same thing. Hell, if we're gonna start picking and chunking laws I'm quitting the taxes, nothing personal.

 

[rdking647]

funny didnt bush do the same thing.
and if you bothered to read the article youd realize that The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it. all that has happened is if/when a court strikes it down the government wont appeal it..

What law did he chose not to enforce?

And please provide a link.

Justice Department Refuses to Defend Congress in Legal Battle Over Law Censoring Marijuana Policy Ads

Justice Department Refuses to Defend Congress in Legal Battle Over Law Censoring Marijuana Policy Ads | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[rdking647]

>

United States Constitution, Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

28 USC § 519
Except as otherwise authorized by law, the Attorney General shall supervise all litigation to which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, and shall direct all United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys, and special attorneys appointed under section 543 of this title in the discharge of their respective duties.​

The United States Code is federal law and as such falls under the supremacy clause of the Constitution. The duty of the Attorney General (or his subordinates) is to represent the United States in suits pertaining to United States law.

While I think that the federal government should recognize all legal civil marriages entered into under State law, choosing not to defend an active section of the United States Code is not an option. I don't claim that federal attorney's have to believe the law is valid - they are free to have personal opinions about it. However if it's a valid law their duty is to defend it until such time as the law is struck as unconstitutional or Congress changes the United States Code.


>>>>

Justice Department Refuses to Defend Congress in Legal Battle Over Law Censoring Marijuana Policy Ads | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[drsmith1072]

Typical dimwits, thinking they can pick and choose which laws can be enforced. Obama and his admin. has been a complete and utter failure.

Apparently if you can get a lawyer to tell you it's legal then it's ok. thank W for that. LOL Funny how the right didn't seem to have a problem with W ignoring the bill of rights when he waterboarded people because he CHOSE to believe that human rights don't apply to non-citizens.

 

[Toro]

Is there precedence for this?

 

[jillian]

While I think the law is ignorant.

You don't get to pick the laws that you do and don't like.

Imagine trying to use this as a defense against a speeding ticket.

how friggin depressing.

actually, when your responsibility is to take up court time to defend laws, there is nothing wrong with determining that a particular law is constitutionally unsound.

i'm not quite seeing this as the end of the world.

now if you want to talk about citizens united..........

 

[LordBrownTrout]

While I think the law is ignorant.

You don't get to pick the laws that you do and don't like.

Imagine trying to use this as a defense against a speeding ticket.

how friggin depressing.

actually, when your responsibility is to take up court time to defend laws, there is nothing wrong with determining that a particular law is constitutionally unsound.

i'm not quite seeing this as the end of the world.

now if you want to talk about citizens united..........

.....SS.....medicare.......medicaid.........obamacare..........patriot act........ I'm sure there are several thousand others.

 

[drsmith1072]

Given that his Injustice Department refused to prosecute the blatant violation of voting rights by the New Black Panthers, it's been evident for some time now that they have no qualms about selective enforcement of standing laws.

If you are referring to the 2008 black panther case the obama justice department did not refuse to prosecute but thanks for the flat out lie.
W's justice department dropped the initial criminal case and then a few week before W left office the civil rights division of the justice department filed a CIVIL suit in which the primary defendant had an injunction filed against him by the court.

So why did W's Injustice Department refused to prosecute the blatant violation of voting rights by the New Black Panthers?

Wrong again, numbnuts.

Lexington Libertarian: Holder Refuses To Prosecute Black Panthers

tell me what I am supposed tio be looking for here. Don't have the time to sit and watch the video to look for something that you should supply.

John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

This from your own link backs up part of what I said.

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members,

You do know the difference between civil and criminal don't you? The crimial prosectution was dropped by W months earlier. Obama's justice department continued the civil case to it's completion resulting in an injuction.

Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years

so they did NOT dismiss the civil case and one of the defendants had an injuction filed against him. Thanks for proving me correct and you WRONG.

Holder

Nice blog, do you have any realiable sources that support your claim that obama's justice department refused to prosecute or are you done playing games and ready to admit that you were WRONG?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well it isn't as if President Obama hasn't always taken all side of the issue:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w[/ame]

With so much of the nation openly confronting his #1 support group, the unions, he may be feeling pressure to shore up affection from other groups.

 

[jillian]

While I think the law is ignorant.

You don't get to pick the laws that you do and don't like.

Imagine trying to use this as a defense against a speeding ticket.

how friggin depressing.

actually, when your responsibility is to take up court time to defend laws, there is nothing wrong with determining that a particular law is constitutionally unsound.

i'm not quite seeing this as the end of the world.

now if you want to talk about citizens united..........

.....SS.....medicare.......medicaid.........obamacare..........patriot act........ I'm sure there are several thousand others.

social security... good
medicare... good
health care reform... good
patriot act... bad, but good that they wouldn't renew a chunk of it.

but there hasn't been any court decision as bad as citizens united since dred scott, korematsu, and plessy v ferguson.

just my opinion.

 

[AquaAthena]

Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law - FoxNews.com

Yeah, he is in compaign mode and needs the gay vote. Politics as usual? I just wish he really meant it, as he is on record saying he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I say it's between two people who love one another, and I say it because I mean it. Truth.