So Much for the Fiscal Conservative...the Boehner Hires $5 Million Dollar Lawyer

[Quantum Windbag]

You just said in yer' post that it's $5,000,000.00.

That's what he usually makes. The Boehner won't disclose how much the House is paying him.

I just saw this too. Boehner wants the DOJ to pay for his private attorney. He didn't even consult w/ the minority leader about it before hiring/retaining him either.

Just curious, did you complain about Pelosi not cont consulting with the minority leader when she was working on health care?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At first, I wasn't sure what about this was outside of being fiscally conservative. I mean, lawyers cost money, like it or not. But then I realized that there's no need whatsoever for a private lawyer to do this. We already have a Department of Justice to defend laws in court when their constitutionality is challenged. So I'm rather disappointed by this now.

Are you really?

If you knew anything about how the government works you would know that the House and/or Senate often step in when the DOJ refuses to defend a law for whatever reason. Want to try again with your ill considered fake disappointment?

 

[gekaap]

Rre you really?

If you knew anything about how the government works you would know that the House and/or Senate often step in when the DOJ refuses to defend a law for whatever reason. Want to try again with your ill considered fake disappointment?

Really? Citation needed. Show an example. Also, show us where there is even a case in court that is challenging the DOMA act, and show us where the Justice Department is refusing to represent the federal government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rre you really?

If you knew anything about how the government works you would know that the House and/or Senate often step in when the DOJ refuses to defend a law for whatever reason. Want to try again with your ill considered fake disappointment?

Really? Citation needed. Show an example. Also, show us where there is even a case in court that is challenging the DOMA act, and show us where the Justice Department is refusing to represent the federal government?

Are you a complete idiot, or do you just play one one the internet? Did you even read the OP that talked about why Boehner is hiring a lawyer to defend DOMA, or do you honestly believe he thinks he needs to when the DOJ is already doing the job?

From the OP link.

“The burden of defending the [Defense of Marriage Act], and the resulting costs associated with any litigation that would have otherwise been born by DOJ, has fallen to the House,” Boehner wrote. “Obviously, DOJ’s decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA. It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA.”

I think that alone makes your entire post a complete failure.

As for the rest of your stupid challenge, you have all the information of the world at your fingertips, learn to search for yourself.

 

[gekaap]

No, you're really missing my point. Your arguing from partisan lines on nothing more than your insistence that your ideology be maintained, and everything else be damned. It is not the job of Congress to step in on this matter. You haven't a clue what's going on, which is why you can't even reference where the case is in court or say what's going on with it. You allege some kind of responsibility for the legislature to get involved, but the truth is that it's not Congress's place to do so. Defending the DOMA is an executive matter. For Congress to get involved inappropriately treads upon the separation of powers. But you don't care about that. All you care about is forcing your own ideology upon other people.

 

[grunt11b]

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement Signs Up to Defend Marriage Law

That's right...the weepy orange Boehner has hired a $5 million dollar a year lawyer to defend the Unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act.

Funny that he won't disclose how much he is paying Mr. Clement.

So much for being fiscally responsible...or transparent.

He almost spent as much on that lawyer than Obama did to squash the birth certificate issue.

 

[grunt11b]

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement Signs Up to Defend Marriage Law

That's right...the weepy orange Boehner has hired a $5 million dollar a year lawyer to defend the Unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act.

Funny that he won't disclose how much he is paying Mr. Clement.

So much for being fiscally responsible...or transparent.

You just said in yer' post that it's $5,000,000.00.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Take it easy on him, he's just a liberal.

 

[grunt11b]

I wonder if they took the money from WIC or from heating subsidies for old people.

cause, you know, it's all about priorities.

I hope they took it from all 3, because none of them are an entitlement, noones entitled to my hard earned dollar but me.

 

[uscitizen]

We need some tort reform!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you're really missing my point. Your arguing from partisan lines on nothing more than your insistence that your ideology be maintained, and everything else be damned. It is not the job of Congress to step in on this matter. You haven't a clue what's going on, which is why you can't even reference where the case is in court or say what's going on with it. You allege some kind of responsibility for the legislature to get involved, but the truth is that it's not Congress's place to do so. Defending the DOMA is an executive matter. For Congress to get involved inappropriately treads upon the separation of powers. But you don't care about that. All you care about is forcing your own ideology upon other people.

Why is it that every single time anyone disagrees with you they are being partisan? Does it ever cross your small mind that the problem just might be you and your biased world view? Does the fact that everyone in this thread but you knows that there are current cases pending in various courts that are challenging DOMA, that they all know that the DOJ has elected not to defend it, and that some of us actually know that the argument that is being used by Holder to justify not defending it is that it does not stand up to strict scrutiny? Does the fact that you are arguing from a position of total ignorance not make you wonder if you just might be wrong?

To repeat, and possibly clarify for the slow witted, I did not say the legislature has a responsibility to get involved. I pointed out that, if you knew anything about government, you would know that it has happened before. One time I recall reading about was when Ford refused to defend the post Watergate campaign finance laws. Congress hired a lawyer, and the laws were upheld by SCOTUS. Another example is Reagan's refusal to defend the independent counsel law, which was, again, defended by Congress. I hope that you are reasonably intelligent, and that, given those clues, you can look up any information you need in order to learn for yourself just how ignorant you are.

I will gladly take the time to point out that there are currently two separate challenges working their way through the appeals process where a judge found some provisions of DOMA unconstitutional.

Court Deals Blow to DOMA | News | The Advocate

Gee, look at that, you were wrong again. Amazing, isn't it?

My ideology has nothing to do with this. I actually think that, as long as the government is regulating marriage, that it should be legal for everyone who is capable of legal consent. All I am doing is pointing out the simple fact that Congress has the perfect right to defend any law it writes. Even Obama understands this, which is why, even though he thinks the law is unconstitutional and has refused to defend it, he is still enforcing it as written. If the president had the power to arbitrarily decide to ignore a law and refuse to defend it we would no longer be a nation of laws, which is something you are bog on, if I remember correctly.

By the way, in case you want to cling to your delusion that Obama did not decide to defend DOMA, here is the memo where Holder explains the decision not to defend it, presents the arguments about why Section 3 is unconstitutional, and states that, despite their belief, they will continue to enforce it.

Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

Back to the gist my first or second response to your idiocy, come back when you are in the real world. I am not the one that has a partisan viewpoint, nor am I the one that does not understand what is happening. Everyone reading this post now knows that you are the one that is out of the ballpark here. Admit you were wrong for once.

 

[gekaap]

Why is it that every single time anyone disagrees with you they are being partisan?

Gee, I don't know. You'd have to ask all the partisan hacks why they are being that way. In any event, I certainly do not level that claim at everyone. Only when people earn it, for lacking anything more than partisanship by which to maintain their positions.

Does it ever cross your small mind that the problem just might be you and your biased world view?

Of course not. After all, if I were so biased as you suggest, I'd be too biased to ever consider such a possibility. Fortunately, though, I'm not in the habit of giving in to biases. As a matter of fact, I routinely take stands on issues that is opposite of where biases would lead me. That's why, as a Jew, I am a fierce critic of Israel and the US's cozy relationship with them. And why, as a Hispanic, I am a staunch opponent to the open borders ideology.

Does the fact that everyone in this thread but you knows that there are current cases pending in various courts that are challenging DOMA, that they all know that the DOJ has elected not to defend it, and that some of us actually know that the argument that is being used by Holder to justify not defending it is that it does not stand up to strict scrutiny?

Sorry, could you say that again in a coherent sentence?

Does the fact that you are arguing from a position of total ignorance not make you wonder if you just might be wrong?

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is arguing from a position of total ignorance?

To repeat, and possibly clarify for the slow witted, I did not say the legislature has a responsibility to get involved. I pointed out that, if you knew anything about government, you would know that it has happened before.

So, they have no responsibility to get involved, but they do it for shits and giggles? Is that what you're saying? It's clear that if members of Congress are acting, implicit in that action is that they have a responsibility to do so. And if you support them acting, then you support the notion that they have such a responsibility.

One time I recall reading about was when Ford refused to defend the post Watergate campaign finance laws. Congress hired a lawyer, and the laws were upheld by SCOTUS. Another example is Reagan's refusal to defend the independent counsel law, which was, again, defended by Congress.

That still does not justify blurring the lines of the separation of powers.

I hope that you are reasonably intelligent, and that, given those clues, you can look up any information you need in order to learn for yourself just how ignorant you are.

What am I supposed to learn here? That it's happened before? So what. Deficit spending has happened before. Should we do it again?

I will gladly take the time to point out that there are currently two separate challenges working their way through the appeals process where a judge found some provisions of DOMA unconstitutional.

Good for you. What's your point? Pointing this out now does not change the fact that your comments were based on nothing of merit, mere partisan hackery.

Gee, look at that, you were wrong again. Amazing, isn't it?

I'll let you know if it ever happens.

My ideology has nothing to do with this. I actually think that, as long as the government is regulating marriage, that it should be legal for everyone who is capable of legal consent.

Ah, so that explains why you are bitching that the DOJ is in the wrong.

All I am doing is pointing out the simple fact that Congress has the perfect right to defend any law it writes.

Whoa, wait a second here!! That's certainly not listed in the restrictive list of powers of the Congress. So glad to see you conceding that Congress has powers to act as they see proper and just, even if it goes beyond the specifically enumerated powers in the constitution.

Even Obama understands this, which is why, even though he thinks the law is unconstitutional and has refused to defend it, he is still enforcing it as written.

How does that have anything to do with Congress having some kind of place to venture into Executive territory?

If the president had the power to arbitrarily decide to ignore a law and refuse to defend it we would no longer be a nation of laws, which is something you are bog on, if I remember correctly.

This sounds alot like the complaints about the federal government not doing enough to enforce immigration law giving rise to the states to adopt their own immigration laws. The same answer applies here as it does there. The federal government has the prerogative to set for itself priorities. If the executive branch considers the law unconstitutional, that is their prerogative to not defend it against challenge. They have other priorities than defending a law they find to be clearly unconstitutional.

By the way, in case you want to cling to your delusion that Obama did not decide to defend DOMA, here is the memo where Holder explains the decision not to defend it, presents the arguments about why Section 3 is unconstitutional, and states that, despite their belief, they will continue to enforce it.

Straw man.

Back to the gist my first or second response to your idiocy, come back when you are in the real world.

There already. Don't you see me? Guess you must not be here.

I am not the one that has a partisan viewpoint, nor am I the one that does not understand what is happening.

Oh, I see. This is like WMDs and God. It's there, it's just hidden and we have to just have faith. You don't have to say anything other than spout off trivialities. We can all just rest assured that you have good reasons behind everything you say.

Everyone reading this post now knows that you are the one that is out of the ballpark here.

Actually, it's you who is completely out of the ballpark. You don't get at all what I'm saying or where I'm going with all of this. You actually think this is about the DOMA. Hook, line, sinker.

Admit you were wrong for once.

I can't. I'm mind numbingly biased, remember? How could anyone so biased even consider that he was wrong, much less admit it?








Now, to get to the real point directly.....look at how self contradictory and illogical you've been here? You're so caught up with arguing with me, you've lost sight of the real arguments to your stance. All I did was question the need to spend tax dollars on a cross branch reach of powers, and you had to quickly jump up and react with inflammatory comments. React to what? What did you think you saw in that post of mine? You instantly applied assumptions and attributes that needed to be attacked, and attacked immediately. This kind of shit happens all the time on this board, and so many discussions end up being nothing more than flame fests and name calling. And sadly, it's what brings most posters onto this board day after day, because so many people here are more interested with winning it for their "team" then they are in having a reasonable discussion.

FTR, yes, if Congress really wants to, I guess it's fine enough for them to hire a lawyer for this (though I wonder if, procedurally, it should be treated like any other expenditure legislation, and be required to be signed by the POTUS). I just don't think it's a worthy expenditure when we already have mountains of deficits, to defend a bill that the DOJ considers unconstitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now, to get to the real point directly.....look at how self contradictory and illogical you've been here? You're so caught up with arguing with me, you've lost sight of the real arguments to your stance. All I did was question the need to spend tax dollars on a cross branch reach of powers, and you had to quickly jump up and react with inflammatory comments. React to what? What did you think you saw in that post of mine? You instantly applied assumptions and attributes that needed to be attacked, and attacked immediately. This kind of shit happens all the time on this board, and so many discussions end up being nothing more than flame fests and name calling. And sadly, it's what brings most posters onto this board day after day, because so many people here are more interested with winning it for their "team" then they are in having a reasonable discussion.

That is the real point here? Does that mean that your insistence that the law was not under any challenge at all, and that the DOJ would automatically defend it because it is their job, didn't really have anything to do with the topic at all? Why did you mention it in the first place then? Are you incapable of talking without spurting out irrelevant topics and side issues?

FTR, yes, if Congress really wants to, I guess it's fine enough for them to hire a lawyer for this (though I wonder if, procedurally, it should be treated like any other expenditure legislation, and be required to be signed by the POTUS). I just don't think it's a worthy expenditure when we already have mountains of deficits, to defend a bill that the DOJ considers unconstitutional.

Not only does something like this not have to go through POTUS, it does not even have to be voted on by Congress. Boehner's idea to get the money from Justice might need to jump through the hoops, but the executive branch has no real say in how Congress spends its own budget. That is part of that pesky little check and balances thingy that keeps tripping up people that think the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement Signs Up to Defend Marriage Law

That's right...the weepy orange Boehner has hired a $5 million dollar a year lawyer to defend the Unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act.

Funny that he won't disclose how much he is paying Mr. Clement.

So much for being fiscally responsible...or transparent.

He almost spent as much on that lawyer than Obama did to squash the birth certificate issue.

Until someone posts a link to the contrary, I'll just assume that Obama spent personal money defending his birth cert, not tax payer dollars.

Apples & Oranges