Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA

The administration considers the act a violation of Constitutional Equal Protection, and will no longer defend it in lawsuits like one in Massachusetts earlier this yea (which the administration lost)r:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?_r=1&hp

 

Not sure why they did in the first place, unless it was under the same idea that Congress would overturn it (which we know it never would).

 

I just figured that the DOJ was obligated, either legally or ethically, to defend federal laws. Which is kind of the same as what you're saying: That it was Congress's job to overturn it, not the federal courts.

 

The lesson: Ignore the laws you don't like.

 

Like FISA?

 

Technically, they're not ignoring it. They're arguing, too, that it's unconstitutional.

 

Yeah, this is one of the issues where I'm pretty liberal.

I cannot fathom why anyone would care who anyone else marries.

But, it is saying something that Obama wouldn't take this stance during the election. It wouldn't have mattered because he would have won anyway.

 

Obama's administration makes its strongest stands on precisely these matters.

 

Every administration I can recall makes strong stands on issues that play to its base.

That's why elections have consequences.

 

You mean like 'contempt of Congress?'

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bush_wont_enforce_contempt_of_congress_warrants/

 

I wouldn't disagree. But Obama makes his strongest stands on these kinds of issues.

 

From what I know and have read, the only thing the DOJ has to do is inform Congress if it will not defend a federal law. In the instance of DADT, the administration defended the law because it wanted Congress to overturn it and thought it would create more havoc if it was suddenly overturned by the courts. This doesn't seem to be such a delicate issue, and I doubt Congress will be moving quickly to overturn it (though Feinstein just announced she'll file repeal legislation in the Senate).

Tony, as far as "ignoring laws you don't like goes," it's not that simple. Holder and the DOJ lawyers have clearly outlined their legal argument and their belief that there is a clear conflict with the equal protection clause in the Constitution. The DOJ isn't "ignoring" the law; it's just going to start arguing against it.