Republicans Appeal DOMA Case to Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Jun 30, 2012.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    Oh GOP, bad move for you:

    http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...29/republicans-appeal-doma-case-supreme-court
     
  2. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #2
    So this is like the Prop. 8 case, pretty much.

    With them suing the United States, SCOTUS has to take the case. However, since the United States is the defendant, the U.S. Attorney General is the lawyer that has to defend the United States. As he and the White House have stated that they will not defend the case, the issue of legal standing again bears its head.

    Do the House Reds have legal standing in the case, since it is the Attorney General that handles it? IIRC, the US District Court sent that same question to the 9th Circuit, which ruled that they didn't. So following US District court, the House Reds would not have standing in this.

    Resident lawyers, what say you, in your opinions?

    BL.
     
  3. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #3
    You're right - it is a bad move. Unfortunately, even if it's upheld by SCOTUS they won't stop trying to legislate discrimination.

    And Pelosi has it right - with all the talk about the state of our economy why the heck are they continuing to waste OUR money in an effort to deny our equal rights. And people wonder why we feel the way we do about Republicans. They really are doing it to themselves.
     
  4. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    The law has not been upheld in several cases. I doubt SCOTUS will disagree. BTW- the AG has refused to defend it. The Republicans decided to with, guess what? Our money.

    Yep- wasting time defending something that most people, even many Republicans themselves, say is not important.
     
  5. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    Don't get me wrong; I totally agree that SCOTUS will probably not uphold it, and with the AG refusing to defend it, I doubt SCOTUS will even give it a glance. However, that also puts more of an onus on the November elections, relative to SCOTUS' decision to take the case or not.

    Ultimately, I hope they don't, so this can be put to bed permanently; I was just wondering what the legal options were for this; If the US District Court's opinion holds on legal standing, more than likely, SCOTUS will refuse the case.

    And yet they worry about overspending in this economy, yet they continue to fleece the country about something that does not get their constituents anything of what they were campaigning for; in short, where are the jobs?

    BL.
     
  6. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Again the current GOP is more interested in power than doing what's right. This is just one more example.
     
  7. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #7
    This to me is more evidence that the GOP has stood still, and the rest of the world has moved on.
    If it was not so serious because it could impact people lives, it would be funny.
     
  8. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #8
    When I see things like this it amazes me.

    I know any side of politics are ugly but republicans just seem to be the most backwards out there.
     
  9. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #9
    An endless source of dark, twisted entertainment.
     
  10. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    It's not entertaining for those of us who live here.
     
  11. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #11
    Hence the dark and twisted qualifier.
     
  12. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #12
    By the same logic that John Roberts used to uphold the Affordable Care Act, the Defense of Marriage Act must also be constitutional. Just consider it a "tax" on gay marriage.

    ----------


    There. I fixed it for you. We are both right.
     
  13. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #13
    At least the Democrats grab for power is ending discrimination, etc. ;)
     
  14. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #14
    Let us never forget who signed DOMA into law. President William Jefferson Clinton. DADT was his idea, as well. Meanwhile Dick Cheney publicly supported gay marriage 3 years before Barack Obama.

    Sometimes labels aren't always so clear.

    ----------

    Not really. Lyndon Johnson started the Vietnam War. The "ACA" is primarily a sop to insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies. And Wall Street bankers tend to give more of their donations to Democrats. The CEOs of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are prominent Democrats. Jon Corzine of MF Global - Democrat. But what's $1.6 billion of customer money between friends?
     
  15. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #15
    Or awkward, like a virgin trying to get laid, with someone, anyone. :D
     
  16. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #16
    And how does the Vietnam War fit in with ending discrimination? If you want to bring up the past, why not mention the Democrats supporting slavery and Republicans supporting black rights( which then swapped)?

    I am in agreement with you that both parties are interested in power. The Democrats move to end DOMA, DADT, etc is an obvious voter grab. But, at least it is still the right thing to do. The GOP are representing their interests too, but those interests are in the wrong, IMHO.
     
  17. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #17


    umm but it fails under the fact that it is discrimitory and you can not have a tax that is based on discrimiation. It would be like taxing someone because they are black.
     
  18. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #18
    It's still not entertaining living here, even dark and twisted :p. Basically all politics in the US is just an awful horror show/train wreck/nuclear meltdown all in one.



    Should keep the legal reasoning to lawyers and justices.
     
  19. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #20
    Don't be so sure. We tax married heterosexual people differently from unmarried heterosexual people. That form of discrimination has been allowed.

    My point isn't that DOMA is good law or bad law. It's that the SCOTUS precedent that was set on Thursday, while positive to the Left last week, could easily be used against them in the future.

    ----------

    It's impossible not to bring up the past because we don't know the future yet. Therefore, past actions, including relatively recent past actions, are often seen as a sign of future actions.

    Anyway, I think it is important that the very president who pushed the Civil Rights Act through also advanced the Vietnam War. It makes me suspicious of his motives. Did he really believe in the Civil Rights Act, or did he pass it for political reasons? If the latter, was the particular act the right one for our times, or could a better version have been drafted?


    People who disagree with you would think that the Democrats' interest are "wrong." As for the Democrats, I don't think that ACA was the right thing to do. It is forcing hospitals to merge into larger and more bureaucratic organizations. It is riddled with special interest favors to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. You can't just look at a law's stated intent and say that its proponents are trying to do the right thing.

    ----------

    As for the Democrats vs. the GOP, you of all people should know better. Do you think Mike Madigan cares about doing what's right? Do you think that the mayor of Bridgeview, who saddled a middle class town with $200 million of debt to build a sports stadium it can't afford (but which lines his own pockets) cares about what is right?

    Did Rod Blagojevich do what was right for the people of Illinois? What about Jesse Jackson Jr.? Did Richard Daley do what was right for the people of Chicago when he sold the parking meters to a bank for the next 75 years? How has the violent crime rate been doing in Chicago over the last few years?

    Illinois has no credible GOP and hasn't in over a decade. And even its Republicans aren't of the Tea Party variety. Therefore, it should be a paradise.
     
  20. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #21
    But taxing someone different based on being married or not than saying nope because they are gay.

    It is already pretty clear you do not understand the ruling at all and at most just spitting out talking points with zero understanding.
     
  21. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #22
    This is a good thing and I am glad they are doing it. It's a very positive sign, albeit a subtle one. DOMA cannot survive a Supreme Court challenge. The GOP must still have competent advisors telling them this.

    If they wanted to preserve discrimination, the smart move would be to stall, to keep the political football in play as long as possible. The fact they're rushing to the Supreme Court means they think their biggest political upside comes from blowing their wad now. The opportunity to pander to the hateful idiot wing of the party via an affected stand over a hopeless case, followed by a bit of empty histrionic wailing about "liberal activist judges," is more valuable to them than the issue itself.

    In the last twenty years, gay rights issues for the Right have moved from a hill worth dying on to a minor election year bump issue. It may be less gratifying than open acceptance, but that's progress.
     
  22. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #23
    Out of mind, out of sight. :p
     
  23. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #24
    No, what's clear is that you don't understand the constitutional implications of the ruling but are just spitting out talking points with zero understanding.

    The DOMA prohibits the IRS from recognizing same-sex marriages for purposes of tax law. Provisions of it absolutely can be upheld using the taxing power. Opponents are going to attempt to argue that DOMA violates the 14th Amendment, and my guess is that the 4 liberals on the court are going to agree with them. Chances are good that the 3 conservatives will disagree, leaving Kennedy and/or Roberts to decide the fate of the law.

    If Kennedy sides with the 3 conservatives (a big if, since he is usually more liberal on social issues), it would not surprise me at all if the conservatives throw the ACA argument right back at Roberts and claim that at least certain provisions of DOMA are a proper use of the government's taxing authority. After all, the government is not required to treat any married couples differently from singles for tax purposes.

    One of the criticisms of constitutional law in recent decades had been that the commerce clause had been stretched well beyond its intent. In the case of ACA, it was actually ratcheted back a little bit. However, it was the first time that SCOTUS ruled that something described repeatedly in a law as a penalty was reinterpreted as a tax for the purpose of upholding its constitutionality. That has significant constitutional ramifications, as most of the lower courts had previously ruled that the "tax" argument did not hold water. When faced with a similar law in the future, they will be bound by that precedent.

    It's been held to be constitutional that the tax code can discriminate against renters, unmarried people or married people (depending on circumstances), those who have income from one source vs. another. Now if we include explicit penalties in the definition the possibility to wreak havoc is even higher. Roberts tried to draw a distinction by pointing to the size of the penalty and its superficial similarity to an income tax with a tax credit, but judges are going to be hard pressed not to rule that a penalty is allowable as a tax until and unless we see more rulings clarifying exactly what this meant.

    I despise the DOMA as much as anyone else here. However, unlike most of you, I see issues with the mental gymnastics that the Chief Justice used to uphold the individual mandate.
     
  24. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #25
    I find it incredible that any conservative can resolve their position on low taxation and personal freedom with opposition for marriage equality. It smacks of the comment from Egyptian diplomat Omar Shalaby earlier this week that human rights don't apply to LGBTs because we're "not real people".
     

Share This Page