March 27, 2013

Obama thinks it's "important for the court to weigh in" on gay marriage.

"My hope is that the court reaches these issues," he said, alluding to the standing problems in the 2 cases, which could keep the Court from reaching the merits.

The standing problem in the DOMA case resulted from Obama's own decision not to defend the law. I'm sure Obama — as an erstwhile lawprof — knows that the Supreme Court doesn't just "weigh in" on issues. It can only decide real adversarial disputes between parties, and his refusal to defend the federal statute is the basis of the argument that this is not a "case" within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution.

39 comments:

Amartel said...

Voting present.

Vilis Po said...

Be paid weekly and earn like a boss. I just bought a brand new Renault 4 from having earned $9057 this past 5 weeks and a little over 10 grand lass month. Its by far the easiest and without any doubt the most financially rewarding job I've ever had. I actually started 8 months ago, and practically, straight away got at least $81p/h! This is what I do Epic2.com

edutcher said...

Translation:

Get ready for, "Mr Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it".

and I thought a lecturer wasn't the same as a lawprof.

madAsHell said...

I think it's interesting that we have never heard from any of his former students.

CWJ said...

Oh bite me! I am SO tired of this subject! I've yet to read a new point on the subject in anything you've posted. What else is there to be said? Let them rule already.

But hey, I get it! Your blog your interests. I just didn't realize that you were THIS invested in the subject.

MayBee said...

Whenever Obama has had an opportunity to demonstrate he understand how things work, he has let it go by, untaken.

Palladian said...

as an erstwhile lawprof

Lecturer, not prof.

bpm4532 said...

Can this guy be anymore of an embarrassment as a "constitutional" lawyer/professor? The Court doesn't just "weigh-in".

AJ Lynch said...

"Erstwhile law prof" - a good description for President Halfass.

bpm4532 said...

Can someone check Obama for a heartbeat or a brain wave? Maybe we have an out...

Amartel said...

Work is for other people.

CWJ said...

Palladian,

He was less than that. An adjunct professor, at least I believe that was his title, is less than a lecturer.

Skyler said...

Homosexual marriage is an issue that voters should decide, one way or another. It does not rise to Constitutional levels.

bpm4532 said...

After we're done redefining marriage, we'll probably see litigation over "woman" and "female" as discriminatory and oppressive and must be stricken from use.

Mel said...

I hope they decide they don't have standing on DOMA. I'd like to know if Obama has any convictions for which he is willing to take a public action, rather than about which he's willing to make a public statement.

Also, I'd like to know if he's paying any attention at all to North Korea threatening to fire of a nuke or the fact that northern Lebanon is falling apart while we're all looking at the civil definition of marriage or that the EU may imploding when Cypriot banks reopen. But I suppose that's a conversation for another post.

CEO-MMP said...

Not an erstwhile lawprof or any other form of lawprof. Just a putz who no longer even has a law license. I wonder why?

And he wants the court involved because all good libtarded fucks think the courts (and lawyers) are the ultimate, the tops, the smile on the Mona Lisa.

Fuck that and fuck him.

rastajenk said...

"I'm sure Obama — as an erstwhile lawprof — knows that the Supreme Court doesn't just "weigh in" on issues."

I'm not.

CEO-MMP said...

CWJ said...

Oh bite me! I am SO tired of this subject! I've yet to read a new point on the subject in anything you've posted. What else is there to be said? Let them rule already.

But hey, I get it! Your blog your interests. I just didn't realize that you were THIS invested in the subject.

Mother of the bride baby, mother of the bride.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

Of course SCOTUS has to weigh in; he lacks gravitas.

pm317 said...

It is above his pay grade.

Mark said...

Of course Obama and Holder enforce DOMA. To do otherwise will decrease revenue (because married couples pay a lower effective tax rate that two single people) and increase costs (because a married couple is entitled to more federal benefits than are two single people).

Asking Obama to be honest about it is like asking a shark to eat its salad.

(Sorry for the delete and repost; had to fix a specific type that bugs me to no end.)

Nomennovum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nomennovum said...

Why does Choom always speak in meaningless platitudes?

We must like this shit. We deserve him, I guess.

SteveR said...

Obama weighs in by voting present or giving a speech, he can't possibly understand what the Supreme Court does beyond what people Valerie tells him to nominate.

bagoh20 said...

Hey, I didn't vote for him, ever, but he did win over the intellectuals of Erstwhile - a proud and silly people of of considerable influence in the realm, who speak a strange language full of words of shifting definition. They survive by siphoning off the funds of people living near their communal villages. They love gatherings with song and and signs. Very curious people.

Kirk Parker said...

The sarcasm, it burns...

Revenant said...

I think gay marriage is a good idea.

That being said, I eagerly await a resolution -- ANY resolution -- on this issue so we can get back to dealing with problems that actually fuckin' matter.

mccullough said...

No standing. The executive branch enforces the law or doesn't.

It would actually be good for Republicans to propose repeal of DOMA on the grounds that marriage isn't a federal issue. If states recognize a marriage, then federal laws should follow the states. That's what being in favor of limited government means.

Nathan Alexander said...

So...pretty much the exact opposite of his opinion on SCOTUS and Obamacare. The betrayal of his earlier principle being delivered without a hint of shame, and the press not batting an eyelash as they fail to call him on it.

David said...

Maybe he's just stupid.

bgates said...

He's not worried about an unelected group of people somehow overturning a duly constituted and passed law?

Bruce Hayden said...

Homosexual marriage is an issue that voters should decide, one way or another. It does not rise to Constitutional levels.

The basic problem with the court case, as far as I am concerned, is that if the Supreme Court rejects DOMA, it will be essentially doing what it did with abortion - forcing a judicial solution before the country was ready for it.

What must be remembered about abortion and Roe v. Wade is that by the time that the case was decided, public sentiment was shifting in favor of some abortion, with enough states having allowed it, that except in the deep south, the travel to get an abortion for most Americans would not have been that onerous. Sure, they might have had to travel to the next state to get one, but that is far superior to the situation even a couple years earlier.

But, with Roe v. Wade, you had a large chunk of the population effectively disenfranchised by a majority of a nine member court. And, since the subject was never solved democratically, as it was rapidly being solved at the time of the decision, the battle lines have just hardened over the last 40 years. In other words, abortion is more of a hot-button issue now than when the Supreme Court decided that case, because the issue was decided judicially, instead of democratically.

And, that may be just what is probably likely to happen here if the Court were to invalidate DOMA - the issue becoming more divisive, instead of less so, because it was decided judicially, and not democratically.

The interesting thing to me is that the national sentiment seems to be shifting in favor of SSM. I, for one, am quite a bit more ambivalent than a couple years ago. So, I would expect that in a couple of years, legislative repeal of DOMA is entirely possible. And, esp. as some of the biggest states experiment with recognizing SSM.

Tank said...

CWJ said...
Palladian,

He was less than that. An adjunct professor, at least I believe that was his title, is less than a lecturer.

Ironically enough (or not), many of my best prof's at law school were adjunct professors. There is no reason to think that an adjunct professor is any less capable than a "regular" or tenured professor. My impression was that the adjuncts themselves were not all that impressed with the full professors.

Tank said...

Was Zero a regular adjunct professor, or was he really an AA token?

If he applied himself, I think he might have made a good professor, he's just not a good President.

AllenS said...

I've got news for everyone, Obama wasn't a good community organizer, either. He sucks at everything.

I don't think that Michelle has any worthwhile credits to show for her affirmative actioned education.

Both of them are poster children for what is so terribly wrong with AA.

Jay said...

I'm sure Obama — as an erstwhile lawprof — knows that the Supreme Court doesn't just "weigh in" on issues

Nothing Obama has ever said or done indicates he would know any such thing.

Jay said...

Also, I'd like to know if he's paying any attention at all to North Korea threatening to fire of a nuke

Aren't they afraid of gay marriage in North Korea?

You'd think Obama would be all over those bigoted homophobes.

Joshua said...

Be paid weekly and earn like a boss! I just bought a great Mazda MX-5 from having earned $7126 this past 4 weeks and $10k past month. Without any doubt this is the easiest and most comfortable job I’ve ever had. I began this 6 months ago and right away was bringing in more than $83 per/h. Here’s what I’ve been doing Rich45.com