Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down DOMA

[natyanayaki]

The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense Of Marriage Act in a brief that calls the law unconstitutional because it violates "the fundamental guarantee of equal protection

Comments

[alexvdl]

It's interesting that once again, the Obama administration is urging a different agency to deal with an issue it is capable of dealing with itself. Legal advisors told the President that he had the power to repeal DADT himself, but he chose to wait and let Congress take care of it. Now a similar situation presents itself in regards to DOMA. Of course there's no problems using executive powers to pay our congresspeople more.

That being said, I'm looking forward to DOMA being knocked down, whatever the method. There are some military weddings I'd like to attend.

[fluteaphrael]

The fact that he can do it is not the point. If he does it, and does not get Congress on board, the next president can just un do it. The whole point of doing it through Congress makes it monumentally harder for the next person to change it back. The whole point of getting the Supreme Court in on DOMA is that if they quash it, that's pretty much IT. Doing it by Executive Order is just way too easy to undo.

[alexvdl]

So if he had repealed DADT at the beginning of his term, it could've been reinstated in (possibly) 2013? That doesn't make sense. After the repeal it didn't happen over night. Months of training and certification has to take place. Reinstating DADT at this point wouldn't work. It doesn't go backwards like that.

Secondly, Executive orders can be undone by the courts (Which has happened twice in history); or by Congress either passing legislation in conflict with it or be refusing to approve funding to enforce it. If they pass the legislation, the President still has veto power which takes a 2/3rds congress supermajority to overturn.

If Obama repealed DOMA, it's not coming back.

[fluteaphrael]

Actually look at Prop 8 in California, that was to REPEAL a law too

[alexvdl]

You realize that we had eight years of Republican presidency in which Clinton's reversal could've been overturned right?

And that I went into ways which executive orders could be overturned? Good luck getting a congressional supermajority to take away marriage benefits from a group currently drawing on them. That's political suicide. Same for a president doing it. That's a pretty sure way to make sure you know ly serve one term.

Just because people campaign on stupid shit doesn't mean it's possible. Reinstating DADT isn't. Obama could overturn DOMA today and spend the next three and a half years of his presidency strengthening equality across the board, instead of talking a good game and leaving it up to others to do something about.

[happythree]

I find it rather odd that you seem so comfortable stating the future political character of a minority rights issue. While it is not likely that a Republican president overturning a DOMA executive order would be a popular move, naming any singular political move as 'suicide' is quite tricky, especially when it is an issue that only directly impacts a rather small segment of the population.

Also, I'm not sure that DADT is necessarily a useful DOMA equivalency.

[natyanayaki]

His administration stopped defending DOMA a while ago, it's stopped deporting individuals of binational same-sex couples.

That's political suicide. Same for a president doing it. That's a pretty sure way to make sure you know ly serve one term.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends upon the political climate, interests, priorities...

[natyanayaki]

That is something I wondered, but isn't going through Congress or the Supreme Court more effective in leading to more permanent legislation/government behavior, than if Obama were to use his powers?

[fluteaphrael]

Exactly and given the mess with 8 in California (something that was allowed, is now NOT allowed,) the nightmare of if he writes an order killing DOMA and it's reinstated, what do you do? Force everyone who was married while it was not in effect to pay back the taxes, etc. that they did not have to pay? Sue to recover the inheritance tax money that started the suit in the first place?

How on earth do you deal with the mess that would cause?

As an example (despite the fact that the Supreme Court used the WRONG standard, it should have been equal protection not "privacy,") look at how difficult it's been to even attempt to overturn Roe. If Roe had been decided by executive order, we'd be back to pre-Roe a million times over by now. Hundreds of laws are coming out trying to chip away at it and failing so far.

[natyanayaki]

And honestly, why the frak risk putting couples through that sort of emotional strain?

[fluteaphrael]

Thank you. Exactly. What the heck do you do with people's status if things change again. And it's not just emotional strain, there are huge legal and financial implications.

[natyanayaki]

True, I wanted to emphasize the emotional and mental strain on families, because I think it's harder to represent than the legal and financial confusions (does that make sense). Am I married? Are my children legally mine? Is she still my mom? Is he still my dad?

On the other hand, if the SCOTUS doesn't rule correctly I'll probably have another opinion...

[fluteaphrael]

Yeh. Here's hoping equal protection holds up.

[natyanayaki]

Yeah...

[rex_dart]

Yes.

I am engaged right now and the last thing I want is to have my marriage and my rights riding on an executive fucking order. The idea is just ridiculous to me.

[natyanayaki]

Congratulations! I really hope the SCOTUS rules appropriately...