Hot off the newswires, WorldNetDaily is reporting that the Department of Justice—sorry, make that BARACK OBAMA’S Department of Justice (very important to note that it’s his own personal Department of Justice)—is being sued again.
Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has been sued in federal court – again – for picking and choosing which of the nation’s laws it wants to enforce.
The newest case is being brought by Judicial Watch on behalf of the Family Research Council. It focuses on the announcement last winter from Attorney General Eric Holder that his department – assigned the responsibility of defending the U.S. and its laws – simply won’t do that when it comes to the congressionally approved and presidentially signed Defense of Marriage Act.
“When Barack Obama became president, he took an oath to uphold our laws – and not just the ones with which he personally agrees,” said FRC President Tony Perkins.
Yes, he did take an oath to uphold our laws, starting with the Constitution, which the DOMA and the PATRIOT Act both violate. He’s quite right to refuse to violate the Constitution when it comes to marriage. I wish he would be equally principled in refusing to violate the First and Fourth Amendments by enforcing the PATRIOT Act. Perkins is right about there being a problem, he’s just objecting to the wrong inconsistency.
And there’s a point that they seem to be missing. And I could be mistaken, but from everything I’ve read, my understanding is:
The law is still being upheld
Lawsuits challenging certain aspects of the law are not being fought
These are two very different points. So the President is certainly upholding his oath to the people by enforcing the law as it exists now. But why waste time (and money.. buckets and buckets of money) on fighting lawsuits that they know they will lose on constitutional grounds?
At first I thought it was you that was saying it was Barack Obama’s Department of Justice.
So the Justice Department is being sued for not upholding DOMA?
… hold on a sec here. If this goes to trial, the main point for the defense will be that the DOMA is unconstitutional, which is why they aren’t supporting it. If the defense wins… won’t that be a legal precedent upholding the notion that DOMA is unconstitutional?
I mean, we of rational thinking already know it is, but if gets written down in the “official books” as being such… isn’t that a huge gain for decency?
In point of fact, the justice department isn’t actually refusing to enforce the law. They’re just not defending it in the courts, but until it’s overturned or repealed, it is still the law, and the federal government won’t recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in states where they’re legal.
Perhaps by suing the Justice Department, they are doing what Obama expected. This will hasten the determination by courts that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Not enforcing a law is entirely different from declining to defend a law in a court challenge. The Obama Administration is doing the latter.
Anyway, as I understand DOMA, it doesn’t require the federal govt to DO anything; it requires the feds to refrain from doing certain things (e.g. requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages in other states). So “enforcing” the law just means not doing any of that stuff.
Hey, do you think that you can participate in a debate with Vox Day about the existence of gods? Go here. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/debate-as-blood-sport.html
Given that my first post establishes Reality itself as arguably divine, I’m not sure I qualify as an atheist debater. If Vox were to have a debate on whether or not the Christian version of God is more consistent with the real-world evidence, I’d be happy to take the “He’s not” side.
It might be of service for you to direct interested parties to your previous interactions with this #*% (trying to keep it clean) over at evangelical realism.
This is the pdf of the lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on bdhalf of the Family Research Council. The complaint is this: FRC filed a FOIA request on February 28, 2011, asking for emails re: the decision not to defend the DOMA. In June, FRC received over 300 emails in response to FRCs request; additionally, FRC was told that 27 emails were withheld because they contained restricted information. FRC wrote back in June, initiating an administrative appeal concerming those restricted 27 emails. The Civil Division wrote back in a letter dated July 28, 2011, that FRCs request for an appeal had been received on 18 July; Civil Division had 20 days to respond the the FRCs request for an administrative ruling and did not meet that deadline.
Let’s recap: FRC received over 300 emails from the CD concerning the DOMA. The CD said 27 other emails were off-limits. FRC requested an administrative appeal about those 27 emails and then asked Judicial Watch to sue when the CD didn’t respond by August 15, 2011. Judicial Watch filed the complaint on August 29th.
Those are the facts, and they’re available from JDs own complaint. Does WND mention any of this in its ‘report’? No. Does WND correctly identify the law (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(ii) Freedom of Information Act) which prompted the lawsuit? No. WND wants to talk about DOMA. which of ‘the nation’s laws’ led to FRCs lawsuit?:
From WorldNet Daily, “Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has been sued in federal court – again – for picking and choosing which of the nation’s laws it wants to enforce…(the lawsuit) focuses on the announcement last winter from Attorney General Eric Holder that his department – assigned the responsibility of defending the U.S. and its laws – simply won’t do that when it comes to the congressionally approved and presidentially signed Defense of Marriage Act.”
The link in WNDs report that goes to Judicial Watch opens up a general page, not to the <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/aug/family-research-council-sues-obama-justice-department-documents-regarding-decision-not
Follow me with this one. This story illustrates how conservative groups feed controversies to each other, as they all vie for facetime on FoxNews.
This is the pdf of the lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of the Family Research Council. The complaint is this: FRC filed a FOIA request on February 28, 2011, asking for emails re: the decision not to defend the DOMA. In June, FRC received over 300 emails in response to FRCs request; additionally, FRC was told that 27 emails were withheld because they contained restricted information. FRC wrote back in June, initiating an administrative appeal concerming those restricted 27 emails. The Civil Division wrote back in a letter dated July 28, 2011, that FRCs request for an appeal had been received on 18 July; Civil Division had 20 days to respond the the FRCs request for an administrative ruling and did not meet that deadline.
Let’s recap: FRC received over 300 emails from the CD concerning the DOMA. The CD said 27 other emails were off-limits. FRC requested an administrative appeal about those 27 emails and then asked Judicial Watch to sue when the CD didn’t respond by August 15, 2011. Judicial Watch filed the complaint on August 29th.
Those are the facts, and they’re available from JDs own complaint. Does WND mention any of this in its ‘report’? No. Does WND correctly identify the law (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(ii) Freedom of Information Act) which prompted the lawsuit? No. WND wants to talk about DOMA. which of ‘the nation’s laws’ led to FRCs lawsuit?:
From WorldNet Daily, “Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has been sued in federal court – again – for picking and choosing which of the nation’s laws it wants to enforce…(the lawsuit) focuses on the announcement last winter from Attorney General Eric Holder that his department – assigned the responsibility of defending the U.S. and its laws – simply won’t do that when it comes to the congressionally approved and presidentially signed Defense of Marriage Act.”
The link in WNDs report that goes to Judicial Watch opens up a general page, not to the <a href="
This is the pdf of the lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on bdhalf of the Family Research Council. The complaint is this: FRC filed a FOIA request on February 28, 2011, asking for emails re: the decision not to defend the DOMA. In June, FRC received over 300 emails in response to FRCs request; additionally, FRC was told that 27 emails were withheld because they contained restricted information. FRC wrote back in June, initiating an administrative appeal concerming those restricted 27 emails. The Civil Division wrote back in a letter dated July 28, 2011, that FRCs request for an appeal had been received on 18 July; Civil Division had 20 days to respond the the FRCs request for an administrative ruling and did not meet that deadline.
Let’s recap: FRC received over 300 emails from the CD concerning the DOMA. The CD said 27 other emails were off-limits. FRC requested an administrative appeal about those 27 emails and then asked Judicial Watch to sue when the CD didn’t respond by August 15, 2011. Judicial Watch filed the complaint on August 29th.
Those are the facts, and they’re available from JDs own complaint. Does WND mention any of this in its ‘report’? No. Does WND correctly identify the law (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(ii) Freedom of Information Act) which prompted the lawsuit? No. WND wants to talk about DOMA:
From WorldNet Daily, “Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has been sued in federal court – again – for picking and choosing which of the nation’s laws it wants to enforce…(the lawsuit) focuses on the announcement last winter from Attorney General Eric Holder that his department – assigned the responsibility of defending the U.S. and its laws – simply won’t do that when it comes to the congressionally approved and presidentially signed Defense of Marriage Act.”
The link in WNDs report that goes to Judicial Watch opens up a general page actual story. Read it and see if you agree with the claim made in its final paragraph:
“Once again the Obama administration is playing politics with the Freedom of Information Act to avoid telling the American people the truth about one of its indefensible positions,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The evidence suggests the nation’s highest law enforcement is refusing to enforce the law to appease another special interest group.”
Well. After all of this ‘reporting’ I don’t even feel as though I need to read the actual complaint! And most people won’t bother to, because it is hard to find– you’ve got to go through WND, then to JD and then you have to want to read the complaint, which seems unnecessary since you’ve just read so much about the complaint.
Now, what do you think Fox News will be saying about this ‘controversy’ when they get ahold of it? Clearly, Obama is up to his old tricks again, making deals with shady minority and special interest groups, and playing fast and loose with the Bill of Rights, pawning off marriage laws so he can win those New York and California electoral votes. And can you blame them? They’re not journalists.
And that is how FOXNews is never at a loss for crappy things to say about Democrats.
Follow me with this one. This story illustrates how conservative groups feed controversies to each other, as they all vie for facetime on FoxNews.
This is the pdf of the lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of the Family Research Council. The complaint is this: FRC filed a FOIA request on February 28, 2011, asking for emails re: the decision not to defend the DOMA. In June, FRC received over 300 emails in response to FRCs request; additionally, FRC was told that 27 emails were withheld because they contained restricted information. FRC wrote back in June, initiating an administrative appeal concerming those restricted 27 emails. The Civil Division wrote back in a letter dated July 28, 2011, that FRCs request for an appeal had been received on 18 July; Civil Division had 20 days to respond the the FRCs request for an administrative ruling and did not meet that deadline.
Let’s recap: FRC received over 300 emails from the CD concerning the DOMA. The CD said 27 other emails were off-limits. FRC requested an administrative appeal about those 27 emails and then asked Judicial Watch to sue when the CD didn’t respond by August 15, 2011. Judicial Watch filed the complaint on August 29th.
Those are the facts, and they’re available from JDs own complaint. Does WND mention any of this in its ‘report’? No. Does WND correctly identify the law (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(ii) Freedom of Information Act) which prompted the lawsuit? No. WND wants to talk about DOMA and what a left-wing shill Pres. Obama is:
From WorldNet Daily, “Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has been sued in federal court – again – for picking and choosing which of the nation’s laws it wants to enforce…(the lawsuit) focuses on the announcement last winter from Attorney General Eric Holder that his department – assigned the responsibility of defending the U.S. and its laws – simply won’t do that when it comes to the congressionally approved and presidentially signed Defense of Marriage Act.”
The link in WNDs report that goes to Judicial Watch opens up a general page. You’ll need to read through some of their other conservative headlines before you’ll find the relevant story. Read it and see if you agree with the claim made in its final paragraph:
“Once again the Obama administration is playing politics with the Freedom of Information Act to avoid telling the American people the truth about one of its indefensible positions,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The evidence suggests the nation’s highest law enforcement is refusing to enforce the law to appease another special interest group.”
Well. After all of this ‘reporting’ I don’t even feel as though I need to read the complaint that proves Obama is a danger that must be stopped. And most people won’t bother to, because it is hard to find– you’ve got to go through WND, then to JD and then you have to want to read the complaint, which seems unnecessary since you’ve just read so much about the complaint.
Now, what do you think Fox News will be saying about this ‘controversy’ when they get ahold of it? Clearly, Obama is up to his old tricks again, making deals with shady minority and special interest groups, and playing fast and loose with the Bill of Rights, pawning off marriage laws so he can win those New York and California electoral votes. And can you blame them? They’re not journalists.
And that is how FOXNews never runs out of crappy things to say about Democrats.
That last one’s the one. Sorry! I’ll work with NotePad next time.