Pelosi: If Dems Win The House, DOMA Defense Goes Away

Jim Burroway

June 7th, 2012

So says House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

“First of all, we can expect something to go away, like stop spending taxpayer dollars on the Defense of Marriage of Act, which is a waste of money and not the right thing to do,” Pelosi said.

…She said she thinks Republicans believe DOMA is unconstitutional because when they controlled the House under the Bush administration, they tried to pass court-stripping provisions denying judicial review for the anti-gay law and others.

“They had to know that there was a weakness constitutionally in that bill, if they would want to put court-stripping provisions in relating to DOMA and the rest,” Pelosi said. “So, we think they know it’s weak constitutionally.”

TominDC

June 7th, 2012

Assuming that does happen – that the Democrats get control of the house, senate, and the white house.

Who would be the logical choices to step in to defend DOMA in court?

Hyhybt

June 7th, 2012

With Democrats in house, senate, and presidency, they might manage to pass a repeal. But supposing they don’t… how would we *ever* get rid of DOMA if it’s not defended? No defense means an easy win in court every time… but it also means no appeals. Wouldn’t that mean the law remains in place and enforced, and everyone who’s affected by it has to sue to get it unapplied in their individual case?

Timothy Kincaid

June 7th, 2012

Someone is going to defend this ulcerous dog. If not Clement and the BLAG, then the courts will allow some intervener. But I’m not sure I want anyone other than Paul Clement defending DOMA.

Clement is brilliant, truly brilliant. His arguments before the SCOTUS on Obamacare were genius. But, for reasons that baffle us, he’s losing DOMA arguments in every court he ventures into (if he even shows up). And at the risk of sounding uncharitable, against attorneys and judges that are not at all of his caliber.

I’m not yet willing to surmise that he’s losing on purpose, exactly. But ya know what they say, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

David Waite

June 7th, 2012

@ TominDC: There would no longer be a defender, logical or otherwise, and a defendant isn’t required for a judge to rule on constitutionality at the District Court level; only the DoJ, the House and the Senate (separately or together for House and Senate) have standing to defend the constitutionality of a federal law. In the Proposition 8 constitutional challenge in federal courts the Proponents were granted standing to defend because Prop H8 is a state law. Nevertheless..

@ Hyhybt: DOMA would have to be defeated Federal Court District by Federal Court District. As long as no District Court found DOMA constitutional, that would legally suffice to overturn it when the last District ruled against it. However..

@ Timothy: District Courts aren’t allowed to appoint intervenors and Appellate Circuits aren’t allowed to take a singular unappealed District Court decision. If two District Courts in the same Appellate Circuit rule differently on the same law, the Circuit then steps in to resolve the legal conflict, and can (and would) appoint an intervenor defending lawyer. Similarly, the SCOTUS can’t touch a case until there is conflict between the rulings of two or more Circuits.

But those rules apply to simple (single part) federal laws. DOMA is a complex (multi part) law which has already been ruled on differently, and only been partly overturned. The SCOTUS could take it up right now, and in the Fall they will. The SCOTUS could and probably would reappoint Clement, and directly or indirectly require the Congress to pay him. They could alternatively appoint un-deceased out-of-office legislative authors of the law or out-of-office congressional legislative leaders (at the time of passage) who were in favor of passage.

Trying to predict the SCOTUS is probably less wise than gambling against the house in a casino, but I’m betting that (because of the fallout from Bush v Gore and from Citizens United) they’ll stick to their own rules on DOMA.

Timothy Kincaid

June 7th, 2012

David,

If you are correct that they will take up DOMA in the fall (most likely Gill/Massachusetts) then it’s all moot anyway. Regardless of election outcome, Obama will be president through mid January 2013 and the new Congress isn’t seated until January 3, 2012. Boehner’s lame-duck representative, Clement, will be the defense of DOMA3 through that time.

Mark F.

June 8th, 2012

Yes, Clement is a good attorney. I guess he just can’t come up with many very good arguments. That does not mean SCOTUS won’t latch on to some reason to uphold the law.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

FBI Reports Massive Surge In Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes in 2015

Baptist General Convention of Texas Warns Churches in Dallas and Austin Over LGBT Inclusion

Trump Selects Alt-Right Nationalist As "Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor"

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.