Cognitive Dissonance is the GOP's 2012 platform

Sounds like someone is into punishment, especially punishment by people in government uniforms. Hmmm...

Not saying, but I'm saying.

DOMA needs to go.. hope the guy was doing that badly on purpose.

I bet he'd like to get punished, ifyaknowwhatimean

Apples/Genitalia

I don't think it's a valid comparison, but you do have to admit that it is ridiculous that cousins can get federal benefits if their state says they are married, people who are under the federal age of consent can get federal benefits if their state says they are married, but this is the line in the sand the federal government won't cross (well, that and polygamy, but that was a "you can't join unless you pass this law" thing).

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Cognitive Dissonance is the GOP's 2012 platform

what do you expect? The slut works at Georgetown Law

He better post videos.

fta: Led by the indefatigable Clement (watching him these past few weeks is like watching Jerry Lewis in a Jerry Lewis movie)

WTH was that?

Soz, found that distracting. So... Paul Clemont is an inconstant douchenozzle?

Who knew?

DOMA *is* unconstitutional and I hope Clement and his HoR bretheren fail utterly here in this attempt to overturn U.S. District Judge Tauro's 2010 decision, ultimately causing the SCOTUS to intervene in defense of civil rights, common sense and decency.

Lawyers gonna lawyer.

[Michelle Bachmann logic] Gay marriage isn't legal therefore it should be illegal. [/Michelle Bachmann logic]

The Republicans: Fighting for "liberty," except in cases where liberty actually makes a difference to real people.

I'm confused. Isn't the solicitor general a presidential appointee who argues the Federal government's side of a case? Why would he be arguing against parts of Obama's health care law?

As much as I hate the individual mandate, that headline made me smile.

quatchi: DOMA *is* unconstitutional and I hope Clement and his HoR bretheren fail utterly here in this attempt to overturn U.S. District Judge Tauro's 2010 decision, ultimately causing the SCOTUS to intervene in defense of civil rights, common sense and decency.

You clearly have way more faith in the SCOTUS than I do.

/They'll vote 5-4 in favour of keeping it.
//Unless one of the right-wingers drops dead before it gets that far.

farkityfarker: I'm confused. Isn't the solicitor general a presidential appointee who argues the Federal government's side of a case? Why would he be arguing against parts of Obama's health care law?

This is the former Solicitor General from Bush's second term. He took the case on the healthcare bill entirely as a private citizen. In the case of DOMA, Holder announced last year that the Department of Justice would not defend the section of DOMA related to the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriages as valid. Note: the government will still not require states to recognize gays married in other states and still enforces the federal law, but will not assign a lawyer to defend it in court. As a result, the Republicans in the House hired Clement to defend the law.

Grungehamster: farkityfarker: I'm confused. Isn't the solicitor general a presidential appointee who argues the Federal government's side of a case? Why would he be arguing against parts of Obama's health care law?

This is the former Solicitor General from Bush's second term. He took the case on the healthcare bill entirely as a private citizen. In the case of DOMA, Holder announced last year that the Department of Justice would not defend the section of DOMA related to the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriages as valid. Note: the government will still not require states to recognize gays married in other states and still enforces the federal law, but will not assign a lawyer to defend it in court. As a result, the Republicans in the House hired Clement to defend the law.

At taxpayer expense, IIRC.

Whaaa? A social conservative's arguments aren't consistent? I am utterly shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.

Crabs_Can_Polevault this week: "Paul Clement is a pinwheel."

Crabs_Can_Polevault next week: Don't expect a big chance in position.

Lawyers are not paid to be right, lawyers are paid to be convincing. Whether they're right or not is immaterial to their job.

Wait a second... Are you telling me lawyers are dishonest and manipulative? Oh come on, next thing you're gonna try and tell me is that politicians don't care about public service and are just interested in enriching themselves. Nonsense!

/you guys can't be this naive...

Alphax: Grungehamster: farkityfarker: I'm confused. Isn't the solicitor general a presidential appointee who argues the Federal government's side of a case? Why would he be arguing against parts of Obama's health care law?

This is the former Solicitor General from Bush's second term. He took the case on the healthcare bill entirely as a private citizen. In the case of DOMA, Holder announced last year that the Department of Justice would not defend the section of DOMA related to the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriages as valid. Note: the government will still not require states to recognize gays married in other states and still enforces the federal law, but will not assign a lawyer to defend it in court. As a result, the Republicans in the House hired Clement to defend the law.

At taxpayer expense, IIRC.

Which, considering it is the law of the land, probably should be the case. I'm tired of people claiming that Obama threw the law out and has stopped enforcement: the entire law is still enforced and the significant portion about states being able to ignore Full Faith and Credit on gay marriage will still be defended in court. I understand why the DoJ won't defend the rest of the law (like I mentioned, making it so the federal government accepts the states' definition for virtually any other reason makes it hard to defend) but the government throwing the fight in court to get rid of a law they aren't thrilled with isn't the way of doing things. It needs a real defense if you want a law overturned by the courts, and if you don't want to do that then get a bill passed overturning the law. Picking and choosing what laws the government will defend might make you feel better, but at the end of the day the government should be paying to assert the Constitutionality of its own laws.

Splinshints: Lawyers are not paid to be right, lawyers are paid to be convincing. Whether they're right or not is immaterial to their job.

It's like yelling at the illegal Mexican you picked up to assemble your Ikea furniture because your place suddenly looks tacky.

Fluorescent Testicle: quatchi: DOMA *is* unconstitutional and I hope Clement and his HoR bretheren fail utterly here in this attempt to overturn U.S. District Judge Tauro's 2010 decision, ultimately causing the SCOTUS to intervene in defense of civil rights, common sense and decency.

You clearly have way more faith in the SCOTUS than I do.

/They'll vote 5-4 in favour of keeping it.
//Unless one of the right-wingers drops dead before it gets that far.

Not to wish anyone ill or anything if one of them does pop off soon I'd put twenty on it being Scalia.

He's a tubby bastard, ya know.

You are prolly right about the 5-4 against thingy though, sadly.

On anyone's top ten list of reasons to re-elect Obama in 2012 not letting the GOP stack the SCOTUS any further to the right has to be in your top three.

/Luff RBG with a passion but can read a life expectancy chart as well as anyone.

skullkrusher: farkityfarker: I'm confused. Isn't the solicitor general a presidential appointee who argues the Federal government's side of a case? Why would he be arguing against parts of Obama's health care law?

he's the ex-SG

Grungehamster: farkityfarker: I'm confused. Isn't the solicitor general a presidential appointee who argues the Federal government's side of a case? Why would he be arguing against parts of Obama's health care law?

This is the former Solicitor General from Bush's second term. He took the case on the healthcare bill entirely as a private citizen. In the case of DOMA, Holder announced last year that the Department of Justice would not defend the section of DOMA related to the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriages as valid. Note: the government will still not require states to recognize gays married in other states and still enforces the federal law, but will not assign a lawyer to defend it in court. As a result, the Republicans in the House hired Clement to defend the law.

Thanks, now it makes sense.

It's a stretch to say that broadening the traditional definition of marriage punishes anyone.

s2s2s2: ApplesBroccoli/Genitalia

A Dark Evil Omen: Bloody William: [i.imgur.com image 640x640]

That's hilarious. I'll bet she has a cutie mark in law.

Feel free to steal.

PartTimeBuddha: It's a stretch to say that broadening the traditional definition of marriage punishes anyone.

Taxation is theft. Married couples get tax benefits. Therefore straights will be punished when homos can marry.

Also, think of the children?

/got nothin, cause there is nothin

It's not a stretch to say that SkinnyHead is a moron

Grungehamster: Alphax: Grungehamster: farkityfarker: I'm confused. Isn't the solicitor general a presidential appointee who argues the Federal government's side of a case? Why would he be arguing against parts of Obama's health care law?

This is the former Solicitor General from Bush's second term. He took the case on the healthcare bill entirely as a private citizen. In the case of DOMA, Holder announced last year that the Department of Justice would not defend the section of DOMA related to the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriages as valid. Note: the government will still not require states to recognize gays married in other states and still enforces the federal law, but will not assign a lawyer to defend it in court. As a result, the Republicans in the House hired Clement to defend the law.

At taxpayer expense, IIRC.

Which, considering it is the law of the land, probably should be the case. I'm tired of people claiming that Obama threw the law out and has stopped enforcement: the entire law is still enforced and the significant portion about states being able to ignore Full Faith and Credit on gay marriage will still be defended in court. I understand why the DoJ won't defend the rest of the law (like I mentioned, making it so the federal government accepts the states' definition for virtually any other reason makes it hard to defend) but the government throwing the fight in court to get rid of a law they aren't thrilled with isn't the way of doing things. It needs a real defense if you want a law overturned by the courts, and if you don't want to do that then get a bill passed overturning the law. Picking and choosing what laws the government will defend might make you feel better, but at the end of the day the government should be paying to assert the Constitutionality of its own laws.

Say I give you a rubber band, a paper clip, and a straw, and I tell you to use those things to build a cold fusion reactor. Are you going to keep trying to do that even after you try for years and figure out that it's impossible?

Smackledorfer: Also, think of the children?

I ain't marryin' no kid. This ain't Oklahoma.

PartTimeBuddha: It's a stretch to say that broadening the traditional definition of marriage punishes anyone.

Yes... but it's not a stretch to say that keeping the traditional definition of marriage punishes someone.

Which is the position Clement is arguing for.

I May Be Crazy But...: Smackledorfer: Also, think of the children?

I ain't marryin' no kid. This ain't Oklahoma.

Sure, but once we accept these filthy marriages they'll look normal to your kids, who will want to be gay. Plus these sinners will want to adopt.

Smackledorfer: I May Be Crazy But...: Smackledorfer: Also, think of the children?

I ain't marryin' no kid. This ain't Oklahoma.

Sure, but once we accept these filthy marriages they'll look normal to your kids, who will want to be gay. Plus these sinners will want to adopt.

Well, at least Jimmy Ray will leave the sheep alone when all that happens.

Serious Black: Grungehamster: Alphax: Grungehamster: farkityfarker: I'm confused. Isn't the solicitor general a presidential appointee who argues the Federal government's side of a case? Why would he be arguing against parts of Obama's health care law?

This is the former Solicitor General from Bush's second term. He took the case on the healthcare bill entirely as a private citizen. In the case of DOMA, Holder announced last year that the Department of Justice would not defend the section of DOMA related to the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriages as valid. Note: the government will still not require states to recognize gays married in other states and still enforces the federal law, but will not assign a lawyer to defend it in court. As a result, the Republicans in the House hired Clement to defend the law.

At taxpayer expense, IIRC.

Which, considering it is the law of the land, probably should be the case. I'm tired of people claiming that Obama threw the law out and has stopped enforcement: the entire law is still enforced and the significant portion about states being able to ignore Full Faith and Credit on gay marriage will still be defended in court. I understand why the DoJ won't defend the rest of the law (like I mentioned, making it so the federal government accepts the states' definition for virtually any other reason makes it hard to defend) but the government throwing the fight in court to get rid of a law they aren't thrilled with isn't the way of doing things. It needs a real defense if you want a law overturned by the courts, and if you don't want to do that then get a bill passed overturning the law. Picking and choosing what laws the government will defend might make you feel better, but at the end of the day the government should be paying to assert the Constitutionality of its own laws.

Say I give you a rubber band, a paper clip, and a straw, and I tell you to use those things to build a cold fusion reactor. Are you going to keep trying to ...

NM. I reread your comment and realized you said DOJ shouldn't have to defend the law themselves.

/been a looooooooooong day

I May Be Crazy But...: Smackledorfer: I May Be Crazy But...: Smackledorfer: Also, think of the children?

I ain't marryin' no kid. This ain't Oklahoma.

Sure, but once we accept these filthy marriages they'll look normal to your kids, who will want to be gay. Plus these sinners will want to adopt.

Well, at least Jimmy Ray will leave the sheep alone when all that happens.

Leave them alone? Are you kidding me? He and his turtle wife will be tag-teaming them.

Smackledorfer: I May Be Crazy But...: Smackledorfer: I May Be Crazy But...: Smackledorfer: Also, think of the children?

I ain't marryin' no kid. This ain't Oklahoma.

Sure, but once we accept these filthy marriages they'll look normal to your kids, who will want to be gay. Plus these sinners will want to adopt.

Well, at least Jimmy Ray will leave the sheep alone when all that happens.

Leave them alone? Are you kidding me? He and his turtle wife will be tag-teaming them.

I got no idea what that means, but I don't expect there's nothin' them godless folks won't do.

LazarusLong42: PartTimeBuddha: It's a stretch to say that broadening the traditional definition of marriage punishes anyone.

Yes... but it's not a stretch to say that keeping the traditional definition of marriage punishes someone.

Which is the position Clement is arguing for.

It punishes same sex couples with inferior status.