If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Eric Holder tells his state attorneys general that they only need to defend the laws they feel like defending   (foxnews.com) divider line 78
    More: Stupid, Attorney General Eric Holder, gay marriage ban, attorney generals, state attorney general, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, racial segregations, opponents of same-sex marriage, American Foundation for Equal Rights  
•       •       •

840 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2014 at 12:47 PM (7 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-25 12:48:54 PM
Because they're unconstitutional?
 
2014-02-25 12:49:48 PM
No, he's telling state attorneys general that if they know there is absolutely no legal argument that makes a law constitutional, they do not need to make a legal argument in favor of that law's constitutionality. And there's a pretty good argument at this point that the judiciary is unanimously saying state-level marriage bans for same-sex couples are unconstitutional since, in the seven months since SCOTUS ruled in US v. Windsor, all twelve courts that have heard a marriage case ruled for equality and against discrimination.
 
MFK
2014-02-25 12:51:24 PM
FTFA: "Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws must be "exceedingly rare" and reserved for "exceptional circumstances." He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.

"In general, I believe that we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation," he said.


 Christ, what an asshole
 
2014-02-25 12:51:31 PM
 Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws must be "exceedingly rare" and reserved for "exceptional circumstances."

But, yea, what you said subby.
 
2014-02-25 12:51:55 PM
+1 to subby for correctly using the plural on attorneys general.

And yeah, GOP, this is nothing like Loving v Virginia. At all.
 
2014-02-25 12:52:00 PM
I don't know, but may be, just may be, there is a slim chance that those resources can be used for something better than dictating who you can fark?
 
2014-02-25 12:52:08 PM
Well let's not stop there. Let's bring back segregation. Then let's see how Holder feels when he has to resign his AG job and has to work in the kitchen staff at the back of some Waffle House.
 
2014-02-25 12:53:56 PM

TV's Vinnie: Well let's not stop there. Let's bring back segregation. Then let's see how Holder feels when he has to resign his AG job and has to work in the kitchen staff at the back of some Waffle House.


What happened in your brain to get from the article to this post?
 
2014-02-25 12:54:51 PM
For a Potato-American, that was a nice try at a headline, submitter.
 
2014-02-25 12:54:56 PM
What part is supposed to outrage me?

Lawyer tells lawyers to use their discretion when it comes to defending bad laws.  News at 11.
 
2014-02-25 12:56:12 PM

TV's Vinnie: Well let's not stop there. Let's bring back segregation. Then let's see how Holder feels when he has to resign his AG job and has to work in the kitchen staff at the back of some Waffle House.


LAWLESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
 
2014-02-25 12:57:18 PM

Jackson Herring: TV's Vinnie: Well let's not stop there. Let's bring back segregation. Then let's see how Holder feels when he has to resign his AG job and has to work in the kitchen staff at the back of some Waffle House.

LAWLESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS


www.metalsucks.net
 
2014-02-25 12:57:46 PM
His state attorneys general? Is subby laboring under the misapprehension that state attorneys general are subordinate to Eric Holder?
 
2014-02-25 12:58:17 PM
So Republicans yell at Obama for not "following the Constitution" based pretty much on nothing, but then when he actually does they say he shouldn't follow the Constitution and just follow the laws no matter if they are constitutional or not.
 
2014-02-25 12:59:10 PM
Awe, I assume that subby added the tag for himself.

"It should be done under 'exceedingly rare' circumstances" really means to do it willy nilly.

The fact is that a number of courts have declared such bans unconstitutional. So it is pretty easy to make a case where you choose not to defend an unconstitutional law.
 
2014-02-25 12:59:14 PM

BMulligan: His state attorneys general? Is subby laboring under the misapprehension that state attorneys general are subordinate to Eric Holder?


He thinks they are because uppity.
 
2014-02-25 12:59:41 PM
Holder's OK. I like this and his hands-off approach to legal pot.
 
2014-02-25 12:59:59 PM
At least in Ohio, the AG is empowered to and required to exercise independent judgement.

See State ex rel. Merrill v. ODNR, 2011-Ohio-4612 at paragraphs 26-31.
 
2014-02-25 01:00:39 PM
Hey subby,  Discretion has always been and will always be a part of the justice system,  Much like a DA can pick which cases to prosecute an Attorney general can pick which cases to defend.  This is how the system has always worked.
 
2014-02-25 01:02:32 PM

Cletus C.: Holder's OK. I like this and his hands-off approach to legal pot.


The baggers hate him, of course.  If they're scrambling for a non-racist reason, the only thing I've heard is "fast and furious something something 2nd amendment", but I'm pretty sure that's a cover story at this point.
 
2014-02-25 01:02:43 PM
Lawless President!! Increasing lawlessness!! Lawlessness!!!

www.troycitydesign.com
 
2014-02-25 01:03:00 PM
Honestly, what's the other option?  If an attorney general can't come up with an argument to give the judge, can't come up with some constitutional reasoning to bar gays from marriage, then what's he supposed to do?

"Your honor, the state of derpistan believes gays should not be allowed to wed.  Please ignore the fact that we can come up with nothing to say which supports that position but does not result in me either committing perjury or laughing out loud."
 
2014-02-25 01:03:33 PM

dywed88: The fact is that a number of courts have declared such bans unconstitutional. So it is pretty easy to make a case where you choose not to defend an unconstitutional law.


This. What's happening here is a perfect example of the "labs of democracy" in action. This is an issue for the courts, the DOJ should stay out if it until constitutionality is determined.
 
2014-02-25 01:04:16 PM
Probably because he's gearing up to take our guns and melt them down and make Obama King of the World.
 
2014-02-25 01:04:57 PM
So can a teabagger DA do the opposite in the name of freedom of religion?
 
2014-02-25 01:05:08 PM
Is George W. Bush in prison? Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld?

Well then, I guess conservatives don't really have much room to biatch, piss, and/or moan about some laws not being enforced.
 
2014-02-25 01:05:49 PM
If the teatards don't like it, they could try something other than going 0-2 against Black Muslim Hitler. Executive discretion is a perk of running the executive branch.
 
2014-02-25 01:05:58 PM

Corvus: So Republicans yell at Obama for not "following the Constitution" based pretty much on nothing, but then when he actually does they say he shouldn't follow the Constitution and just follow the laws no matter if they are constitutional or not.


Actually, Obama did enforce DOMA and followed the letter of its law.  He merely stopped defending it in court.

If Obama hadn't enforced DOMA, then the IRS wouldn't have put an inheritance tax on the estate Edith Windsor's wife left to her, and therefore she wouldn't have had any damages to sue over.
 
2014-02-25 01:06:18 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: dywed88: The fact is that a number of courts have declared such bans unconstitutional. So it is pretty easy to make a case where you choose not to defend an unconstitutional law.

This. What's happening here is a perfect example of the "labs of democracy" in action. This is an issue for the courts, the DOJ should stay out if it until constitutionality is determined.


Not quite. This is about the states choosing not to defend the law in the courts. Although, so far, whenever the AG has chosen not to defend an anti-gay marriage law the legislature and/or governor has stepped in at least for the initial case.
 
2014-02-25 01:07:16 PM

Headso: So can a teabagger DA do the opposite in the name of freedom of religion?


Can you come up with an example of such a law a teabagging AG would refuse to defend?
 
2014-02-25 01:07:39 PM
So... all the Republiturds will now come out in defence of Big Government? I thought they would be in favour of this because States Rights?
 
2014-02-25 01:09:26 PM

MFK: FTFA: "Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws must be "exceedingly rare" and reserved for "exceptional circumstances." He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.

"In general, I believe that we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation," he said.

 Christ, what an asshole


I'm not sure what you're even saying here.

He's arguing against the banning of "gay marriages" not the legalization of gay marriage.
When holder refers to legal classifications, he's saying that the state should not distinguish between "gay" marriages versus "straight" marriages.
What's the issue, guy?
 
2014-02-25 01:09:36 PM

Karac: Honestly, what's the other option?  If an attorney general can't come up with an argument to give the judge, can't come up with some constitutional reasoning to bar gays from marriage, then what's he supposed to do?


Pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct, there is nothing an attorney ethically can do under those circumstances. RPC 3.1: "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law."
 
2014-02-25 01:13:02 PM

Headso: So can a teabagger DA do the opposite in the name of freedom of religion?


AGs have always had discretion to not if they believe there to no legitimate defense.

When a number of separate courts have ruled unanimously on similar cases based on a SC decision it is pretty easy to say there is no legitimate defense.
 
2014-02-25 01:13:13 PM
I think both sides hide behind states rights when it's a law they're for, and use the federal government otherwise. Repubs do it a bit more often though.
 
2014-02-25 01:14:13 PM
State Attorneys-General:

A. don't work for the federal AG; and,

B. have always had such discretion.
 
2014-02-25 01:14:51 PM

wedun: MFK: FTFA: "Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws must be "exceedingly rare" and reserved for "exceptional circumstances." He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.

"In general, I believe that we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation," he said.

 Christ, what an asshole

I'm not sure what you're even saying here.

He's arguing against the banning of "gay marriages" not the legalization of gay marriage.
When holder refers to legal classifications, he's saying that the state should not distinguish between "gay" marriages versus "straight" marriages.
What's the issue, guy?


He's being sarcastic. Poe's law.
 
MFK
2014-02-25 01:16:32 PM

wedun: MFK: FTFA: "Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws must be "exceedingly rare" and reserved for "exceptional circumstances." He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.

"In general, I believe that we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation," he said.

 Christ, what an asshole

I'm not sure what you're even saying here.

He's arguing against the banning of "gay marriages" not the legalization of gay marriage.
When holder refers to legal classifications, he's saying that the state should not distinguish between "gay" marriages versus "straight" marriages.
What's the issue, guy?


cdn2-b.examiner.com
 
2014-02-25 01:18:06 PM
I'm gonna give subby the benefit of the doubt and assume he's being satirical. >_>
 
2014-02-25 01:18:22 PM

dywed88: UrukHaiGuyz: dywed88: The fact is that a number of courts have declared such bans unconstitutional. So it is pretty easy to make a case where you choose not to defend an unconstitutional law.

This. What's happening here is a perfect example of the "labs of democracy" in action. This is an issue for the courts, the DOJ should stay out if it until constitutionality is determined.

Not quite. This is about the states choosing not to defend the law in the courts. Although, so far, whenever the AG has chosen not to defend an anti-gay marriage law the legislature and/or governor has stepped in at least for the initial case.


Who are the lawyers representing the States in the cases where the AG backs off? Are they simply hired by the legislatures/governors?
 
2014-02-25 01:19:01 PM

Karac: Headso: So can a teabagger DA do the opposite in the name of freedom of religion?

Can you come up with an example of such a law a teabagging AG would refuse to defend?


You have those cases of bakeries and wedding venues violating civil rights of gay couples.
 
2014-02-25 01:21:57 PM
Is it World Nut Wednesday?
 
2014-02-25 01:23:03 PM

Serious Black: No, he's telling state attorneys general that if they know there is absolutely no legal argument that makes a law constitutional, they do not need to make a legal argument in favor of that law's constitutionality. And there's a pretty good argument at this point that the judiciary is unanimously saying state-level marriage bans for same-sex couples are unconstitutional since, in the seven months since SCOTUS ruled in US v. Windsor, all twelve courts that have heard a marriage case ruled for equality and against discrimination.


Well, I see we're done here.
 
2014-02-25 01:27:09 PM

Cletus C.: Holder's OK. I like this and his hands-off approach to legal pot.


Agreed, but he also has the power to reschedule it. However I doubt any president will bless that action; it will require action from congress, and that won't happen until the number of folks who want legalization get up to, say 70% (pulled out of ass).
 
2014-02-25 01:30:25 PM

Jackson Herring: TV's Vinnie: Well let's not stop there. Let's bring back segregation. Then let's see how Holder feels when he has to resign his AG job and has to work in the kitchen staff at the back of some Waffle House.

LAWLESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-25 01:33:33 PM
Hey subby? If you crafted that misleading headline because you have a profound love of what you call 'traditional values' and Holder's actions make you sad, just give it up. The country's changed now, and it's not changing back. Ask any young person if homophobia's still cool, or not.

Crying about all this in public is only going to make you look old and foolish, and crying privately will only make you sad and miserable. Best option might be resigning yourself to the change and getting on with life.
 
2014-02-25 01:44:23 PM
Hey, I found the subby...

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-25 01:55:26 PM

Headso: Karac: Headso: So can a teabagger DA do the opposite in the name of freedom of religion?

Can you come up with an example of such a law a teabagging AG would refuse to defend?

You have those cases of bakeries and wedding venues violating civil rights of gay couples.


It might not be easy for a state attorney general to get into a position where they would even have the choice to defend such a law.

When those cases come up, it's because the couple is suing the discriminators - the bakery or florist is the defendant, not the state.
For an attorney general to be able to refuse to defend such a law, the bakery would have to first lose the case, then come up with some reasoning why the law is unconstitutional and sue the state to get it overturned.  And presumably, an argument he tried would have already been shot down by the original judge when he lost the case.
 
2014-02-25 02:16:26 PM
Can we use this logic to get rid of DUI checkpoints?  I'd be down with that.  Also, warrantless wiretapping.
 
2014-02-25 02:20:16 PM

Lsherm: Can we use this logic to get rid of DUI checkpoints?  I'd be down with that.  Also, warrantless wiretapping.


No and Yes.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report