![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
#obamafail
(OK, I know this isn't twitter, but I like this hashtag-fail construct)
So, if you haven't heard yet, the DOJ has filed its brief defending DOMA in Smelt v the United States of America.
There's been a lot of screaming about it, and for good reason. It's a horrible brief.
The Justice Department claims it has to defend the law, but that's overstatement at best.
Andrew Sullivan points out that the brief was written and submitted by a Bush-administration hold-over recognized by Alberto Gonzalez for his defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
So, yeah.
I would have preferred the administration to decide that there were aspects of the law that were unconstitutional and choose to not defend it on those grounds.
I would have preferred the administration had already started on the legislative action to repeal DOMA that was promised during the campaign.
But, frankly, at the moment, I would have been satisfied if the Justice Department had maybe reviewed the brief before it was submitted, and not submitted such an inflammatory brief.
In the end, though, this may be a snow job on all of us: what if the Obama administration picked an attorney they knew would submit the most repugnant defense of the law possible to set up the defense to lose? It would be consistent with the Obama that the conservative pundits keep painting, and in some ways the meandering brief is practically a gift to the plaintiffs' attorney.
So, if you haven't heard yet, the DOJ has filed its brief defending DOMA in Smelt v the United States of America.
There's been a lot of screaming about it, and for good reason. It's a horrible brief.
The Justice Department claims it has to defend the law, but that's overstatement at best.
Andrew Sullivan points out that the brief was written and submitted by a Bush-administration hold-over recognized by Alberto Gonzalez for his defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
So, yeah.
I would have preferred the administration to decide that there were aspects of the law that were unconstitutional and choose to not defend it on those grounds.
I would have preferred the administration had already started on the legislative action to repeal DOMA that was promised during the campaign.
But, frankly, at the moment, I would have been satisfied if the Justice Department had maybe reviewed the brief before it was submitted, and not submitted such an inflammatory brief.
In the end, though, this may be a snow job on all of us: what if the Obama administration picked an attorney they knew would submit the most repugnant defense of the law possible to set up the defense to lose? It would be consistent with the Obama that the conservative pundits keep painting, and in some ways the meandering brief is practically a gift to the plaintiffs' attorney.
no subject
Nope, it's a smart-ass comment.
Obama's (5 month) record is mixed but better than Bush's, Clinton's and GHW Bush's. It's better than what McCain promised (and look at his recent interview where he said that he didn't oppose "don't ask-don't tell" but would have studied the issue had he been elected).
no subject
Yup, Obama's only been on the job for but a few months so there's much he could eventually do.
Or no.
Given the guy's statements prior to his election and his actions thus far he, at best, has a lot of improvements to make.
I don't think he will as I think we're seeing the _real_ Obama and not just the empty suit who spoke hollow words in order to get elected.
Madoc