Little-Acorn
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2006
- 10,025
- 2,410
Interesting.
Some seem to be saying that the Obama administration will refuse to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court... and if they do, the court might strike it down by default. Others say that's not so, see below.
Hmmm... if it DOES turn out to be so, then what might happen if/when a Republican President is elected, and another one of the many lawsuits against Obamacare comes to the Supreme Court? Might the Republican President simply order the DOJ not to defend Obamacare? And if DOMA gets struck down, wouldn't Obamacare get struck down as quickly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTUS May Throw Out DOMA Cases Due to DOJ Refusal to Defend
SCOTUS May Throw Out DOMA Cases Due to DOJ Refusal to Defend
by Ken Klukowski
27 Mar 2013, 12:32 PM PDT
The Supreme Courts justices spent a full hour in todays DOMA case, U.S. v. Windsor, debating whether the case should be in court at all.
In each DOMA lawsuitincluding Windsorthe Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) has a responsibility to defend DOMA against a constitutional challenge. But President Obama declared that he believes DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered DOJ not to defend it.
The justices discussed whether this means no federal court has jurisdiction to decide the lawsuit. Article III of the Constitution only gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide a case or controversy. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, an essential element of this is that the lawsuit must be adversarial, meaning both parties try to win the case by making a good-faith argument to persuade the court to side with them.
When the plaintiffs sued to get DOMA struck down, DOJ made it clear they wanted the plaintiffs to succeed.
DOMA is defended by Paul Clement and lawyers hired by the U.S. House, but they are not the defendants in this case. The Court must decide if the Constitution allows anyone to step into the shoes of the actual defendants.
As Justice Antonin Scalia noted today, when a defendant agrees with a plaintiff, typically a federal court will only enter a consent judgment, making it official that the parties agree to something and will be bound to continue abiding by that agreement. The Court does not have the power to then consider striking down a lawany law.
If that happens here, all the current DOMA lawsuits would be dismissed, and DOMA would remain on the books until Congress repeals it or a new administration tries to defend it in court.
Some seem to be saying that the Obama administration will refuse to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court... and if they do, the court might strike it down by default. Others say that's not so, see below.
Hmmm... if it DOES turn out to be so, then what might happen if/when a Republican President is elected, and another one of the many lawsuits against Obamacare comes to the Supreme Court? Might the Republican President simply order the DOJ not to defend Obamacare? And if DOMA gets struck down, wouldn't Obamacare get struck down as quickly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTUS May Throw Out DOMA Cases Due to DOJ Refusal to Defend
SCOTUS May Throw Out DOMA Cases Due to DOJ Refusal to Defend
by Ken Klukowski
27 Mar 2013, 12:32 PM PDT
The Supreme Courts justices spent a full hour in todays DOMA case, U.S. v. Windsor, debating whether the case should be in court at all.
In each DOMA lawsuitincluding Windsorthe Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) has a responsibility to defend DOMA against a constitutional challenge. But President Obama declared that he believes DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered DOJ not to defend it.
The justices discussed whether this means no federal court has jurisdiction to decide the lawsuit. Article III of the Constitution only gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide a case or controversy. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, an essential element of this is that the lawsuit must be adversarial, meaning both parties try to win the case by making a good-faith argument to persuade the court to side with them.
When the plaintiffs sued to get DOMA struck down, DOJ made it clear they wanted the plaintiffs to succeed.
DOMA is defended by Paul Clement and lawyers hired by the U.S. House, but they are not the defendants in this case. The Court must decide if the Constitution allows anyone to step into the shoes of the actual defendants.
As Justice Antonin Scalia noted today, when a defendant agrees with a plaintiff, typically a federal court will only enter a consent judgment, making it official that the parties agree to something and will be bound to continue abiding by that agreement. The Court does not have the power to then consider striking down a lawany law.
If that happens here, all the current DOMA lawsuits would be dismissed, and DOMA would remain on the books until Congress repeals it or a new administration tries to defend it in court.
