1 Good. 

2 Maybe it's me, but is this really a battle to take on right now?

3 In the end this make work out better. It;'s clear the DOJ was actively botching the case even before flipping. Now, hopefully, it will have better. But they still need to up it from the likes of what Prop 8 was given in front of Walker. They shouldn't be conceding shit. I don't care how much you don't like the point or you think it's not socially cool any more.

4 This. Is. Fuckin'. RE-TAR-DED!

5 Defund the Social Justice Department.

6 Maybe it's me, but is this really a battle to take on right now?

Posted by: Museisluse at March 03, 2011 06:16 PM (u/Nbu)

What choice is there? The cases have been brought? It's not a truce if the other side keeps shooting at you.

7

We need to leave this alone and let the Obama administration continue to be legally negligent and derelict on this issue without taking up the fight and refocusing "blame".

We got bigger fish to fry than this distraction.

8

he also wants you to know he "struggles" with the issue of gay marriage

...and yet he comes running whenever he hears the fucksaw cycle up.

 

9 Posted by: Museisluse at March 03, 2011 06:16 PM (u/Nbu)

Yes. The point is to keep pressure on Obama (pbuh) so that he stays on the defensive, snaps at the press, and otherwise reveals his nasty, pompous, entitled and narcissistic side(or whole). His likable persona (I don't get it, but I guess the sheeple like him) has to be destroyed, and we have until November, 2012 to do it.

10 We have to defend this. It is no accident that Barky picked this law to declare unconstitutional. He knows he can use the gays like pawns in an election year.

It's a fight we have to take up.

If Obama can decide not to pay attention to this law, he can decide to ignore others. The Patriot Act, Posse Comitatus, the 2nd Amendment, etc.

11 When the president fails to lead, you lead.

12 Maybe it's me, but is this really a battle to take on right now?

What finer example is there going into '12 of this administration's total contempt for the rule of law and the wishes of the public.  "Bite me" isn't a strong campaign slogan.

13 Posted by: Museisluse at March 03, 2011 06:16 PM (u/Nbu)

The battle has to be fought, and now is the time there's a battle.  Ergo, yes, now is the time to fight this one.

It's not like Boehner is saying "Please bring some DOMA Cases so Congress can defend DOMA."  The cases are already pending: if Congress doesn't defend them, no one will, and DOMA will (probably) be struck down.

14

puppehtfail!

15 Posted by: garrettMichelle Obama's Landing Strip at March 03, 2011 06:19 PM (lEg7y)

You have gone too far. Some things are better left unimagined.

16 I agree that this DOMA battle isn't as important as stopping the hemorrhage of money being spent by our government or what's going on in the Middle East, securing our borders, or stopping Obamacare.  Our national security and economy are really what the Republicans should be focusing on.  To me the social issues just aren't as important right now.

17

We got bigger fish to fry than this distraction.

Posted by: JDW at March 03, 2011 06:19 PM (p6kTq)

Oh, please let this be a joke?

18 "Bite me" isn't a strong campaign slogan.

Well, it would get you the Moron vote, but I don't think that's enough to win an election.

19

Sifty,

Sound to me, then, that it's the exact sort of social issue trap Dems would love to use to distract us from the fiscal hammer we need to be dropping right now.

The benefit of the Tea Party is that is attempts at most times to remain fiscally focused. Getting bogged down in increasingly unpopular social drama is not at all helpful or necessary. Anyway, I think it will be hilarious to use this as precedent two or six years from now when a Republican decides to no longer defend Roe v. Wade.  

20 puppehtfail!

Don't let it happen again.

21 JugEars next book title will be 'How To Win Enemies And Influence Ass Reamers To Lay Pipe In Me On A Daily Basis'.
 
So, does anyone here actually believe that this mouth holster of cock is liked by 74% of Americans?
 
Really, I'm not bitter or anything.

22 Leadership fail.
Religious Hispanic vote fail.
Religious black vote -well, two out of three ain't bad.

23 Posted by: runningrn at March 03, 2011 06:22 PM (ihSHD)

They really are.  Or, at least, DOMA is.  Not because it's more important than the budget or O'Care in, and of, itself, but because there are already cases pending.  DOMA getting overturned by default would be BAD.  So, Congress has to defend it.

Also, as someone pointed out above, hit him with everything.  Point out exactly how bad he is on, you know, following the law.  This is one way to do that.

24 O/T:  This is too funny not to post: 

<sub>"Prosecutors say there is 'cause to believe' that fatal shooting of 2 U.S. airmen in Germany was 'Islamist-motivated act' - NBC News  about 4 hours ago via breakingnews.com"

"Suspect in deadly Germany attack confesses to targeting U.S. airmen, official says http://bit.ly/hYyO5z 26 minutes ago via breakingnews.com"</sub>

via twitter breaking news via drudge

25

So, does anyone here actually believe that this mouth holster of cock is liked by 74% of Americans?

I do.

26 I agree that this DOMA battle isn't as important as stopping the hemorrhage of money being spent by our government or what's going on in the Middle East, securing our borders, or stopping Obamacare.  Our national security and economy are really what the Republicans should be focusing on.  To me the social issues just aren't as important right now.

Posted by: runningrn at March 03, 2011 06:22 PM (ihSHD)

Nobody is suggesting Congress itself spends more than the time needed to hire some lawyers and give them a budget. What is the problem with that? Congress doesn't need to spend anytime time on this issue at all. It already has a law on the books, DOMA. They wouldn't be spending any time on it at all if not for the fact that the person tasked with and budgeted for doing this job refuses to do it.

27 Posted by: JDW at March 03, 2011 06:23 PM (p6kTq)

A social issue that is supported by the majority of the country. The last time I checked, support for DOMA was in excess of 50%. How is it a trap if the majority support it?

And what is wrong with attacking the progressive in chief on more than one front?

Fiscal
Social
Foreign policy
Economic policy

Beat the fuck out of him nonstop until the election. That's how we will get rid of him.

Our powder is dry!

28 The funny is they changed on a dime as soon as the report from the germans came out of the confession....before that there was no proof of it at all

29 In other news, tax reform is being added to the pile of things being considered for the FY '12 budget. Rep. Camp is reviewing that issue right now.

30 Well, it would get you the Moron vote, but I don't think that's enough to win an election.

It isn't the DOMA itself that would bring in the non-morons, it's the fact that Obama doesn't deign to listen to a clear and constitutional law.  People don't understand legalistic fine points, but they know when they are being dissed, and they don't like it.

31 2 Maybe it's me, but is this really a battle to take on right now?

I think it is.  I think it's time that the Republicans take a stand and demonstrate that they will not just let the White House ignore the law. 

I consider myself to be a traditionalist in my personal life, but not a "social con" as I understand it to mean in the conservative movement.  Nevertheless, if Obama picks a fight - as he has here - our side needs to show some spine and call him out on it.  Similarly, the land-grab that Salazar is trying to make via executive fiat (late last year) needs to be challenged.  And the FCC power grabs.  And the EPA power grabs. 

I think it's foolish for us to act like all that matters is the economy when the Democrats are doing everything they can to erode the rule of law. 

32 Religious black vote -well, two out of three ain't bad.

Posted by: Barbarian at March 03, 2011 06:25 PM (EL+OC)

I will never understand it. They hate rump-rangers, and preach against them in a particularly mean and vile way. Yet they support the rump-ranger in chief!

33 Anyway, I think it will be hilarious to use this as precedent two or six years from now when a Republican decides to no longer defend Roe v. Wade. 

Not equivalent.  Roe v Wade is not a law.  If a Republican President really wanted to, he could stop "enforcing" (is there really even any enforcement that goes with it?) Roe v Wade without any justification beyond the fact it's not a law.  DOMA, however, is a duly enacted law which has been upheld on appeal at least a couple of times- so a whole different kettle of fish.

The "Social Issues" canard is stupid, here.  This is a Rule of Law issue.

I actually think Social Issues are the real answer to the Fiscal Issues, but that's a hard sell and we need the Presidency even to begin to make it, so I'll hold off, there.  But, even given that, if he can simply ignore laws he doesn't like, where does that stop?

34 I will never understand it. They hate rump-rangers, and preach against them in a particularly mean and vile way. Yet they support the rump-ranger in chief!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 03, 2011 06:28 PM (LH6ir)

Don's try and figure it out. Just go with it.

35

Yet they support the rump-ranger in chief!

Don't Disparage My Peeps.

36 36

Yet they support the rump-ranger in chief!

Don't Disparage My Peeps.

Posted by: Eric Holder at March 03, 2011 06:30 PM (lEg7y)

he has no rump, now if you want to talk rumps then you gotta talk about MO and Val....but him, he's rump less....

37 What about my people?  Don't they need representation? 

38 If you read his wiki profile he not "legitimate American Black descended from slaves" so that begs the question then "who are his people?"

39 Another reason to defend cases attacking DOMA and things like Prop 8 is because they throw a laser hot spotlight on really friggin bad judges...and the people who appointed and backed them. Most people now do not like activist judges. How is activist judges almost universally defined? As judges looking to effect a liberal social agenda using the court despite the clear lack of support in existing law.

Regardless of how you feel about DADT and if you favored it's repeal or not. The judge commissioned with coming up with that cockamamie ruling to give Gates and the Senate cover for repealing  will always look like an idiot.  You will never convince me in a million years if that case had got to SCOTUS they would have ruled against DADT.

40 Speaking of Boehner, the Dems are "surprised" and stunned that he dared to attack Harry Reid by name, because that's just not nice. Dick Durbin says it makes him feel "discouraged".

41 "The president is bravely, bravely not defending it in court..."

That goofball is working my side of the street now. This is a duel I really think I can win!

42 A series of markers need to be thrown down and this is one of them.  The culture and practice of lawlessness in this administration is breathtaking.  The strategy and the tactics are the kinds of things Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin engage in:  Set a precedent on something "harmless" and then exploit the precedent for other more valuable political goals.

Enough. 

43 The question is how do we do it.

Badly, if experience is any indication.

But yes, we need to take up this fight!  The libs are making a great deal of their progress by simply ignoring laws that they don't like. They need to be called on it NOW!!

44 "You will never convince me in a million years if that case had got to SCOTUS they would have ruled against DADT."

I think it would have been 5-4 against DADT, with Kennedy as the swing vote.

45 I think it would have been 5-4 against DADT, with Kennedy as the swing vote.

Posted by: Knemon at March 03, 2011 06:48 PM (bWEOW)

Maybe on stuff affecting the general public Kennedy would vote liberal. The military is a whole different thing. Overturning DADT would create all kinds of openings from cases against the Military Code. Kennedy would have thrown ti back to Congress to deal with. I'm not sure even all the other 4 liberals would vote against DADT.

46 "The question is how do we do it." Answer: Articles of Impeachment Sure, I can understand the folks who question if this is an issue we want to focus on. Personally, I don't give a damn about this law and think that it's another example of federal overreach. That said, what is at issue for me is not DOMA, but POTUS refusing to perform his sworn, Constitutional duty. If he or the DOJ think that the law is unconstitutional, then it's their job to make its repeal part of their agenda and attempt to get Congress on board with their idea or to challenge the law in court. They are doing neither. What they are doing, as usual, is throwing a bone to special interests groups that they feel are useful to them for reelection by voting 'Present' and refusing to do their jobs. I can respect that Obama and Holder feel morally conflicted about doing their jobs, even though I disagree with them. That's fine. I will also respectfully accept their resignations. Sorry, but there is no job on earth that allows a person to opt out of doing what they are required to do and remain in the position. If they refuse to do their job and refuse to leave their position so that it can be filled by someone who can and will do the job, then they must be removed. Period.

47

hey, republicans? pssst. do what you were elected to - cut the budget and prevent the financial obamacalypse - and leave gays and aboritons the f*k alone. this is the last warning.

one more time, and will will replace you with democrats again, this time permanently.

48

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls

 

Consent can be given, but also taken back... how about a Senate vote to withdraw consent for Holder to be Attorney General?

May not fly, but it would be fun to watch...