Skip to comments.Report: GOP appeals DOMA case to the Supreme Court
Posted on 06/30/2012 12:18:50 PM PDT by ColdOne
The Washington Blade's Chris Johnson reports:
House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) attorneys on Friday formally appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court an appeals court decision determining the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, according to a Democratic aide.
Drew Hammill, spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), told the Washington Blade on Friday afternoon that House Republicans had notified Democratic leadership counsel filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
What Supreme Court? We don’t have one of those anymore.
And once again, they’re going to trust THIS Supreme Court to do the right thing and overturn that appeals court? Yeah, right!
Marriage is just another form of taxation.
This could get VERY interesting now.
When would this case likely be heard if accepted?
Well, except for gays, whose weddings will henceforth be taxpayer-funded.
“I feel like I’m taking crazy pills”
Sadly you are correct.
From the article:
“Boehner’s office confirmed the appeal to POLITICO but noted the action was technically taken by BLAG - the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group - and its lawyer, Paul Clement. Clement has been defending DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriage, since the Justice Department stopped defending it last year.”
I have oft been wondering HOW Obama can refuse his sworn duty to protect and enforce the law....and get away with it. DOMA IS law.
This Supreme Court does what Barry and Holder tells it to do. They both have already stated that they are in the sack with the homosexuals. This is a waste of time.
Are you kidding? These are Romney’s people. They want to see DOMA done away with once and for all. What better way to see that happen than to give it to John Roberts’ court. Maybe he can even convince Justice Kennedy to join him this time and make it 6 to 3 for striking DOMA down.
We’ll lose, at a minimum, Kennedy on this one. Roberts a maybe. Alito, Thomas and Scalia will side with DOMA
This Supreme Court does what Barry and Holder tells(sic) it to do.
Please substantiate this with factual evidence.
If the concept of coerced commerce made constitutional muster, this one is a gimmee.
Oh really? Why bother? To cement another one of the commie’s goals?
Do you know approximately when next year? Do we have any idea of what the upcoming schedule looks like?
Don’t be too sure. Roberts gave significant pro bono help to the parties challenging the constitutionality of Colorados Amendment 2, which barred municipalities from designating homosexuals as a protected class. Ultimately Amendment 2 was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, in what was the most significant victory for the homosexual rights movement up to that time, making possible the much bigger homosexual victory of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.
So, Roberts, of his own free will, helped the homosexual rights movement overturn a landmark anti-homosexual rights referendum that had been passed by the people of the state of Colorado; and he concealed this fact when asked about it by the U.S. Senate.
The laws against beastiality are just as “unconstitutional” as laws against homosexuality. Are we going to go there, or are people going to wake up and reign this pack of dictators in before then?
"...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." my ass.
already in session.
Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.... Psalm 119:89
Oh my Dear Lord, Jesus!
I think I don’t even know what to say, Laz :S
Soooo....you have no factual evidence for the comment?
Want to share this scripture that Pastor John W. Hill from voiceoffreedomtvministry.org shared with me yesterday concerning our govt leaders and judges.... interesting..
3. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh for gifts, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up.
4. The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity.
Guess you can insert the modern day players in the above scripture.
I have to disagree with you on that. I realize I am probably in the minority here, but I am beginning to appreciate more and more what Roberts has done. While I abhor judicial activism (and this is definitely a case of judicial activism), I am grateful that Roberts was able to pull Kennedy, Breyer and Kagan into the same camp with him, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. Think about that. Seven out of nine Supreme Court Justices just ruled that Obamacare is not constitutional under the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause.
Take note here, the Roberts court did NOT say that this ObamaTax was constitutional. In fact, they offered no opinion on its constitutionality, nor should they have since the tax has not yet taken effect.
Once it does, I can assure you that it will find its way back to the Supreme Court at which time Roberts will be first in line to rule against it. And best of all, a strong precedent has been established which substantially weakens the power of the commerce clause.
So for now, the ObamaTax reverts back to the political issue it should be. And the GOP gains of 2010 will be repeated in 2012 now that ObamaTax is back on the ballot.
Just wait until Taxmageddon strikes on 01 JAN 13. The marriage penalty tax comes back.
That’s a real live Doraville doll.
Nuh uh. I live near Doraville. I have never seen her.
IF this is the way it goes, and IF they correct their error, I will once again have hope for America.
But at this time, I Am a Man Without A Country.
I agree with your perspective. ;-)
I also like this quote from your home page:
“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” -Friedrich von Hayek
Good luck with that.
Someone better come up with a lie in oral argument so Roberts can vote for it.
Arizona v USA, NFIB v Sebellius, Florida v HHS
I saw one that could have been her sister stuffing herself at Paw-Paw’s on Buford Hwy back in the late 80s.
That's what I'm hoping for, but if not, I'm moving to Uruguay.
btw, your tagline is hysterical!
Roberts will ensure that it becomes “right and proper taxation” to force people to become homosexuals...
They were talking about October 2012 at the soonest, when the next court session begins. My realistic guess is that it will more likely be later in 2013.
Roberts is all ready a “gay rights” activist....any bets on how he’ll rule???
Take note here, the Roberts court did NOT say that this ObamaTax was constitutional
Yes they absolutely did.
Why... so the 5 communist jurists can make the 4 Conservative jurists and themselves look like losers again?
There is some ruling that was issued shortly after the War of Northern Aggression that set precedent that a tax cannot be challenged until after it takes effect. Besides, no argument was offered against ObamaTax as a tax. Once the tax takes effect, then and only then can it be challenged. And it will be. And Roberts will rule accordingly. Just on equal protection alone, ObamaTax will be tossed. You may not see it now, but a lot of good is going to come from this.
Again, you are completely wrong Hoodat.
Read the opinion yourself.
Roberts ruled that the “mandate” was allowed by the constitution because it was a tax, not a penalty.
If you had read the opinion or any intelligent analyses of the opinion you would already know that Roberts dealt with the question of “Once the tax takes effect, then and only then can it be challenged.” by declaring the mandate a “penalty”
He subsequently, in the same opinion, ruled it a tax.
If this sounds convoluted to you it’s only because it is.
Here is an article that may help explain this for you:
Here he addresses the “anti-injuction act’ you referred to:
Roberts first examines the question of whether the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits Americans from bringing suit against Obamacare at this time.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed, Roberts explains.
Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit, says Roberts.
The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise, Roberts continues. “The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax. Congress, however, chose to describe the [s]hared responsibility payment imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a tax, but as a penalty. There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to any tax would apply to a penalty.
Congresss decision to label this exaction a penalty rather than a tax is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as taxes, said Roberts.
Roberts thus concludes that because Congress calls the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate a penalty not a tax, the “penalty” therefore is not a “tax.”
That’s just plain whack. Looks like it will be up to us then. Time to grab a pitchfork and visit my Congressman and Senators.