Posted on 03/27/2013 11:11:43 AM PDT by markomalley
So speaketh John Roberts of ObamaCare fame..."It's not a penalty, I will just call it a tax". Cowardly bastard!
We all know (as well as John Roberts knows) that he is just pandering to conservatives, and that he will vote in favor of gays, lezzies & perverts in this court case. No doubt about it.
Roberts believes the Government can order you to spend 100% of your income on broccoli, and that is just a “Tax.”
He’s an intellectual midget. Fool. Leftist. Totalitarian Enabler.
B U M P
How does this differ from CA’s AG deciding not to defend Prop 8 that was voted on by the entire voting population of CA ? Yesterday Justices were arguing that the Respondents might not have standing because they weren’t the state’s AG who chose not to defend the state law. I am way too confused.
#18
That’s funny!
Reminds me of the line in “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” when Tuco says to Blondie “You’re the son of a thousand fathers, all bastards like yourself!”
In CA, the law allows the proponents who put the initiative on the ballot to assume responsibility for defending it in court when the state refuses to do so. Justice Breyer called it a “public action” and said that such cases are not in the purview of the federal court system historically. So CA was correct in granting standing but were the federal courts correct? That’s why the standing issue exists in that case.
I am assuming that federal law does not allow such an action thus the question of whether or not the Legislative branch has standing to defend DOMA and why the justices are so bent out of shape. They have to decide if a co-equal branch of government has the right to sue over the enforcement of laws that it passed.
All this really has what’s left of my mind and sanity in a knot. I don’t understand how an elected state official (CA AG) or appointed federal official (US AG) can refuse to enforce properly passed laws.
Do they get to pick and choose after the the people or the legislature vote and the executive signs into laws? And, failing to carry out their sworn duty, how can there not be another entity to perform that role for them? Or to remove them from office?
A real man would have done that.
I suspect that's what Petraeus did. He was threatened over his affair to keep him in line about Benghazi. He decided to be a man, break the news himself and resign.
Will Petraeus tell us what he knows about Benghazi? Will Roberts continue to be blackmailed? Time will tell.
There’s your trouble. Enforce v. Defend.
Both AG’s refused to defend the law in court. They did not refuse to enforce the law.
With DOMA, Holder issued instructions that DOMA is to be enforced by the U.S. but if the enforcement of the law results in a lawsuit - as it did with Windsor - Holder will not defend the federal government’s enforcement of DOMA in such a lawsuit.
Same with CA. The State enforces Prop. 8 by not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. When the same-sex couples filed suit, the AG refused to defend CA’s enforcement of Prop. 8 in court. Under CA law, that gave the right to defend Prop. 8 to the specific individuals who started the ballot initiative - as opposed to any CA citizen who voted for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.