4 ms·

As President he's "supposed" to fight for this, even if it's crap. That's how our "adversarial" government works. That's why it's CHECKS... As in gloves off, m

As President he's "supposed" to fight for this, even if it's crap. That's how our "adversarial" government works. That's why it's CHECKS... As in gloves off, missing teeth, hockey checks. It's up to the other TWO BRANCHES to get off their lazy asses and knock the Executive branch down a peg or two. They liked blaming the President but they gotta do the WORK to take things back. Shut up and FIGHT!

Malician 13y ago
In the case of DOMA, Justice Scalia noted that, if Obama thought DOMA was unconstitutional, he could simply refuse to enforce it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-12-307_DISSENT_5 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-... Doesn't this suggest that it is, to some extent, the President's responsibility to maintain his own branch? Or do you think Scalia is wrong in both cases?
- rtpg 13y ago
  Where exactly is it said in there? I'm having a hard time finding something that means that. And in a more general sense, isn't the executive bound to laws passed by congress? Slightly off-topic, but the fact that Justice Scalia doesn't believe that the Supreme Court has the right to judicial review. An interesting concept to me.
  - Malician 13y ago
    Sorry for the delay. "This suit saw the light of day only because the President enforced the Act (and thus gave Windsor standing to sue) even though he believed it unconstitutional. He could have equally chosen (more appropriately, some would say) neither to enforce nor to defend the statute he believed to be unconstitu- tional, see Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Un- constitutional Statutes, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 199 (Nov. 2, 1994)—in which event Windsor would not have been injured, the District Court could not have refereed this friendly scrimmage, and the Executive’s determination of unconstitutionality would have escaped this Court’s desire to blurt out its view of the law."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 13y ago
What?! Nonono, that's not how checks and balances work. Checks and balances prevent abuses by other branches, but it's not like a courtroom, it's still possible for everyone to get along and be nice and open with each other. Indeed, that's expected to be the typical behavior except in unusual circumstances.

Malician 13y ago

In the case of DOMA, Justice Scalia noted that, if Obama thought DOMA was unconstitutional, he could simply refuse to enforce it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-12-307_DISSENT_5 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-... Doesn't this suggest that it is, to some extent, the President's responsibility to maintain his own branch? Or do you think Scalia is wrong in both cases?

rtpg 13y ago
Where exactly is it said in there? I'm having a hard time finding something that means that. And in a more general sense, isn't the executive bound to laws passed by congress? Slightly off-topic, but the fact that Justice Scalia doesn't believe that the Supreme Court has the right to judicial review. An interesting concept to me.
- Malician 13y ago
  Sorry for the delay. "This suit saw the light of day only because the President enforced the Act (and thus gave Windsor standing to sue) even though he believed it unconstitutional. He could have equally chosen (more appropriately, some would say) neither to enforce nor to defend the statute he believed to be unconstitu- tional, see Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Un- constitutional Statutes, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 199 (Nov. 2, 1994)—in which event Windsor would not have been injured, the District Court could not have refereed this friendly scrimmage, and the Executive’s determination of unconstitutionality would have escaped this Court’s desire to blurt out its view of the law."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

InclinedPlane 13y ago

What?! Nonono, that's not how checks and balances work. Checks and balances prevent abuses by other branches, but it's not like a courtroom, it's still possible for everyone to get along and be nice and open with each other. Indeed, that's expected to be the typical behavior except in unusual circumstances.