Posted by
Roxanna M. on Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:28:19 AM
The New Republic, stalwart defender of all that's left, said that Obama's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is "nothing less than bold."
In a recent interview, Newt Gingrich said that ". . . having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional." Obama didn't suspend the law, he just said that he's not going to enforce it. TNR, of course, thinks this is great because the left wants gay marriage.
But the President instructing his Department of Justice not to defend a law he doesn't like has deeper consequences.
What if the next Republican president decides that affirmative action is unconstitutional - because it denies equal protection to all people - and instructs his DOJ not to defend it in the courts?
Would TNR think that that was "nothing less than bold" and that the president would be "justified in announcing a unilateral decision that he will not comply with a law he believes to be unconstitutional." Would TNR say that such an action was "justified here" and "driven by the unacceptability of the arguments that the government would otherwise have to make."
What if the next Republican president decides that abortion is not a constitutional right and instructs his DOJ not to defend it in the courts?
Would TNR think that that was "nothing less than bold" and that the president would be "justified in announcing a unilateral decision that he will not comply with a law he believes to be unconstitutional."
Would TNR say, "I don't believe that any administration is obliged to urge a court to accept propositions that the president believes are fundamentally wrong . . . The far better course was to make this one of those rare instances in which the government gives the court its honest view on fundamental questions, even if those views could lead to the law being invalidated."
Would TNR, on either of these issues, cheer on a Republican president's decision to "issue a brief setting out its view that" affirmative action/abortion "is unconstitutional."
Would TNR say that the president's "decision was honest, transparent, and respectful of the rule of law. The briefs the administration will file on this issue going forward will give the court the benefit of the Justice Department's best thinking. At the same time, the government will not be 'pretending' or 'purporting' to support the law - and, thus, the judges will know to look elsewhere for the most all-out, ho-holds-barred defense of the law in question."
Regarding affirmative action, would TNR say that the decision has "placed the executive branch of the government of the United States firmly behind the proposition that discrimination based on" race and/or gender "is wrong."
Regarding abortion, would TNR say that the decision has "placed the executive branch of the government of the United States firmly behind the proposition that" killing unborn babies "is wrong."
Would TNR say that "History will be kind" to either of these decisions?
No, of course it wouldn't. It would scream at the top of its lungs about an arrogant president and his disrespect for the law. In short, the article by TNR is just more leftist, hypocritical drivel.