« | »

Holder Tells State Attorneys To Ignore Their Laws

From a cheering New York Times:

Holder Sees Way to Curb Bans on Gay Marriage

By MATT APUZZO | February 24, 2014

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Monday injected the Obama administration into the emotional and politicized debate over the future of state same-sex marriage bans, declaring in an interview that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.

So it’s okay for government officials to ignore their oaths of office and refuse to enforce a law they don’t personally agree with. But it’s a crime for a religious official to refuse a church wedding to some couple because of a personal belief.

Mr. Holder was careful not to encourage his state counterparts to disavow their own laws, but said that officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.

So the Attorney General of the United States, the highest law enforcement officer in the country, says it is okay to ignore legally enacted laws. And, in fact, he is encouraging people to do so. Which he does on quite a few issues, by the way. (Cf. amnesty.)

Six state attorneys general — all Democrats — have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage, prompting criticism from Republicans who say they have a duty to stand behind their state laws, even if they do not agree with them.

What nonsense. Only Republicans have to enforce laws they disagree with.

It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections…

And, of course, they would never be political.

The nation’s first black attorney general, Mr. Holder has said he views today’s gay-rights campaigns as a continuation of the civil rights movement that won rights for black Americans in the 1950s and ’60s. He has called gay rights one of “the defining civil rights challenges of our time.” …

And if you call something a ‘civil right,’ then no one can oppose it. Just like amnesty has suddenly become a civil right.

His comments signal the latest manifestation of the Obama administration’s evolving position on gay rights. Mr. Obama came into office opposed to same-sex marriage. But in 2011, he decided against defending the Defense of Marriage Act and ended the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays and lesbians from the military. The next year, the president said he personally supported gay marriage…

All of which he did to boost the fundraising for his re-election campaign.  But it wasn’t political. No way.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Tuesday, February 25th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Holder Tells State Attorneys To Ignore Their Laws”

  1. Astravogel

    Captain Jack Sparrow: “We consider the Code as guidelines.”

  2. Petronius

    OK, let’s see if we can figure out where these DOJ policies are going :

    gay marriage = good
    enforcement of traditional marriage laws = bad

    amnesty = good
    enforcement of immigration laws = bad

    illegal immigrant felons = good
    Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Gov. Jan Brewer = bad

    IRS criminal abuses of power = good
    prosecution of IRS criminals = bad

    FBI abuses of power = good
    prosecution of FBI criminals = bad

    Black Panther intimidation of white voters = good
    enforcement of Voting Rights Act = bad

    vote fraud = good
    State voter ID requirements = bad

    corruption of voter rolls = good
    enforcement of voter roll cleanup provision of Motor Voter law = bad

    mandatory abortion coverage = good
    Little Sisters of the Poor = bad

    Fast & Furious = good
    Second Amendment = bad

    race-based preferences and disparate impact suits = good
    equal enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act = bad

    prosecution of incorruptible reporters = good
    James Rosen, FoxNews, Sharyl Attkisson, and First Amendment = bad

    Lucky thing this isn’t a criminal regime, right Bill O’Reilly?

  3. BillK

    Why is this so difficult?

    The law of the land is now whatever Obama says it is.

    If Obama disagrees – be they drug laws, immigration laws, or state laws – the DoJ is simply not to allow enforcement.

    Kind of makes you wonder if he’ll bother letting anyone enforce the 22nd Amendment when the time comes.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Rush mentioned this where he has come to doubt that president sissy-pants may leave voluntarily under the auspices of who gets elected. IOW, if a republican wins the election, he may say, “I can’t leave the country in the hands of a hateful sexist, bigot homophobe, etc.” and then just simply stay and through some parliamentary trickery, find a way to make it happen where he stays as president.

      However, I feel there will be ( ) over it and the left is really pushing people in that direction. I think they welcome it because they do tend to foment violence and encourage it. However, they also hugely fail to realize that the military will only do part of their nasty bidding.

      They want a divided nation, you see. They truly do.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »