Nation Of Laws No More

Justice Dept says it will no longer defend the ban on gay marriage...

What if the Repub Admin said that they were no longer going to defend a womens right to chose?


Come on lefties I gotta see the spin your gonna try on this issue!

I would be inclined to agree with your position in general.

However, the justice department has also chosen not to pursue war crimes charges against members from the previous administration despite their public admission to them. I believe the standard Republican response to any investigation on that front would be "Banana Republic Politics" and regretably the Obama Administration seems to have capitualted to that position.

Conclusion: you can be pissed off about certain laws the Obama Administration has chosen not to enforce. I'll be pissed about others. But I suspect we are both guilty of a double standard here - unless you think Dick Cheney should be charged with ordering torture along with a great many other things....

Which administration? Are you referring to the Obama administration, or the Reagan, George W. Bush, or Clinton administrations. Because all of the above directed their justice departments to refuse to defend certain laws. And the Obama administration WILL continue to enforce the law, so we are still a nation of laws.

Maybe you should change the title of the topic to "If a Democrat did it, it must be bad."

Forkie link please where an AG from Regan Bush or Clinton said they will no longer defend in court a law that was passed

Forkie, just like Obama charged the black panthers. According to his own attoney general, they will not persue civil rights violations against non-minority people.

Also, the dem's cry for "civility" when a demo rep stated yesterday, sometimes you need to get out and get bloody sometimes.

Talking out of both sides again.

In 2005, the George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law over the censoring of drug ads. In 1999, the Clinton administration chose not to defend a law that they believed conflicted with the Miranda ruling. The Clinton administration also chose not to defend a law making it illegal for those who were HIV positive to serve in the military. In 1982, the Reagan administration chose not to defend portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act they believed to be unconstitutional.

This is not a complete list.

Szelisk, link please where Attorney General Holder said he would not enforce civil rights violations against non-minorities.

Think there is confusion on the difference between enforcing a law and defending a law. Maybe a fictitious example will side step the emotionalism of this issue.

A previous administration signs into law a federal act which prohibits kissing in public. The current administration feels this particular act grievously violates the Constitution. They order Justice not to defend this act. The act will still be enforced. Federal agents will still cite or arrest those in violation and federal courts still try the cases.

However, suppose someone arrested under this act appeals on the grounds that the act is unconstitutional. What will no longer happen is Justice either arguing for the act or joining in such a suit. In other words they will not defend the act from those seeking to have it over turned on Constitutional grounds. And there is no basis in US law to compell the government to defend an act so the actions are completely legal.

I guess you couldn't look this up yourself.

Report on Black panthers

Department Of Justice Whistleblower

So you lied, huh? Because your claim was not found in your links.