L’Etat, C’est Moi!

Reichskanzler Ogabe isn’t even trying to hide it anymore.

If, indeed, he ever was trying to hide it but, you know, to point out the obvious is RAAAAACIST!

The Obama administration said Wednesday that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning the recognition of same-sex marriage, specifically a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Attorney General Eric Holder made the announcement in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner. He said that President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

No, we don’t want to debate the constitutionality of DOMA, that’s not the point.

What IS the point is that DOMA is the Law of the Land and that Reichskanzler Ogabe and his Obervolksgericht have decided, by dictatorial fiat, that the Department of Justice needs no longer defend said Law of the Land, which used to be their job, as long as Unser Führer, Ogabe, disagrees with it.

Which is nothing new, really, considering that the Department of “Justice” has already decided, in another case, that voter intimidation laws need not be enforced as long as the thugs have the “right” color.

Which, to point that out is, of course, RAAAAACIST!

Na dann, meine Herren, gute Nacht.



  1. 1
    Elephant Man growls and barks:

    Here’s a “money quote” from that MSNBC article:

    Obama’s press secretary said Wednesday the order is consistent with the president’s stance all along that DOMA is “unnecessary and unfair.” But the president says he still not sure if he supports gay marriage.

    Let me get this straight.

    Obongo isn’t supporting (or isn’t “sure” about supporting) gay marriage yet he says DOMA is “unnecessary and unfair”.

    Following this line of reasoning, I suppose he supports marriage between a man and a (insert animal or object here) just so long they aren’t the same sex.

    Unbelievable….. :em01:

  2. 2
    LC Xystus growls and barks:

    As some mediac pointed out, a new GOP Prez could in the same manner, say, refuse to implement Obamacare.

  3. 3
    americanexpat growls and barks:

    Here’s another one he’s decided unilaterally not to enforce: immigration law. And he won’t let the states enforce it, either. Can’t hassle all those prospective dumbocrat voters, now can we?

    As someone who lives outside the U.S., I take scrupulous care to ensure that my passport, visa, residency, and work permits are current. It’s all about respecting the law in the country where I have chosen to earn my living and make my temporary home. Thus, I have no issues with legal nonresidents or immigrants to the U.S. who take the time and effort to do it right. Illegals? Send ‘em back.

  4. 4
    T growls and barks:

    Hey – Let’s make lemonade, here, folks! So, Buckwheat and company declare that (in violation of their oaths of office) they will not enforce the passed laws of the land. OK – Now, Congress can either say “Do yo’ job, ALL of it” and enforce it, the Supremes can tell him “Do yo’ job, Holder” or they BOTH can allow this MASSIVE usurpation of power by the Executive.

    Great – that’s called PRECIDENT.

    A new Conservative President takes office in Jan, 2013. His name is Misha Cristie-Walker. On day ONE, he walks into the office, calls the media in and says “I declare I will not enforce or continue to allow to exist any rule, regulation, guideline, or department that is not strictly in the Constitution of the United States”. Cool !! –

    - Anti-Gun Laws: GONE
    - Department of Energy – Lights Out
    - Department of Education – Schools’ OUT.
    - All Czars – DosVedanya! (Did I spell that right?)
    - All departments left – prepare for a major review. If you can’t draw a DIRECT line to the Constitution – Ciao!
    - Federal Register (All the laws) – Major review – again, prepare for dismissal.

    Careful what precidents you set, Buckwheat. VERY Careful…

  5. 5
    Gladiator growls and barks:

    Since when does the pResident get to interpret, not enforce laws?? Is this an impeachable offense??

  6. 6
    Light29ID growls and barks:

    Response to Gladiator @:

    Yes it is…unfortunately the same criminals shitting on the carpets in the White House are the same ones pissing on the Constitution in the Senate. It coming down to a very bad ending.

  7. 7
    Grammar Czar growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, ITW says:

    After all, you say that ObamaCare is “unconstitutional” also.

    WE didn’t. A JUDGE did. You know…a member of the judicial branch? The ones duly sworn to interpret the laws? Bonzo has declared DOMA unconstitutional. A court has not.

  8. 8
    Elephant Man growls and barks:

    Response to DJ Allyn, ITW @:

    When Obongocare is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, will you pick up and move to the healthcare utopia that is Canada? After all, you’ve threatened to do just that in the past.

    Just checkin

  9. 9
    LC fxpcpa growls and barks:

    Response to DJ Allyn, ITW @:

    So lemme get this straight.

    When President Scott Walker gets into office, and he instructs his Justice Department not to defend against another Law o’ da Land, the Healthcare Bill, you will be all up in arms about that too? After all, you say that ObamaCare is “unconstitutional” also.

    No, it won’t be because we said so. It will be because a federal judge has said so. At this point Obamacare is a dead letter at least in the states that were party to the Florida suit.

    Besides it more than just this episode that speaks to Obama’s lawlessness which includes ignorance of the bankruptcy law, refusal to enforce the immigration laws, preventing the states from enforcing those same laws by law fare, ignoring a court order lifting his de facto moratorium on oil drilling in the gulf and the failure to enforce the voter rights laws.

    Not only that with a President Walker all they would have to do is repeal the inaptly named “Healthcare Affordabilty Act”(assuming 60 plausible votes in the senate) in the conventional manner. The court at that point would be moot. Except of course for it’s use by the usual suspects using, to put it kindly, novel interpretations of various clauses of the constitution to try to reimpose that travesty. Of course they would be consistent with this misadministrations twilight zone version of jurisprudence now wouldn’t it.

    Malfeasance and dereliciton of duty(which non-enforcement of the laws certainly entails) appear to be the definition of high crimes don’t think?

  10. 10
    bruce growls and barks:

    i think he does not want to defend real marri :em93: age because bongo likes to smoke a pickel every now and than. :em01:

  11. 11
    LC fxpcpa growls and barks:

    Response to Grammar Czar @:

    WE didn’t. A JUDGE did. You know…a member of the judicial branch? The ones duly sworn to interpret the laws?

    Damn hunt and peck typing skills. Good job Grammar Czar.

  12. 12
    Grammar Czar growls and barks:

    LC fxpcpa says:

    Good job Grammar Czar.

    It’s a gift. 8-)

  13. 13
    Light29ID growls and barks:

    Response to DJ Allyn, ITW @:

    How many days do you think you’d have under Canadian Healthcare after reading this DJ?

    Canadian Family in Life Support Battle Denied Request for Hospital Transfer

    As for myself…if it was of my granddaughters there would be a shit load of new volunteers for my Honor Guard in Valhalla

  14. 14
    LC PrimEviL growls and barks:

    L’Etat c’est L’Etat is more the way of it. Once the Rule of Law is broken, then it is
    Rule of Man, which is Tyranny. I hold little confidence it will change under a Republican President. The
    siren song of Power is too great.

    Our out is that once the Rule of Law is broken, so is the “social contract”, and disobedience is the order
    of the day.

    Pay heed, and Disobey!

  15. 15
    Sir George growls and barks:

    There are a few caveats about Obama’s decision. They’re only taking this stance over section 3 of DOMA, which defines “marriage” as between a man and a woman. They’re not disputing section 2 which says states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages from another state.

    And of course their decision not to defend the act still doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional, as that’s up to the Supreme Court, not the executive branch.

  16. 16

    Lets see now. Imagine a President Palin – or better yet – a President Beck (to really make the leftie heads explode) saying ‘I am not enforcing the First Amendment because I disagree with it’. Or the Fifth Amendment.

    Im reasonably sure the Left would be very civil and meekly accepting it.

    Cripes .. the blast would be bigger than the Tsar Bomba … :em95:

  17. 17
    LC Xystus growls and barks:

    LC PrimEvil@16.
    What the Loyal Citizen said. :em69:

    I’ve also thought that in the unlikely event that I (or someone similar) became president, I could start promulgating executive ukases right & left to encourage Congress to limit presidential authority–then, assuming they pass a good measure, sign it.

  18. 18
    Sir George growls and barks:

    I saw this exchange over at Ace and have to spread it.

    Honestly. What the hell do any of you care about gays getting married? None of you know any gays. Gays don’t belong to your bridge club, you’re never going to invite one over for a barbecue. A gay couple on the other side of town could get married, you would never know it. It wouldn’t affect your life in the slightest.
    Yet here you are defending your DOMA, using the government to invade the private lives of people you don’t know and don’t live anywhere near bumblefuck Alabama.

    You’re bigots. Don’t argue, don’t bother with your disgusting retorts. You’re bigots. Intolerant, hateful, xenophobic bigots. Using bigotry to get other bigots excited. That’s your defense of marriage act. Rally bell for bigots at election time.

    The world is changing and you bigots WILL be bred out of existence. History will remember you bigots like it remembers all the others – sadly.

    Came a reply:

    Better get busy out-breeding me, Jimmy-Joe.

    Because while you’ve been occupied getting your shit pushed in, I’ve been punching out a new Master Race like an angry, white, dick-flavored Pez dispenser from your worst Republican nightmare.


  19. 19
    LC Old Dog growls and barks:

    Response to DJ Allyn, ITW @:
    DJ in this case the District Courts judges Opinion applies not only in his District but also in the 25 additional States who were Co-Plaintiffs.

    It is also instructive to see that the Feds have yet to either try for a Stay or to request an Appeal! Could it be that they just plan to ignore the court?

    I personally believe that they will try to ignore this as much as possible because they do not want it getting to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will take it as it now involves a 2-2 Circuit Split!


  20. 20
    Erbo growls and barks:

    Obama and Holder also aren’t enforcing the laws against people possessing small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes, in states that have permitted such. Hence the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries here in the Denver metro area, ranging from the ones that look like they’re genuinely trying to serve sick people to the ones that don’t seem to care as much (an example of the latter: “Dr. Reefer’s Medical Marijuana” in Boulder, and one near where I live offering “Happy Hour” and “Free Joint with $25 Purchase on Thursdays”).

    Maybe less objectionable than the other laws they’ve ignored, maybe not. But certainly more amusing.

  21. 21
    LC Subotai Bahadur, Lord Pao An growls and barks:

    #21 Old Dog

    It is not only a matter of the 26 states which filed the suit, there is a basic principle of constitutional law. Although DJ Allynsky chooses to ignore it, this point was argued out here before. So I assume that he is just resisting to the bitter end.

    In short, once a Federal court declares a law unconstitutional, even a “mere” District Court; that law is immediately void unless certain things are done. Those things are 1) those supporting the law have to formally petition either the trial court or the court they are going to file an appeal in for a temporary stay of the trial court’s judgment pending appeal, and 2) those supporting the law have to file an appeal to a higher court within the time span and in the proper form listed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If a stay is requested pending appeal, it is granted almost automatically.

    The defendant in this case, the United States Government, has so far failed to do either. Therefore, the law right now is void, nationwide. They have filed a motion of amazing irrelevance and legal cognitive dissonance requesting the trial court to issue court orders to the states to obey directions to implement Obamacare and ignore the ruling that the court just issued. THAT by the way, is not in any way a legal request for a stay of the order in proper form.

    I consulted a couple of attorneys to confirm my understanding above when the subject first came up here and DJ was taking the same stand, and they confirmed my reading was right under the Federal Rules. And I believe that at least one practicing attorney amongst the LC’s has confirmed this.

    As it stands now, the law is dead. And if the Federal government fails to petition for a stay and/or file an appeal before the legal deadline set in the Federal Rules, they will be barred from ever doing so and the decision will stand. The clock is running.

    OK, so I just went and looked it up. Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 4(a)

    Rule 4. Appeal as of Right—When Taken

    (a) Appeal in a Civil Case.
    (1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal.
    (A) In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4 (a)(1)(B), 4 (a)(4), and 4 (c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.
    (B) When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.
    (C) An appeal from an order granting or denying an application for a writ of error coram nobis is an appeal in a civil case for purposes of Rule 4 (a).

    60 Days. The clock is running.

    DJ tries to treat court decisions as an election. They are not. They are legal decisions, by the one branch of government that is authorized to interpret the law, and if necessary void laws as unconstitutional. [Which rules out Obama's administration deciding which laws to enforce and which to ignore, a matter that WILL come up again.] Old Dog is precisely right, about conflicting decisions meaning that it is riper for a Supreme Court cert.. However, if the government does not file a timely appeal, it is no longer a matter of conflicting decisions, it is a matter of settled law. If they do file an appeal, then there may be a stay. And it is likely that there will be a filing for the Supreme Court to reach down and grant an early cert.

    And once again, if a “mere” single District Court ruling of something being unconstitutional is ONLY valid in that District, then DJ has to explain how “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was struck down by U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips in Riverside, California, alone, with effect nationwide.

    LC Subotai Bahadur, Lord Pao An