Holder Sees Way to Curb Bans on Gay Marriage


#1

nyti.ms/1fz6M89


#2

So much for their promises to uphold the laws when attorney generals pick and chose what laws they will defend.


#3

The way is by brute-force. No constitution, science, logic or reason is needed when you can simply flex your government power. What does it matter that half of the country doesn’t want this new definition of marriage? Holder, Obama, and the Democrat party have the power to run whatever social engineering experiment they want to on Americans whether we like it or not. If we don’t like it, they will simply tell us that we do.


#4

The problem is abuse of the law works both ways.

An AG could just as easily not enforce laws protecting gay rights as well.

An AG could simply choose not to prosecute businesses who discriminate against homosexuals. Hate crimes would be neutered. The breadth of this sort of abandonment of the rule of law is staggering, and not good.

This is what Holder and those who support this garbage are supporting. Long live chaos and anarchy. What a sad state of affairs for a once proud country that a first rate clown like this guy has any power or voice whatsoever.


#5

Again with the “I’m just not going to bother defending that law” tactic. I really don’t remember this happening with such great frequency before. It is a somewhat mystifying phenomenon to me.

Does this mean Attorney Generals are also free to disregard laws permitting abortion? That would be nice.


#6

Anyone who supports this is simply not American. We were founded as a nation under the rule of law. This is the opposite of that.


#7

Coalition Of Black Pastors Call For Holder Impeachment Over Same-Sex Marriage

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – A coalition of African-American civil rights leaders and pastors announced a campaign to gather 1 million signatures to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder for attempting to undermine states’ authority to “coerce states to fall in line with same-sex marriage.”

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) is calling for Holder’s impeachment for “attempting to impose ‘same-sex marriage’ throughout the nation despite federal law, rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, and state constitutional amendments to the contrary,” reads the online petition.

“What we have in Attorney General Holder is a man so political in his zeal to redefine marriage that he is willing to run roughshod over the rulings of the Supreme Court, binging federal law, and the United States Constitution along with the constitutions of a majority of states,” the Rev. Bill Owens, founder and president of CAAP, said in a statement.

washington.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/coalition-of-black-pastors-call-for-holder-impeachment-over-same-sex-marriage


#8

Coalition Of Black Pastors Call For Holder Impeachment Over Same-Sex Marriage

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – A coalition of African-American civil rights leaders and pastors announced a campaign to gather 1 million signatures to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder for attempting to undermine states’ authority to “coerce states to fall in line with same-sex marriage.”

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) is calling for Holder’s impeachment for “attempting to impose ‘same-sex marriage’ throughout the nation despite federal law, rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, and state constitutional amendments to the contrary,” reads the online petition.

“What we have in Attorney General Holder is a man so political in his zeal to redefine marriage that he is willing to run roughshod over the rulings of the Supreme Court, binging federal law, and the United States Constitution along with the constitutions of a majority of states,” the Rev. Bill Owens, founder and president of CAAP, said in a statement.


#9

Ask yourself, would you defend a law that you thought was immoral and unjust? In his position, would you defend laws that keep abortion legal against challenges? I doubt it.


#10

It’s a cowardly tactic. At the minimum, the attorney general is charged with enforcing all laws on the books, whether he or she disagrees with them or not. At the worst, it is tantamount to a non-judicial review of laws.

A similar tactic is when a state (such as my own) decides to ignore laws that are enacted directly by the voters, as the Missouri State Constitution allows. One example is the so-called “Puppy Mill Amendment” which voters approved in 2010. The state’s General Assembly later dismantled it. Similarly, after voters in California passed Prop 8, attorneys general including Kamala Harris (state’s AG) said they would not enforce it nor defend it in Court. This is an absolute over-reach of power. It goes from representation to pure paternalism.

Eric Holder has realized that he answers only to President Obama, and no one else. That is dangerous. He was held in contempt of Congress and no one bothered to enforce the arrest warrant. He is a power without a check, an authority without tested curbs. Such a thing should not exist in a democracy.


#11

Would I defend a murderer in Court who confessed to me that he had done the crime? I’d be obligated to. In fact, I’d be disbarred if I said “I cannot defend him, he told me he did it.” This is why I’m not an attorney, and I suspect its why many attorneys aspire to be judges - and even so, merely because a law is immoral does not mean that it must be struck down. We agree on very few things in our society, and I suppose that’s always been the way. Legality seems an easier basis to find common ground than morality.

It is not up to Eric Holder to determine what laws are just and unjust. It would not be up to me to do so either. It may very well be up to me to state the basis why a law may not be defensible - I would be obligated to do so. It is not unprecedented that AGs do not defend the laws of their jurisdiction - such happened during the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s though I cannot think of a case off the top of my head. What matters is this:

  • When a law is challenged, it must be defended in Court
  • When there is no defense, the Court has no reason to uphold the law
  • Therfore, refusing to defend a law in Court is tantamount to an extrajudicial review and condemnation of legislation that is passed by an appropriate assembly

I retract my earlier sentiment that Eric Holder (and Kamala Harris and others who are confused about their role as attorneys general) is abusing power. Rather, I think they are simply failing to execute their duties at a minimally satisfactory level. I understand why the Congress held him (and continues to hold him) in contempt, and why there have been multiple calls for his impeachment, from the Left and the Right, from black and from white. The man is an embarrassment in his position.


#12

I am not sure what Eric Holders intentions were but this is not a good act. This action is something as Happy Catholic said that creates chaos and anarchy.


#13

I would not take an oath to do the job, which he did. He knew there would be laws he might not agree with, but there was no caveat to his taking the job. Do you realize how a lawful society cannot function when its leaders decide for them which laws they think should be upheld.

Again, I assume if a state decides to outright ban abortion, for example, you’d support the AG not enforcing federal law? All it will now take is for another conservative AG like John Ashcroft (albeit one with no scruples or integrity like Holder) to tell the state AGs to start ignoring the Roe vs Wade statute.

Or if a state decides to lower the minimum wage requirement, which is set federally, you’d support an AG not defending the people protected by that law?

This is a disregard for our constitution of the highest order, and a country that operates this way will not be a civil one for very long. This is another step towards tyranny, and while I don’t condone violence, I could certainly sympathize with citizenry who decide to take action because they are being abandoned by their elected leaders.

Eric Holder is a disgraceful man with no integrity, it seems.


#14

If you take that oath of office, you are bound to enforce the laws enacted by the representatives of the people. If you can’t or won’t enforce those laws that you are by the constitution required to enforce, then don’t take the oath. It doesn’t matter what the law is, you have no constitutional power or authority to nullify it unilaterally. That is known as tyranny.

Holder makes John Mitchell look like a saint.

Jon


#15

Ironically, we have numerous liberals on this board who have said pharmacists who have issues religiously with dispensing contraceptives should not have the job where this is expected, even though there are pharmacists who can fulfill this role.

There is NO other attorney general for people to turn to. Disgraceful.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android


#16

Ironically, we have numerous liberals on this board who have said pharmacists who have issues religiously with dispensing contraceptives should not have the job where this is expected, even though there are pharmacists who can fulfill this role.

Let’s be careful to keep it on the topic and the person of topic. BlueEyedLady has said her piece, said it well, and found several of us disagreeing.

I suppose the next question is, what action should the citizens take? Is there room on that petition for impeachment for a few more signatures? Are there other qualified attorneys who we could recommend to replace Holder?


#17

It’s perfectly OK…because the right people are doing this for the right reason. </sarcasm off>

:banghead::banghead:

Seriously, the cognitive dissonance of the left really staggers the mind. There is either utter silence…or outright approval of these kinds of tactics…as long as the Obama Administration is the ones doing so.


#18

Absolutely nothing will happen in regard to impeachment. First, the GOPe controlling the House do not have the intestinal fortitude to do so. Second, assuming they did (a big stretch, to put it mildly), any impeachment must then be tried in the Senate. Considering the Democrats, who approve any action by their President regardless of how unconstitutional it is, control the Senate…and considering that a sizable portion of the Republicans in the minority actually approve of Obama’s actions (thinking of the expanded Statist power that they assume a Republican would have if elected to the WH), such a “trial” would be summarily dismissed.

The earliest such a move could happen would be in November, 2016…if Obama suspends elections that year due to a national crisis.

Yes, to even suggest such a thing sounds like a conspiracy theory. But had half the stuff he has actually done been suggested back before November, 2008, I would be accused of being a conspiracy theorist.

And for the record, no I am not saying that he will do it (because, frankly, I don’t think he has any interest in doing so). But I wouldn’t put it past him.


#19

In a way this could be good. Just like Obama dropping the defense of DOMA allowed social conservatives to march the defense (albeit using weird arguments, though certainly better than Obama’s would have been), if there is a way for state legislatures to appoint an attorney to defend laws that AGs feel an obligation not to defend, then it would likely be defended better.

I think the better question to ask yourself is whether you’d WANT these people defending the law. They’d probably walk into court, say “the defense rests; the law is nonsensical,” then enjoy the repercussions of there not being an actual defense.


#20

The problem with this is that the Obama Justice Department has set a very bad precedent that they are promulgating to the states.

Turn this discussion on its head:

Suppose a state has a hate crime law. An AG is elected and declares that he will no longer charge anybody with a “hate crime” because all crimes are “hate crimes” and prosecution under that would create a “thought crime”, violating a person’s first amendment rights. According to the precedent set by Obama/Holder, that would be perfectly OK.

Suppose a state has, by statute, defined “sexual orientation” as a protected class. An AG could appoint a chief of the state Civil Rights Division who unilaterally determines that he will no longer accept complaints about “sexual orientation” discrimination because “sexual orientation” is not something that can be inherently determined by looking at the person…Again, according to the precedent set by Obama/Holder, that would be no problem whatsoever.

Except for the pitiful reason that both the above would go against the Obama/Holder agenda…and, for that reason alone, if an AG or a CRD chief was to take an action like that, they’d be subjects of USDOJ investigations and/or IRS audits.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.