Justices Roberts and Scalia rip Obama over DOMA

This is excellent, and I love what Scalia says about the legal system living in a brave new world under Obama. That couldn’t be more true:


THE HILL – Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder decided in 2011 that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. They quit defending it in the courts, but directed federal agencies to continue to comply with the law.

Conservatives on the Supreme Court criticized that approach Wednesday during oral arguments over whether DOMA is constitutional.

“I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions,” Chief Justice John Roberts said of Obama’s decision to continue following the law, even though he believes it is unconstitutional.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the legal system appears to be “living in this brave new world” in which the Justice Department can simply opt out of its traditional responsibility to defend federal laws in the courts.

He questioned who has the power to decide the government will not defend a particular law.

“It’s only when the president thinks its unconstitutional?” Scalia asked. Or could the attorney general, or the solicitor general, impose the same determination?

Citing his own experience as a lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel, Scalia said DOMA does not meet the criteria for laws the Justice Department can opt not to defend.


Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

46 thoughts on “Justices Roberts and Scalia rip Obama over DOMA

    1. TheRedWriter Non-sense   DOMA merely upholds the rights of the states, protecting one state from judicial decisions in another state and protecting individual states from decisions of the Federal government
       Despite the recent losses in liberal courts, DOMA was in fact upheld five times in Federal courts

  1. Roberts will say what sounds good at the time, then vote as a member of SCOTUS just the opposite.  Most untrustworthy, this guy Roberts.

  2. Forgive my ignorance on this issue.  Perhaps somebody can answer.  Is the case that is before the Supreme Court, a challenge to DOMA?  If it is, and the court finds DOMA to be unconstitutional, would that necessarily mean that individual state laws that prohibit gay marriage would then be considered unconstitutional too?

    1. mike3e4r7 no.  The SCOTUS is deciding on one narrow aspect of Defense of Marriage Act.  Problem is I can’t remember what it is.

  3. Prediction, SCOTUS will uphold Prop-8 but strikes down DOMA Making Marriage a State issue.

  4. People forget than when Congress passed an immigration reform bill in 1996 (?) and it became law, Reno declared that she disagreed with the new law and would not enforce it.

  5. “…does not meet the criteria for laws the Justice Department can opt not to defend.”
    Say what? Far as I know, the courts interpret the law and are bound to enforce them until such as time as they are deemed unconstitutional or are overturned by the people or by the courts. Simply not enforcing laws is not part of the arrangement.
    Why has the Revolution not started yet? Does someone have to be killed or imprisoned first?

  6. I’m not seeing any intellectual prowess here because the reality is it’s a no brainer. Feds need to uphold the law and they don’t and DOMA isn’t the only one that they haven’t.

  7. Don’t TRUST Roberts. Remember OBAMACARE! he screwed the country to get his name in lights!!!!

  8. Sorry, but it was the GOP fault with thinking they could just put it on the Supreme Court to get rid of Obamacare.  They could have done it themselves, by not funding it.  Too many conservatives fell for the BS the GOP always does…talk out of both sides of their mouths.  Ditto about relying on GOP Gov to not take the exchange.

  9. Corruption is not a disease it is inherent in the system because the people are corrupt.  
    Isaiah 57:20 says “But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot
    rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud”  What do the people toss up
    mire and mud.
    If the people keep electing mire and mud, whose fault is it.

    1. Twice, NoTrust, twice they elected BHO. He is so radical and is so plain in his Socialist leanings! Yet, the people elected him, not once, but twice!
      All I can think is “Give us Barabbas!”

  10. Everyone is missing their goal.
    They want marriage legal for gays and the first time a church refuses to marry a same sex couple…….boom goes their tax exempt status.
    Another hit against Christians and family values.

  11. It seems to me that congress would have some kind of recourse in forcing the president’s hand on doing his job. Not that congress would be interested in that, but they should have the ability, even if it comes down to impeachment for deraliction of duty.
    Although, if  I were president, there would probably be a huge list of things that I would not do, and that are enshrined in law. I don’t think that the president is any different than our troops in that they should disobey un-constitutional mandates or orders.

    1. libertifirst If the federal government or a state for that matter refuses to defend its own law then a citizen should be granted standing to do so.

      1. I think that the states and individuals have the right to refuse federal mandates on constitutional grounds. I don’t see any reason that individuals would be exempt from being able to disobey the state government based on the principle of civil disobedience as well. When we do this, we just have to keep in mind that we are engaging in a legal battle with the State, and we will likely have to take it to court for a final determination. This isn’t a good thing when the courts are corrupt, and they are. We don’t really have any legitimate system in which we can get proper justice any more. The courts are made up of those who are employed by the State and serve the State, and we are now accepting that the federal government can make laws, and then determine if their own laws will stand or not. Any tyrant would love to have that power. The states have the power of nullification and, if needed, seccession, but the states were put in their place by the federal governmet as a result of the civil war. The states will either rebel, or we will continue to be oppressed by a socialist/communist federal government. The states need to get back to the issue of defense and build up their militias for the purpose of being able to defend against the huge domestic federal police state.

  12. I respect Scalia but that little prick Roberts is still one of my most despised individuals, after he single-handily destroyed the greatest healthcare system in the world.

    1. Proudhispanicconservative Maybe not all by himself, but when the disaster was headed his way he chose not to stop it and instead moved out of the way.

    2. Roberts is definitely a traitor to conservatives, and our constitution. I tend to write off the whole court as corrupt.

      1. libertifirst  They deserve the criticism they’re getting.  I’m totally disgusted too.

    3. Proudhispanicconservative Perhaps the little pri** may decide to try and redeem himself, but like you I would not hold my breath.

      1. deTocqueville1 Proudhispanicconservative No he won’t his lesbian cousin is front and center at the hearings

        1. @OneThinDime deTocqueville1 @Proudhispanicconservative it just doesnt sound good.

        2. Proudhispanicconservative deTocqueville1 We all know Roberts is a pawn in Obama’s chess game.  It’s time we go on the offense and sue against every federal law we don’t like and argue it discriminates against Christians.

      2. deTocqueville1 @Proudhispanicconservative Lets just leave it up to God, he is in control.

    4. Proudhispanicconservative I don’t think Roberts is on any conservative’s list of favorites and I read the other day his lesbian cousin was at the arguments. 🙁

  13. Antonin Scalia has a great mind and I so enjoy listening to him. Once again he has done what he does so well; take legal arguments and apply common sense law. If I had been the lawyers for the govt I would have walked out with my head hung low.

    1. njmom I like his take on this; however, I have heard his views on the 2nd amendment and they confuse me.  He believes it refers to actual arms at the time, say…muskets.  I hope I misunderstood him but i don’t believe I did…

      1. Kelly60 njmom You might read the Heller decision.  It is not being properly portrayed by the Dems during Senate hearings.

        1. Kelly60 OneThinDime njmom Here’s a DC article with Cruz’s response.  I’ll try and find the case and reply again.

  14. Hmmm, how about the Federal government actually ENFORCING laws that are on the books? The government doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws it likes. That’s up to the Supreme Court. Then again, since we have activist judges now making laws and nullifying votes made by citizens (such as in California with the gay marriage vote), and we now have the government not enforcing laws that are already on the books, why bother having any laws at all? Just let the people do whatever they want to. Isn’t there a word for that? Oh yes, it’s called ANARCHY. Such a liberal way to live, too.

    1. Libertyship46 Oh you mean like immigration laws or gun laws?  They don’t play into their agenda.

  15. “…Scalia said DOMA does not meet the criteria for laws the Justice Department can opt not to defend….”
    Hey Judge- Sounds like you’ve never been up against a labrador dog with a bone in his mouth…Obama

    1. WordsFailMe What Scalia is saying is that the Justice Dept cannot opt out defending DOMA nor can they choose which laws to defend. I think he was being a little sarcastic especially if you put it in context with the rest of his statement.

Comments are closed.