We've found some Republicans President Obama is willing to fight. Log Cabin Republicans

[Better Believe It]

Who do you think you are, Grover Cleveland?
By: Attaturk
October 15, 2010

People “always” respect a leader who says his hands are all tied…, real changey:

During a town hall meeting Thursday, Obama said he was obliged to enforce and defend “don’t ask” because it became the law 17 years ago.

“Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally,” Obama said in response to a question about why he had not lifted the ban. “So, this is not a situation in which, with a stroke of a pen, I can simply end the policy.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43630.html

But in this case, you need not even use a pen, you can just sit there.

But no, it’s going to be “this unconstitutional, discriminatory law sucks — how dare a judge declare it so, I guess I’ll have to appeal to preserve it.”

But at least we found some Republicans the President is willing to fight:

For six years, Justice Department lawyers have pushed back against a challenge to the law brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/10/15/who-do-you-think-you-are-grover-cleveland/

[VMI Dem]

1. The President has to appeal rulings on unconstitutional laws or he will go to jail.

[treestar]

7. The Justice Dept. traditionally defends all laws

Grow up here. This is not the way to go. The POTUS is a lawyer and understands these legal matters. You're like a kid yelling at Mommy and Daddy to get home right now, when you're twenty miles away. It's embarrassing.

[VMI Dem]

9. No. They don't defend all laws.

[treestar]

11. There's a standard, and on rare occasions, it provides they not challenge it

Besides, why be afraid of challenging it if is has no rational basis? Let it go up to the SCOTUS. There's all this talk of "courage" on the boards, maybe some people are willing to settle for a victory in one little district? Which will only last until some other district brings it up anyway. If a lower court in another state finds the law constitutional, and that circuit court of appeal does, then surely you'd want it appealed.

The only reason to be panicked at this appeal is a certainty that the SCOTUS will find it constitutional. In which case, one can hardly sit back and let Republicans take over Congress to make it impossible to get good justices for the next openings.

[Better Believe It]

10. So you think President Obama should/must defend a law that clearly violates the Consitution.

You think he should go "all out" in that defense?

And his sworn oath to defend the Constitution is a mere suggestion or secondary matter.

[treestar]

12. If that's the case, why can't the plaintiffs handle the appeal to the higher courts?

Why would they lose in the circuit court? If you're so certain of this, then you should want higher courts to affirm the decision.

[Better Believe It]

13. You want a right-wing Republican controlled Supreme Court to decide this.

Why?

[treestar]

16. Is that how you are characterizing them NOW?

So why do you work so hard against Democrats? You want more Rs on the court?

And they do the right thing by the law. They struck down some of Bush's claims of power.

[Marr]

17. If you think they're fine, why do you care about electing more Democrats

and getting more liberals on the Supreme Court?

This silly line can go on forever, you know.

[treestar]

19. That makes no sense.

:wtf: Rs will put right wing nuts on the court.

But even those can't just disregard the law.

[HughMoran]

2. .

:eyes:

unrec and hide

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomWV]

3. No President is forced to defend a law, only sworn to uphold it

[dennis4868]

4. A president....

is suppose to defend and uphold the constitution and enforce the laws on the books!

[POAS]

5. +1 n/t

[treestar]

6. Yeah well, the POTUS is not a dictator, thank goodness he can't

do whatever he wants. We did not want that for Bush, did we?

Sounds like you'd be the type who, when a lawyer told you that the law did not allow you to do a thing, would just blame the lawyer as "weak" and storm out. The concept of the rule of law does not sink in.

[whistler162]

8. "We did not want that for Bush, did we?" At points I wonder

if some do!

[Better Believe It]

14. You might want to read this:

2005: Justice Department Refuses to Defend Congress in Legal Battle Over Law

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9324155

[bvar22]

15. Very colorful,...but WRONG.

""The Clinton Administration Refused To Appeal The Court's Decision"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9318624