"Nothing in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the senators contend, "authorizes a court to strike down an otherwise constitutional law based on the belief that legislators individually, or the Congress as a whole, were motivated by 'animus,'" states the brief, which is signed by Michael Stern of Fairfax, Va."Judicial 'psychoanalysis' of legislative motives, to use Justice Cardozo's phrase, is a highly subjective exercise, which threatens needless friction between the branches," the brief continues. "Scouring the congressional record for 'sound-bites' to divine and disparage the motives of individual legislators also chills the freedom of legislative speech that is the hallmark of robust democratic debate."
In a footnote, the senators added that they didn't appreciate White's comparison of the arguments for DOMA with historical arguments against interracial marriage, either.
Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when DOMA was passed, received written assurances from the Clinton Justice Department that the legislation was constitutional, the brief states."
6 Comments
Thought Police. Now it's not just people deemed to have committed "hate crimes," it's legislators that they are after. Be careful what you say as it could be interpreted as animus.
Just more proof that these miscreants have declared war on the 1st Amendment.
Well if we are just going to sit back and let these Stalinists convict even US Senators of Thoughtcrimes then we deserve what we get.
Time to stand up and fight Gay Fascism, especially in the judicial branch, but first and foremost by defeating Barack Obama, who would certainly impose pseudo-marriage via SCOTUS appointments if reelected.
Great job by the senators. Laws that are otherwise constitutional cannot be struck down by rumors of animus on the part of the legislature or people. So recording the voices of marriage rally attendees, screen-capping comments on blogs and Facebook pages, and harvesting information that purports to show “animus,” should make no difference in courts when a law is constitutional.
That’s only one reason why these DOMA cases are playing out in such an interesting way.
We have judges on one hand saying that the record reflects animus on the part of DOMA enactors; while judges on the other hand admit that allegations of animus are not a strong reason to strike down DOMA, and indeed, cannot be deemed the sole reason for any person’s support of DOMA.
You have some judges saying that DOMA passes rational basis scrutiny, and that gays and lesbians are not a suspect class. And in order to circumvent these legal proscriptions, this group of judges decides to invent a new type of analysis to strike down DOMA. But then you have other judges saying that gays and lesbians are a suspect class, and that DOMA doesn’t pass rational basis review.
And, of course, we have a judge who, in a ruling striking down DOMA, ruled that it is not only unconstitutional for the government to keep federal benefits from married same-sex couples, but also from domestic partnerships!
Good times.
The senators make great points about how it’s not the job of the courts to try to do “psychoanalysis” of the people and their representatives.
I particularly love how they noted that Clinton’s Justice Department confirmed the law’s constitutionality before it was passed.
One thing this whole fiasco demonstrates:
The judicial branch makes a really bad legislative branch.
Brillant point Ash, and may I point our that it is only in heavily blue states like CA,MA, and NY have they struck down DOMA. Has anyone noticed that the activists when they go judge shopping always avoid the conservative courts?