William C. Duncan in National Review Online:
"...A very important part of the brief [filed by the 10 senators in defense of DOMA] is its response to “a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial role in passing on the constitutionality of a federal statute.” The brief explains that nothing in constitutional law “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.’ Adopting any such doctrine would be highly dangerous to the separation-of-powers and the proper functioning of our constitutional system.”
In fact, they explain, the accusation of animus “is little more than an attempt to win an argument by disparaging the motives of the other side.” The senators characterize what the trial court did in this case: “The District Court’s approach cherry-picks statements made by individual members, construes them as reflective of improper motivation, and then imputes these improper motives to the Congress as a whole.” Among other problems with this approach, the brief points out: “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.”
15 Comments
Wow, it gets even better. Not only did the Clinton Justice Department confirm DOMA's constitutionality, but an expert witness testifying against it at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing also admitted to the constitutionality of the section of DOMA at issue in these cases.
Good times.
"Judicial 'psychoanalysis' of legislative motives, to use Justice Cardozo’s phrase, is a highly subjective exercise, which threatens needless friction between the branches."
Right that.
The entire amicus brief can be linked through the National Review and is a barn burner.
Bravo Senators!
The wholesale application of the trial court’s doctrine would quickly lead to state nullification of federal laws and the supremacy of the judiciary over Congress.
Want to change federal guns laws or federal tax laws or any other federal law? All a state has to do if come up with a novel definition that would thwart the federal purpose and have a friendly court claim that the federal law was based on animus (say, towards the rich or towards gun owners), and the federal statute is conveniently overturned, ending federalism and the balance between the courts and the legislature as we have known it.
There are multiple home runs in this brief:
"The District Court’s subjective perception of congressional motivation is not a basis for declaring a statute unconstitutional."
"...the District Court opinion misunderstands and misapplies the Supreme Court’s precedent on “animus.” Nothing in that jurisprudence 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.” Adopting any such doctrine would be highly dangerous to the separation-of-powers and the proper functioning of our constitutional system."
"Inevitably, a court’s subjective assessment of the motives of a particular legislature will be influenced by the court’s own prejudices, as illustrated by the District Court’s dismissal of “prior law, history, tradition, the dictionary and the Bible” as sources relevant to understanding the governmental interest in marriage."
I just could not stop laughing when I saw this video...
Obama Boy’: The ‘Obama Girl’ of 2012 (VIDEO)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-boy-obama-girl-2012-video-125127954.html
Publius, your example about the rich is a good one.
There is a demonstrably strong anti-rich sentiment in this country, especially from the Occupy Wall Street crowd, and their anger with the one percent.
We can't let five wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner.
Unpopular minority groups need protection, and can't be singled out for unfair treatment in the form of higher taxes.
"We can't let five wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner."
But, apparently we MUST let those five wolves vote on weather or not the sheep can marry another sheep.
Seems if it weren't for situational ethics the NOMies would have no ethics at all.
@John Colgan
What the heck was that you typed?
But DOMA is not an otherwise constitutional law.
Zack, John is so high-strung that he can't recognize humor. I was obviously using a favorite line of SSMers (the wolves-sheep statement) sarcastically.
But maybe it wasn't as obvious as I had hoped.
Ash: It was obvious to me and I loved it.
And now the censor's have decided I can't post replies. Typical NOMie BS.
I'm done with NOM and their censors. Ashley, if you want to man up, and own your discriminatory views in front of your peers, you know where to find me on Facebook.
JC: talk about fairness and discrimination between homos and heteros, tell your sad story to God (your creater)! “Why are males not like females that sucks?” No it doesn’t, it is just the way things are, some things we must accept, some things we must treat differently. We also must be able to distinguish (discriminate) from what can and will harm us before it does (like homosexuality and SSM).
Accept what you have no control over and move on with your life, live within your means ( capabilities) and stop trying to play god. So-call gays need to learn to live within their own makeup ( skin, gender identity) and stop pretending to be something they are not or was never designed to be. It is not wrong to treat things that are not equal, differently, or out right unhealthy...
Thanks, John N.!