Washington D. C., August 18, 2009 (Commentary by eGrumps)
In a remarkable example of how not to represent a client, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has filed a brief in the case of a gay couple suing the federal government to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act which was enacted by Congress in 1996.
The DOJ position will satisfy neither those in favor of gay marriages nor those opposed to them.
The DOJ has said in their brief that they are required by law to defend federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made for their constitutionality (Score One Point for those opposed to Gay Marriage). They also said that, although it is required by law to support the law, “even if it disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here” (Score One Point for those in favor of Gay Marriage).
It’s a tie game – now we go into overtime – where we citizens get to ask a question. “What gives the DOJ the right to disagree with a law as a matter of policy?” The DOJ is the attorney for the United States of America. While individual attorneys employed by the DOJ may have a right to disagree with any law they choose, the Department itelf should have no right to agree, or disagree, with a law. That is not its function. It is the attorney for the government. The opinion of the DOJ, as a matter of policy, should be totally irrelevant and, eGrumps submits, should not ever appear in a legal brief it is filing with the Court.
If it feels it cannot represent the United States in supporting a law duly enacted by Congress because it doesn’t agree with it, it should recuse itself and hire independent Counsel.
As the President said – he believes the act should be repealed by Congress. That’s fair enough – with an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress, go to Congress to have it repealed. Mr. President, don’t have your DOJ say we don’t agree with the law, but we are required to enforce it (that’s our duty under the Constution), and oh, by the way, learned Judges, you shouldn’t rule in our client’s favor just because Congress wrote the law we are sworn to defend. Frankly, we don’t believe in the law, no matter what we say in our “objective” briefs filed with the Court. (“Justices, thanks for your understanding”)
It is a slippery slope where the DOJ, or any Governmental Agency, can enforce, or decline to enforce, a law with its fingers crossed behind its back.
Recent Entries
This entry was posted
on Monday, August 17th, 2009 at 2:44 pm and is filed under American policy, Congress, Political Satire, Political Truth, Satire - Political.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.