Discrimination | DOMA | Eric Cantor | Gay Marriage | John Boehner | Nancy Pelosi | News

GOP-Led House Group Asks Supreme Court To Review DOMA Ruling

BoehnerDOMA

As expected, Rep. John Boehner and his fellow Republicans on the GOP-controlled House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group petitioned the Supreme Court today to rule on a First Circuit Court's decision that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution.

Chris Geidner from Metro Weekly reports:

In a filing obtained by Metro Weekly, BLAG asks the Supreme Court, which must agree to consider the case, to take the appeal for three reasons: (1) the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 is "an issue of great national importance" and raises separation-of-powers questions; (2) the First Circuit decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Baker v. Nelson and other appellate decisions; and (3) the First Circuit "invented a new standard of equal protection review."

In the course of the filing, called a petition for a writ of certiorari, BLAG states that "[t]he executive branch has ... abdicated its traditional role of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes."

Boehner's fellow Republicans, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy sided with the House Speaker. The group's two Democrats, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, voted against petitioning the court, which must now decide whether or not to hear the case.

Speaking about the filing, Pelosi blasted Boehner and other Republicans, saying, "Democrats have rejected the Republican assault on equal rights, in the courts and in Congress. We believe there is no federal interest in denying LGBT couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to all couples married under state law. And we are confident that the Supreme Court, if it considers the case, will declare DOMA unconstitutional and relegate it to the dustbin of history once and for all."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. But Nancy, we want these cases to go to the Supreme Court so we get a national ruling. If Boehner hadn't asked SCOTUS to look at these cases, GLAD would have. (People seem to miss the fact that either side can ask SCOTUS for cert.)

    Posted by: Bingo | Jun 29, 2012 9:35:03 PM


  2. Is it just me or does that guy in the picture look like a tool (even without taking into account the article)?

    Posted by: Kogenta | Jun 29, 2012 9:44:05 PM


  3. No surprises here. This is where they take the ball out of play. No Thomas Roberts revelations on this one. This would kill gay marrriage, or delay it long enough for all those people who think they want to get married are sick of each other. The Supremes owe us this one.

    Posted by: Jet | Jun 29, 2012 10:34:39 PM


  4. I am glad that the GOP thinks so highly of me to consider my prospective marriage a matter of "great national importance". Maybe a guy named Boner wearing a pink tie isn't so bad after all. Oh wait - he meant "keeping me from getting married" is a matter of great national importance. Wow. I didn't know my love life mattered all that much.

    Posted by: Chadd | Jun 29, 2012 10:46:50 PM


  5. I think a Supreme Court ruling that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution will be a lot easier to achieve with this court than a broad new interpretation of a constitutional right for same sex couples to marry. At least if DOMA is struck down then full federal benefits would have to be bestowed on same sex couples who marry in states that have legalized gay marriage.

    This would not be as good as ruling that gay people have a fundamental right in the constitution to marry - but it would still be a BFD (as Joe Biden would say).

    Posted by: jimsur212 | Jun 29, 2012 11:39:35 PM


  6. Hey, Bon-er, instead of trying to deny me the right to marry the man I love, do you think it would be possible for you to work on those jobs you promised to create way back when YOU became Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America January, 2011? I just figure if a politician makes a promise to get elected, he should be held to that promise. Don't YOU think so???

    Posted by: michaeld89119 | Jun 29, 2012 11:41:24 PM


  7. Well, I'm awfully attached to my dog, and I think I love him, so I hope there's something in there for me too. If life were an episode of "Will & Grace" I don't think there would be any question, but I don't know if this court wants to change an institution that is thousands of years old. So maybe my dog will have to hump my leg in private. But we demanded puppies!

    Posted by: Paul | Jun 30, 2012 12:00:51 AM


  8. Paul,

    I logged into your dog's Twitter feed and he is making snide comments about the hand that feeds him standing no chance in Hell. He is even making jokes about how the cat stands a better chance. I suggest you sit down with him and have a long talk about making you look like a complete idiot to the online world.

    Posted by: Michael | Jun 30, 2012 12:08:47 AM


  9. Kogenta, yes he does look like a tool. And yes he should be more worried about jobs than keeping loving gay couples from being treated equal. All this self righteous BS. Can't wait for this tool to be caught with a hooker, or better playing footsie at the airport men's room...

    Posted by: Tom in long beach | Jun 30, 2012 2:48:45 AM


  10. Bring it on Bitches

    Posted by: Booka | Jun 30, 2012 4:43:05 AM


  11. At least his handlers have figured out how to make him appear less orange.

    Posted by: St. Theresa of Avila | Jun 30, 2012 5:53:16 AM


  12. Boner looks more like the JOKER to me in Batman. ( even w/o makeup)

    Posted by: steve | Jun 30, 2012 9:22:51 AM


  13. There have now been over 30 federal judges who have ruled DOMA unconstitutional (including the unanimous bench decision by the federal tax court), first instance and appeals. On either the federalist aspect or the equal protection clause (something for every judge), unless they have gone truly mad, I can't see us losing the DOMA case.

    It seems so obvious maybe they won't even take the case. Outside of a 9-0 ruling, that would be the most satisfying result. :-)

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | Jun 30, 2012 9:51:09 AM


  14. Anyone who thinks this court is on our side is whistling in the dark.

    Posted by: enough already | Jun 30, 2012 11:53:57 AM


  15. The Supreme Court will either refuse to hear the case or it will uphold the law. The Supreme Court is always biased to the right. The whole judicial system is corrupt and broken. We need to scrap it all and start again. At the moment you can win anything if you have the most money. That's not justice.

    Posted by: Icebloo | Jun 30, 2012 4:49:30 PM


  16. Typical OLD and stupid repukes: Always looking to move our country backwards instead of moving forward.

    Posted by: mmike1969 | Jul 2, 2012 1:57:06 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Liberty Counsel Radio Host Calls ENDA 'Insanity:' VIDEO« «