DOJ appeals for immediate stay

[palemale]

Suppose for a minute the Health Care Reform legislation that passed Congress included a provision that required all employers and health insurers to provide coverage to the spouses of same sex couples or, where there was no gay marriage or civil unions, to same sex couples on the same basis as married heterosexuals. Then suppose that, in 2012, Sarah Palin is elected president and a state passes a law forbidding employers and insurers from extending benefits to any same sex couples on the same basis as heterosexuals. Should the Palin DOJ go to court to enforce the Health Care Reform law?

 

[MercuryJones]

palemale, I'm not sufficiently informed to know what's accurate here, but there are a couple of contradictory claims floating around.

One claim is that the DOJ has to argue for what congress has passed, and there are very compelling examples given from previous administrations.

There is another claim that the DOJ chooses not to defend some laws Congress has passed, and compelling examples are given to support this claim as well.

Do you know of a standard for such cases to explain both claims?

 

[Lostlover]

He could have told them to not ask for a stay, and just reference the original judge's quite sensible position that if there wasn't any evidence for the argument against a stay presented in the trial, then there wasn't any evidence period.



We need another office -- call it the Advocate General -- whose job it is to fight every law that appears the least unconstitutional in terms of people's rights.

Holder was a bad choice to begin with, so I can be happy blaming him.
Except... the buck goes up to his boss.

Or he could stay out of the DoJ like presidents should do anyways. It's odd defending this leave-it-alone tactic, however I remember how criminal it seemed the Bush DoJ operated.

 

[Kulindahr]

Suppose for a minute the Health Care Reform legislation that passed Congress included a provision that required all employers and health insurers to provide coverage to the spouses of same sex couples or, where there was no gay marriage or civil unions, to same sex couples on the same basis as married heterosexuals. Then suppose that, in 2012, Sarah Palin is elected president and a state passes a law forbidding employers and insurers from extending benefits to any same sex couples on the same basis as heterosexuals. Should the Palin DOJ go to court to enforce the Health Care Reform law?

That's a lot more convoluted than this, and not at all parallel. There would have to be a constitutional challenge to the law -- that's the big item here.

palemale, I'm not sufficiently informed to know what's accurate here, but there are a couple of contradictory claims floating around.

One claim is that the DOJ has to argue for what congress has passed, and there are very compelling examples given from previous administrations.

There is another claim that the DOJ chooses not to defend some laws Congress has passed, and compelling examples are given to support this claim as well.

Do you know of a standard for such cases to explain both claims?

The DoJ has, from what I can find, as a rule defended laws except in extraordinary cases. I'd call this an extraordinary case, but even so, it is not always necessarily a good idea to not defend, anyway -- strategically, that can be argued either way, here, but I think the stronger case is to make the appeal.
What I don't know at this point is whether asking for a stay is SOP for an appeal like this.

It's kind of like Newton and Einstein: most everything is Newtonian, except in extraordinary cases.

 

[Kulindahr]

Or he could stay out of the DoJ like presidents should do anyways. It's odd defending this leave-it-alone tactic, however I remember how criminal it seemed the Bush DoJ operated.

I'd agree except for the fact that the DoJ is an instrument of maintaining government authority at the expense of citizens -- which is why we need a department dedicated to expanding citizen liberties at the expense of government. That could give us a balance. As it is, the DoJ uses our tax dollars to defend laws that are oppressive.