Jay Carney: Obama’s “grappling” with his position on gay marriage or something

posted at 8:20 pm on February 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, if the Ahmadinejad video is the most surreal clip we’ve ever posted, this one might be the most cynical. And yet, it’s an opportunity to make an important point: The true significance of this morning’s news isn’t merely that the DOJ will no longer defend DOMA, it’s that Holder’s letter laying out his reasoning is essentially a legal mini-brief arguing against traditional marriage laws at the state level too. You can read all six pages here, but Tapper quotes the money bit:

President Obama believes that section – Section 3 — “is unconstitutional” given the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (including its equal protection component), Holder wrote, and the president has instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits…

[N]ow, “under heightened scrutiny” since the 2nd circuit court asked for the administration to defend its position given lack of precedent, Holder wrote, the government’s ability to defend the law can no longer be made by “advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.”

That legislative record, Holder wrote, “contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

Strictly speaking, Holder’s making the case for why a federal marriage statute, i.e. DOMA, is unconstitutional, but any court that agrees with him that laws discriminating against gays merit “heightened scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause will be forced to invalidate state marriage laws too. What this is, essentially, is political cover for Anthony Kennedy to eventually decide that enough of a “consensus” has been reached on gay rights that it’s finally safe to declare discriminatory marriage laws illegal everywhere in the United States. For an elaboration on that point, see Dale Carpenter’s post at the Volokh Conspiracy entitled, “Does President Obama Now Support Gay Marriage?” From a legal standpoint, the answer is unquestionably yes.

Two clips for you here, one of Carney and the other of Mike Huckabee warning that the DOMA decision could be Obama’s downfall. In fact, I wonder if this will stir enough displeasure among social cons (and independents?) that it’ll entice Huck into the race. He insists he hasn’t ruled out running yet, despite many indications to the contrary, but if he’s truly on the fence, an old-fashioned hot-button social issues subplot to next year’s campaign might convince him that, yeah, he really can win this thing.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I had the news on TV today with the sound off. They were showing scenes of lesbians getting married, then they had Carney at the podium talking. For about 5 seconds I thought they were still showing an old lesbian.

Mark1971 on February 23, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Breaking: Obama doesn’t grapple with something.

Schadenfreude on February 23, 2011 at 8:24 PM

I think he’s going to need a contortionist to demonstrate that position for him.

teke184 on February 23, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Obama is setting up a honeypot. Trick the GOP into fighting over social issues rather than stay targeted on financial issues where Obama is weakest. Nominating Huck would be the best result Obama could hope for.

dedalus on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

I thought that I’d miss Gibbsy, terribly, as only he could so aptly portray the absolute ineptness of this administration.

Alas, I don’t miss the chap that much. This dude is just as ‘good’ at it.

Schadenfreude on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

you know Obama’s refusal to carry out his consititutional duties could be grounds for impeachment. It is not a POTUS job to decide if laws are or are not consititutional. Does Obama really want to pick a fight with the judical branch right before his Obamacare come sup for a review. At this stage the judical branch needs to smack Obama down for his over reach if nothing else. The man is clueless and is setting up a consitituional crisis.

unseen on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

And, he looks just as stupid and confused as Gibbs.

Schadenfreude on February 23, 2011 at 8:27 PM

I thought we already went down the surreal road. Even though there are many instances before this very day. For some reason, you are “gob-smacked”, as Gordon Ramsay would say. You seem to think this is extraordinary. I don’t.

betsyz on February 23, 2011 at 8:27 PM

I keep expecting to see this fella dragging Bernie around behind him.

Limerick on February 23, 2011 at 8:27 PM

I suspect Obama spends more time grappling with his own sexuality than gay marriage.

flyfisher on February 23, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Maybe its changing of positions are sumpin!!

canopfor on February 23, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Why does the Battle of Stirling from “Braveheart” come to mind as yet another gay marriage topic begins?

Bishop on February 23, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Obama’s “grappling” “Jockeying” with his position on gay marriage or something.

He’s gonna ride side-saddle until more polling data tells him which horse to ride. Giddy up.

Geochelone on February 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Hey, look over here at DOMA…forget about the crushing debt and the ME is burning and I don’t have a clue what to do.

d1carter on February 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Where was Obama in the last two years then? He contradicts himself a lot. Oh, but don’t call him a liar, you racists.

Schadenfreude on February 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Bishop on February 23, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Yeah, but the blue paint rocked!

Honestly I don’t give a rat’s patudy about DOMA, but it is the law and I thought that is what cops do, enforce the law.

Limerick on February 23, 2011 at 8:31 PM

unseen on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

I don’t understand you. Are you saying that PBHO and the DoJ are required to argue in favor of DOMA before the SCOTUS or Fed Courts?

If it hasn’t been to the SCOTUS by 2013 will President Cain be required to defend ObamaCare?

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Trick the GOP into fighting over social issues rather than stay targeted on financial issues where Obama is weakest.

dedalus on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Well the boys of the GOP aren’t falling for. They have those $60 billion in cuts and by gosh they are demanding another $4 billion more so take that Obama! /

sharrukin on February 23, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Obama is setting up a honeypot. Trick the GOP into fighting over social issues rather than stay targeted on financial issues where Obama is weakest. Nominating Huck would be the best result Obama could hope for.

dedalus on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Yes.

the_nile on February 23, 2011 at 8:33 PM

flyfisher on February 23, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Well, he seems confused by everything else. Remember that artwork he bought right after he and the misses squatted moved into the White House. You know, the one where questions about making decisions just hung in the air (and on the wall) to reflect and ponder over?

betsyz on February 23, 2011 at 8:36 PM

d1carter on February 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM

+1

cmsinaz on February 23, 2011 at 8:36 PM

dedalus on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Ditto Santorum and some others.

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Oh, look! It’s Richie Cunningham.

Key West Reader on February 23, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Bill Maher was 110% right when he said the “gay grappling” in the mind of Obama and his “Christianity” was pure bull**** for the masses.

Marcus on February 23, 2011 at 8:38 PM

the only issue he’s not grappling is the union fight…no fence sitting there…

cmsinaz on February 23, 2011 at 8:38 PM

you know Obama’s refusal to carry out his consititutional duties could be grounds for impeachment. It is not a POTUS job to decide if laws are or are not consititutional. Does Obama really want to pick a fight with the judical branch right before his Obamacare come sup for a review. At this stage the judical branch needs to smack Obama down for his over reach if nothing else. The man is clueless and is setting up a consitituional crisis.

unseen on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Obama’s open refusal to abide by a federal judge’s ruling of Obamacare as unconstitutional, insistence on implementing it anyway (absent a higher court overturning the ruling), etc – is already grounds enough, and has already put us in a constitutional crisis – there’s no future tense “setting up” to it – it’s already there.

As discussed earlier, our civil contract is over. The Constitution is a dead letter, and we’re in full-on tyranny now, the feds just haven’t decided to shoot anyone yet.

Midas on February 23, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Key West Reader on February 23, 2011 at 8:37 PM

LOL

d1carter on February 23, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Obama is setting up a honeypot. Trick the GOP into fighting over social issues rather than stay targeted on financial issues where Obama is weakest. Nominating Huck would be the best result Obama could hope for.

dedalus on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

You got it.

Purple Fury on February 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Obama is setting up a honeypot. Trick the GOP into fighting over social issues rather than stay targeted on financial issues where Obama is weakest. Nominating Huck would be the best result Obama could hope for. – dedalus on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

I agree. Look at the other thread on this issue. I hope this thread dies quickly and doesn’t go to five hundred responses. Being gay is like being an abused lab mouse.

SC.Charlie on February 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM

unseen on February 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

he sure didn’t have a problem at the SOTU last year…

everything is unconstitutional if it doesn’t follow the dems playbook…

cmsinaz on February 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM

SC.Charlie on February 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Being an atheist is no day at the beach in H/A land either y’know :-)

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I don’t understand you. Are you saying that PBHO and the DoJ are required to argue in favor of DOMA before the SCOTUS or Fed Courts?

If it hasn’t been to the SCOTUS by 2013 will President Cain be required to defend ObamaCare?

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Oddly enough, isn’t the executive branch charged with enforcing the law… period? I don’t remember where it is charged with doing so… unless it doesn’t feel like it.

Midas on February 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Midas on February 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Enforcing? YES
Defending in court? NO

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:44 PM

What he’s ‘grappling with’ is how not to get yelled at by the homophobes OR the rabid gays. He might as well try to swim across a pool of starving piranhas with raw steak strapped to his back.

Dark-Star on February 23, 2011 at 8:45 PM

I don’t understand you. Are you saying that PBHO and the DoJ are required to argue in favor of DOMA before the SCOTUS or Fed Courts?

If it hasn’t been to the SCOTUS by 2013 will President Cain be required to defend ObamaCare?

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:32 PM

yes. he would. the POTUS can not pick and choose which laws he will uphold and which he will not. Not openly that is.

“he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”

notice it doesn’t say only the laws he agrees with.

unseen on February 23, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Anything to change the subject from all his other miserable failures.

JammieWearingFool on February 23, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Oh, look! It’s Richie Cunningham.

Key West Reader on February 23, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Seriously!! This is the first time I’ve seen Carney. He looks like he’s gonna start crying. Is he always like this???

BigWyo on February 23, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Defending in court? NO

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Um, yes?

Which other branch is tasked with doing so? Do the legislative or judicial branches have the authority to do so, or departments setup and funded to do precisely this?

In our history, which of the three branches is responsible for defending legislation when Constitutionality is challenged? I’m just asking – maybe I missed it? Certainly the judiciary isn’t, so it’s either the legislative or executive; which?

Midas on February 23, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Anything to change the subject from all his other miserable failures.

JammieWearingFool on February 23, 2011 at 8:47 PM

this is just to ratchet up the pressure…top down…bottom up….inside out…

Soros is pulling out all the stops…

right4life on February 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM

unseen on February 23, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Taking care that they are executed does not mean defending them in court. It isn’t a hard concept here. He is responsible, for example, for bringing pot sellers to justice since that is the law but he isn’t required to argue in court that trafficking in pot should be illegal.

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM

The timing is laughable. 2 yrs into this presidency, and he decides that this random Wednesday when we have major issues all around the world is the perfect day to roll out this bomb.

di butler on February 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Hey, look over here at DOMA…forget about the crushing debt and the ME is burning and I don’t have a clue what to do.

d1carter on February 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Bingo.

bofh on February 23, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Obama is setting up a honeypot. Trick the GOP into fighting over social issues rather than stay targeted on financial issues where Obama is weakest. Nominating Huck would be the best result Obama could hope for.

dedalus on February 23, 2011 at 8:26

have you noticed the results of the elections on this social issue? 31-0 gay marriage loses every vote…

lets have this election on social issues…

right4life on February 23, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Hey, look over here at DOMA…forget about the crushing debt and the ME is burning and I don’t have a clue what to do.

d1carter on February 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM

he knows exactly what to do. all is going according to SOROS’ plan…

ratchet up the pressure….

right4life on February 23, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Midas on February 23, 2011 at 8:48 PM

So if President Cain wins election after running a campaign in which he promises to kill ObamaCare because it is illegal he will be required to argue in favor of ObamaCare in court? Should he argue incompetently just to satisfy this supposed obligation without improving its chances of being upheld?

Please tell me where you find this obligation. It sure isn’t in our Constitution.

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:55 PM

I’m still waiting for Holder’s Raid on gangsters in Chicago, after his mafia “house-cleaning” in New York.

Hey Mr. President, aren’t there more important things you should be doing right now? Like addressing the fact that in 8 1/2 days, (if you don’t sign a CR), this nation goes into default???? Did you check with Michelle about “defending your marriage”?

Rovin on February 23, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Being an atheist is no day at the beach in H/A land either y’know :-) – MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I don’t really think that there is anyone who is really an atheist ……………. even if someone declares he/she says that they are an atheist. I am a Christian who tends to be agnostic. Jefferson rewrote the New Testament and concentrated on the teachings of Jesus and not the miracles that he is supposed to have done. I still need to get a copy of it and read it.

SC.Charlie on February 23, 2011 at 8:56 PM

O/T
=====

Latest update 21:54 23.02.11
Grad rockets fired at Be’er Sheva for first time since Gaza war
************************************************
One missile hit building in residential area, causing damage; no casualties reported; Palestinians report Israeli air strike retaliation, wounding two Islamic Jihad militants.

By Yanir Yagna, Gili Cohen and Natasha Mozgovaya
===================================================

Grad rockets were fired at the southern Israeli city of Be’er Sheva on Wednesday, several hours after the Israel Defense Forces fired at a group of militants on the Gaza border, wounding 11.

Palestinian sources reported that the Israel Air Force retaliated late Wednesday with an airstrike in eastern Gaza City, wounding three Islamic Jihad militants. The IDF confirmed the airstrike.
—————————

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/grad-rockets-fired-at-be-er-sheva-for-first-time-since-gaza-war-1.345280

canopfor on February 23, 2011 at 8:56 PM

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM

That certainly sounds reasonable, though I think you’re missing the point.

DoJ *has* historically been defending DOMA, yes? This news item is *because* DoJ has decided – at BO’s direction – to *stop* defending Constitutional challenges against the law.

So… why have they historically been defending it – and other legislation – from challenges regarding Constitutionality if it is not, nor ever has been, their responsibility?

Have they been doing so for decades and countless other cases and no one realized (until you helpfully came along to point it out) that they were wrong all that time? Even now, the guys at various media outlets are not slapping their foreheads wondering why no one ever noticed that DoJ wasn’t supposed to be doing this all this time.

Maybe you should call and let them know?

Midas on February 23, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Taking care that they are executed does not mean defending them in court. It isn’t a hard concept here. He is responsible, for example, for bringing pot sellers to justice since that is the law but he isn’t required to argue in court that trafficking in pot should be illegal.

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM

nope you are wrong. executed means implementation, enforcement and defending them in court.

congress makes the law, the president sees the laws are in place and executed which covers enforcment and trail.

I understand you want to defend this consititutional overeach but what Obama is doing is grounds for impeachment.

unseen on February 23, 2011 at 8:57 PM

I don’t really think that there is anyone who is really an atheist ……………. even if someone declares he/she says that they are an atheist.

SC.Charlie on February 23, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Ah yes, the old, “So you don’t believe in God eh? Well I don’t believe in you, so there” argument.

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM

canopfor on February 23, 2011 at 8:56 PM

and hizbullah will soon have lots of heavy missiles and munitions thanks to mubarak falling…..notice how obama pushed for mubarak to leave but is silent about qadaffi and the dinner jacket ahmadinajad…

right4life on February 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM

canopfor on February 23, 2011 at 8:56 PM

and so it begins…

cripe

cmsinaz on February 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM

I thought Obama woke up each day thinking about jobs. Does he have ADD?

faraway on February 23, 2011 at 9:00 PM

I thought Obama woke up each day thinking about jobs. Does he have ADD?

faraway on February 23, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Focused like a laser, obliterating them as fast as he can.

Midas on February 23, 2011 at 9:01 PM

I thought Obama woke up each day thinking about jobs. Does he have ADD?

faraway on February 23, 2011 at 9:00 PM

He does. He looks in the mirror straightening his tie and says” Thank someone that I have a job”. He does it with laser focus too.

Electrongod on February 23, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I thought Obama woke up each day thinking about jobs. Does he have ADD?

Related:

“How many ADD people does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”

“Let’s go ride bikes!”

That’s this administration’s policies in a nutshell.

teke184 on February 23, 2011 at 9:04 PM

grapple this, as*hole.

This guy has been playing this faux Hamlet game from the beginning. Mario Cuomo played the same game. Obama, smartly, picked up on it as the way to both negate the race issue (i.e., how to appear as the “thoughtful and articulate”, or non-threatening, black man to independents, and how to appear non-ideological to the rest of us. It’s the only way Leftists, who in fact have a rigid and retarded sense of life and politics, can appear to be “greater” people. It’s the only chance they ever have of gaining higher power. It worked with him.

But he “grapples” with nothing. There is no wrestling ohf his conscience over right and wrong. None. There hasn’t been probably since he was a teenager. It’s all just about appearance.

rrpjr on February 23, 2011 at 9:05 PM

executed means … defending them in court.

unseen on February 23, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Based on what? It’s a ridiculous thing to say if you just think about it.

Would President “unseen” argue in favor of an individual health insurance mandate? How strongly would you argue it, and who decides if you put up enough of a fight to satisfy this “duty?”

What if Holder shows up at SCOTUS and says that DOMA should be upheld because his bible says so. Would that satisfy this “duty?”

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 9:05 PM

Just like Gray Davis, pandering before he fell from power, Barry has to pander for votes in 2012.

Look for a big push for “comprehensive immigration reform’ next.

And all this while he focuses “laser like” on jobs.

GarandFan on February 23, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Look for a big push for “comprehensive immigration reform’ next.

And all this while he focuses “laser like” on jobs.

GarandFan on February 23, 2011 at 9:12 PM

he’s not enforcing immigration laws now.

right4life on February 23, 2011 at 9:14 PM

grapple deadline – Nov 3, 2012

motionview on February 23, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Still waiting, MJBrutus; you skipped/avoided the question – if DoJ is not responsible for defending Constitutional challenges, why have they been doing so for a very, very long time – and why will they continue to do so on laws that BO *does* want them to defend?

If, as you suggest, that DoJ has never been responsible for this kind of defense of legislation, why is it news today that they’ve decised to *stop* defending the law against challenge (note, in case you can’t connect the dots, that for them to *stop* doing so means they had *been* defending it in the first place)?

Midas on February 23, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Just as a side note, “grappling” is the name given the form of hand-to-hand fighting techniques they teach to female cadets at the US Naval Academy.

J.E. Dyer on February 23, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Taking any and all recruits for the new Obama civilian army.

Come one come all.

BowHuntingTexas on February 23, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Obama should just come out already.

He’s a vote whore.

Eau de Ballot is his cologne.

Whatever lie gains him power, he trumpets.

That he believed in regular marriage was the transparent farce.

Which is why a segment of the Left went for him in 2008.

He was lying their lie.

And perhaps living one, too.

profitsbeard on February 23, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Like Obama I have changed my mind. I now believe we should let the gays marry. Why should us straight people be the only ones to suffer? Seriously, gays, you guys are setting yourselves up for a colossal disappointment.

And even if we’re all forced to recognize gay “marriage,” people like me will not accept your lifestyle any more than we do now, and just because you make us all refer to your sex partner as a “husband,” there is nothing to prevent us from using air-quotes every time we say the word (which is my personal plan.) We’ll also probably roll our eyes and snicker when you’re not looking.

At some point you just have to accept that not everybody is going to like you and support your decisions. You can’t legislate such things. Life goes on…

Polynath on February 23, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Like Obama I have changed my mind. I now believe we should let the gays marry. Why should us straight people be the only ones to suffer?

Misery redistribution!

Purple Fury on February 23, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Just as a side note, “grappling” is the name given the form of hand-to-hand fighting techniques they teach to female cadets at the US Naval Academy.

J.E. Dyer on February 23, 2011 at 9:27 PM

I think it’s more like the ‘grappling’ Bammie used to do with his boyfriends in college.

slickwillie2001 on February 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Being gay is like being an abused lab mouse.

SC.Charlie on February 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Yeah, but with a lot more color and thooper fashion accessorizing.

catmman on February 23, 2011 at 10:49 PM

These people relate to law like a it’s a Harry Potter book. It’s a total disgrace.

Hening on February 23, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Still waiting, MJBrutus; you skipped/avoided the question – if DoJ is not responsible for defending Constitutional challenges, why have they been doing so for a very, very long time – and why will they continue to do so on laws that BO *does* want them to defend?

If, as you suggest, that DoJ has never been responsible for this kind of defense of legislation, why is it news today that they’ve decised to *stop* defending the law against challenge (note, in case you can’t connect the dots, that for them to *stop* doing so means they had *been* defending it in the first place)?

Midas on February 23, 2011 at 9:25 PM

The administration MAY defend a law at the SCOTUS. So may Congress. In this case the WH is saying they won’t and so it is up to Congress to appoint a lawyer.

MJBrutus on February 23, 2011 at 11:33 PM

I don’t know why anybody would be surprised by Obama’s position on DOMA. He won’t defend the borders and won’t defend America, why would he want to defend DOMA?

Vntnrse on February 23, 2011 at 11:45 PM

The strategy on this score seems obvious to me, and quite astute.

Obama intends to galvanize social conservatives to create a rift between them and libertarians and fiscal conservatives.

This could weaken what’s been a remarkable and powerful coalition on the right.

Seriously, this is both shrewd and dangerous.

rasqual on February 24, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Doesn’t the President and the Justice Dept. have a duty to defend laws that they don’t agree with, or even think are unconstitutional? (Not that I believe the latter is true, since it would have to mean that Obama had some sort of epiphany about the DOMA after campaigning on the opposite side of the issue for over a year.)

I mean, isn’t it like the accused having a right to an attorney, so that our adversarial system of justice can hear both sides of the argument, the better to reach the correct decision and to serve justice?

Without anyone making a defense of a law passed by our legislature and signed by our president, he is making a mockery of our entire system of government. If the Supreme Court makes a decision having heard only one side of the argument, it will destroy any legitimacy the decision could have had, and the damage to the integrity of our civic contract will be worse than Roe v. Wade.

You know, say what you will about George W. Bush, but one thing you can’t deny is that he knew what the office of the President was for and what its duties and obligations were, and he fulfilled them even when he personally disagreed with the results. He served with honor. Obama has neither knowledge nor wisdom nor honor. Just his own ego to guide him and very little to stop him.

Socratease on February 24, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Obama intends to galvanize social conservatives to create a rift between them and libertarians and fiscal conservatives.

rasqual on February 24, 2011 at 12:01 AM

he doesn’t have to create a rift its already there….the libertarians aren’t conservative…they’re LIBERALS…read lewrockwell….they’re wackos.

conservatives don’t need them…never have.

right4life on February 24, 2011 at 7:55 AM

Obooba is growing in office.

Akzed on February 24, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Jay Carney: Obama’s “grappling” “groping” with his position on gay marriage or something

(Corrected error in headline)

Seriously: Obama is getting nearer and nearer to impeachment via this obvious and flagrant dereliction of duty.

landlines on February 24, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Which position is Obama grappling over? Pitching or catching?

44Magnum on February 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Tell ya what, elect me president in 2012 and I guarantee I will never defend obamacare in any court. Quite the opposite, I will bring the full power of the DoJ to bear on systematically dismantling this monster in the closet. Wanna impeach me over it? Take your best shot.

Oh, and I’ll enforce the border too, with every tool at my disposal, using tactics that will make any invader think twice before violating my country, as the Constitution says I should as president.

runawayyyy on February 24, 2011 at 11:42 AM