I have neglected following up on this, and I'm rushing now to get back to friends who have just come into town, so here's the short version: There are now serious concerns being expressed about the accuracy of some of Americablog's reports on the DOJ DOMA brief.
At issue is whether the DOJ has much leeway in defending an existing law and whether the DOJ brief compared same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. Lawdork says John Aravosis is flat-out wrong. Alex Blaze also complains.
Lawdork and Alex are making good points. We need to listen to them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I haven't read the briefs or done any research (my mind rebels at the moment at looking at anything legal that isn't for work) and don't know all the facts, but I think the general consensus that the Justice Dept. has to defend US laws most of the time is probably accurate. The Justice Dept. is supposed to enforce the laws passed by Congress, not decide which ones are good and which ones aren't. We've just had 8 years of an administration that ignored laws it didn't like -- remember the signing statements?
Given that, I'd give the Obama Administration a break on this one, and instead turn up the heat on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
BTW, it annoys me to learn that someone has been misrepresenting the government's position. Fortunately, one of the advantages of the Blogosphere is that people get caught when they play fast and loose with the facts. Too bad it's not that easy to fact check Fox News.
Writing on Balkinization, Linda McClain provides an excellent critique of the DOJ DOMA brief. McClain's analysis provides real reasons for criticizing the DOJ for going too far in defending the law, without resorting to misrepresentations.
Post a Comment