Leave a Comment Jacob Combs
Equality news round-up: NYC mayor and City Council Speaker will file brief in support of plaintiff in DOMA challenge
June 21, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
- The Illinois judge who is hearing the marriage equality cases filed by the ACLU and Lambda Legal has agreed to consolidate the cases. We still don’t know who will defend the law.
- The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee says that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is settled law.
- Uganda is banning pro-gay NGOs.
- Tammy Baldwin, who is running for the Senate and could be the nation’s first openly gay Senator, has released her first ad.
- Michael Bloomberg and Christine Quinn will file joint amicus briefs in support of Edith Windsor in the DOMA challenge Windsor v. USA.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
6 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | June 21, 2012 at 2:40 pm
@
2.
Sam | June 21, 2012 at 5:05 pm
This is seriously off the beaten path, but in a case involving crack sentencing Justice Scalia's dissent offers a few tangentially relevant points we can expect to see come up in the DOMA cases. In referring to the importance of Congress's ability to define certain terms (codified in Title 1 of the US Code) he writes (in the last paragraph of his dissent, here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-568…
"That is most unfortunate, because the whole point of §109 [Congress's ability to set the status of its own laws], as well as other provisions of the Dictionary Act, see 1 U. S. C. §§1–8, and the definitional provisions of the federal criminal law, see 18 U. S. C. §§5–27 (2006 ed. and Supp. IV), is to provide a stable set of background principles that will promote effective communication between Congress and the courts. In this context, stability is ensured by a healthy respect for our presumption against implied repeals, which demands a clear showing before we conclude that Congress has deviated from one of these background interpretive principles."
The reason that this is interesting is because 1 U.S.C. 7 is section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act that's being challenged. Although the legal background is different (not an equal protection challenge, for instance), it hints at deference to Congress's ability to set its own definitions for public policy. As you can see here, DOMA is actually one of the few areas where Congress has codified such a sweeping definition in the US Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/chapter-…
Just thought it was interesting.
3.
Sam | June 21, 2012 at 5:18 pm
The first link isn't working b/c the close parenthesis became part of the url….
4.
Reformed | June 21, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Every time I see where a the government decided they will not defend a law, I always wonder why, if they feel the law is unconstitutional, they feel the need to announce that. Why do they not just give it the defense they think it deserves on the day of the trial, not a very good defense. There must be a reason for this. Otherwise, they are just inviting "conservative" "law"firms with agendas to try to intervene. Does anyone know why this is done?
Can I intervene to defend this law (i'm not an attorney – clearly). I would just say, "Look, we don't have any facts. We don't need any facts. The defense rests".
5.
Reformed | June 21, 2012 at 11:37 pm
You know, like prop 8 proponent's dream team did?
6.
Bill S. | June 22, 2012 at 5:12 am
Deliberately throwing a case is very serious and can result in harsh penalties including disbarment. Not to mention that it is dishonest.
DOMA will fail on its own merits. No need to cheat.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.