Skip to main content

View Diary: Boehner decides House will defend DOMA in court (101 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  cite? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grover, God loves goats

    I don't disagree that what your saying makes sense... but am curious what, if any, precedent exists for this.

    •  INS v Chadha, for one. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover, VClib, blunami, belinda ridgewood

      "Section 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes either House of Congress, by resolution, to invalidate the decision of the Executive Branch, pursuant to authority delegated by Congress to the Attorney General, to allow a particular deportable alien to remain in the United States. "

      DOJ refused to defend this, because it impaired executive power, and the SG's office (defending INS) briefed against it.  So:

      Eugene Gressman, Chapel Hill, N.C., for U.S. House of Representatives, Michael Davidson, Washington, D.C., for U.S. Senate.

      Rex Lee, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for I.N.S.

      Alan B. Morrison, Washington, D.C., for Chadha.

      •  acting on behalf of the house not INS (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grover

        AFAICT from http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        INS decided not to deport him, the house vetoed it, and went to court to (unsuccessfully) defend the constitutionality of the law.  That seems a fair bit different than backstopping enforcement of a law that doesn't inherently have the same separation of powers issue.

        •  You got it right (3+ / 0-)

          Lawyer representing the House and Senate defended the law while the named parties argued against it.

          For a case w/o the same separation of powers issues, you'd have to look at Metro Broadcasting v FCC.  Acting SG John Roberts chose not to defend FCC affirmative action policies and argued against them; the FCC had to represent itself to defend them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site