Holder Confronts Fallout From DOMA Decision

Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. faced questions today about whether he plans to abandon the legal defense of any other federal laws, after the administration's decision last week not to stand up for the core of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Holder testified before a House appropriations subcommittee primarily about the Justice Department’s budget for the next fiscal year, but the subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), used the chance to push Holder about the consequences of last week’s decision.

Wolf asked how President Barack Obama would react if a future Republican administration decided not to defend Obama’s 2010 health-care overhaul. “Are there other laws down there that you find it difficult to make a reasonable defense of?” he asked.

Holder responded that Justice Department officials “take seriously” their historical practice of defending statutes in court if a reasonable defense of them can be made, and he walked through the process that he and Obama used in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act. While he didn’t rule out letting other statutes fall by the wayside, he said the department would do so rarely.

“We again will look at these on a case-by-case basis, based on our historical obligation, that we have followed, to defend the statutes that Congress has passed,” Holder said.

The National Law Journal reported in October that 13 times in the past six years the Justice Department has told Congress it would not defend a law. Many of those decisions came in cases in which the solicitor general determined the government was bound to lose in court.

“I think it’s highly unusual for the department to pick and choose,” Wolf told Holder. “It almost looks like a political decision, more than anything else I can say.”

Holder noted that, since Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the law regarding gays and lesbians has been altered radically, most notably because of the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas invalidating state anti-sodomy laws. “The world and legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA,” Holder said.

Comments

[Richard Thompson]

interesting the AG/President choosing which laws to enforce. It seems there will be a few laws that the next administration will also ignore (specifically Obama Care).

[A. Kreamer]

Holder should be impeached. Just like any other public official and attorney, he took an oathe to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.

[THM]

The SG had not previously been in a position of having to defend DOMA in a heightened scrutiny context. When finally pushed to do so, the SG balked, and his superiors backed him up. The Obama administration could not in conscience argue any of the shibboleths that have been used to justify discrimination against LGBTs. Seems like an appropriate, non-political course of action, on both substance and timing. Congress or an intervenor will just have to fill the SG's shoes.

[Joe Jefferis]

Elections have consequences - 2008.
Elections have consequences - 2010.
Elections have consequences - 2012.

Elections have consequences!

www.goooh.com

[Mark Applegarth]

Right or wrong, the Solicitor General should be bound to argue the matter before the Supreme Court. Afterall, alot of solicitor generals in up becoming a member of the Supreme Court. It's good practice. However, it does smack of the fact that nowadays, most public defenders do not defend their poor clients, acting instead as another advocate for conviction in order to win some election. Let's face it, if justice could have ever been defined, it's not in this day and age. These policies that the judicial system is taking will lead to the downfall of this country. If there is no relief from wrongs done to the injured, then there will be a break-down in society, thus, government.