Quantcast

«

»

Jun 28 2013

WND, Staver Lie About Obama, Holder, DOMA

Here’s another of those amusing “WND Exclusive” stories. An exclusive story about the Supreme Court’s marriage rulings? Every news outlet in the country has a story about it. You mean this particular story is “exclusive”? Then isn’t every story “exclusive”? Anyway, they repeat this tired lie:

President Obama had refused to defend DOMA, which was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. The provision simply said that for federal purposes, such as benefits, marriage is limited to a man and a woman.

However, Obama, and his attorney general, Eric Holder, announced they would not defend it as their oaths of office require.

Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, warned that the president’s stance itself is a dangerous precedent.

Striking DOMA, he said, “would set the precedent that the president can pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he does not.”

That, he said, would make a president an “autocratic dictator” by default, as he no longer would be bound by his oath of office to enforce all laws. If a president didn’t like the tax code, for example, he could order federal agents not to enforce it.

No, neither the president nor the attorney general’s oath of office requires them to defend the constitutionality of every law. It does require them to “faithfully execute” the law, which they did. Apparently it hasn’t occurred to these geniuses that if the Obama administration had not been enforcing DOMA, this case could not have come about. If they weren’t enforcing DOMA, they would not have charged the tax on Edith Windsor’s late partner’s estate. But in fact, even after the district and appeals courts overturned the law, the administration did not refund that money. They continued to enforce the law as written because the law was still being challenged in court.

They just lie. Constantly.

7 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    slc1

    Well, after all, Staver is one of the 3 dumbest “lawyers” in America, along with Larry Klayman and Orly Taitz.

  2. 2
    Chiroptera

    So? Are they saying that Obama would have done a better job defending DOMA than BLAG? I would have thought that if you wanted a case defended, you’d breathe a little easier if you knew that your legal counsel believed in your case and would vigorously defend your side.

  3. 3
    John Pieret

    But heaven forfend that the IRS enforce all laws about the removal of tax exemptions for churches that engage in political campaigns.

    Is there a specific wingnut pledge to practice hypocrisy? Sure, we all indulge in it, but they seem to revel in it.

  4. 4
    Gvlgeologist, FCD

    WND, Staver Lie About Obama, Holder, DOMA

    And in other news, rain is wet. You could have covered all bases by leaving out the last 4 words.

    What’s amazing is that anyone believes anything that they say at this point. I guess if it reinforces your biases, it’s easier to believe.

    John Pieret, I wish that our lame duck president would ACTUALLY tell the IRS to target the politically active churches (and other “non-profits” that act overtly political). Sure, there would be blowback, but it would mean that in the future, we might have more honest campaigns.

  5. 5
    maddog1129

    And in other news, rain is wet.

    Is that an “exclusive” ?

  6. 6
    gshelley

    A couple of points.
    Firstly, I thought he did defend it at first.
    Secondly isn’t the possibility that Staver so dislikes the ones the Conservative judges thought Obama should have done? They wanted him to just ignore the law if he didn’t like it

    While looking for information on point on, I found <blockquote?Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement to CBS News that Mr. Obama will have to explain to the American people why, despite a desire for lawmakers to focus on the still-struggling economy, "he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation."Which no doubt explains why he just accepted it and BLAG didn’t intervene to try and argue its constituionality.

  7. 7
    Chiroptera

    That, he said, would make a president an “autocratic dictator” by default, as he no longer would be bound by his oath of office to enforce all laws.

    Yeah, ’cause if there is one thing that makes a dictator, it’s when he doesn’t enforce laws!

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site