TPM Reader MN makes a point that I’d forgotten and which the vote totals hadn’t reminded me of — if Clinton had vetoed DOMA, Congress easily had the votes to override the veto.
In my Prime live chat yesterday, a reader asked whether I thought Sen. Paul’s drone filibuster signaled a sea change in Republican national security politics. My answer: no. It’s an example of every faction — even long suppressed ones — having their moment as long as the party is leaderless and in disarray.
Did DOMA forestall a constitutional amendment? I’d never thought of this angle and not sure I buy it. But an interesting point.
From TPM Reader VF …
A very good but complicated question.
Recall that during the debates in the early 2000s over whether there should be a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Democrats routinely argued against it NOT on discriminatory grounds but rather that DOMA made the amendment unnecessary. i.e. Alabama has nothing to fear since DOMA won’t force them to recognize Massachusetts gay marriages.
From TPM Reader LF …
I believed in 1992 that Clinton was politically correct to sign the law in 1996. But I was wrong.
From TPM Reader LF …
I believed in 1992 that Clinton was politically correct to sign the law in 1996. But I was wrong.
Feds abruptly end big New Orleans public corruption investigation “based on evidentiary concerns and in the interests of justice,” the Times-Picayune reports. This was the sweeping corruption probe during which it was discovered that federal prosecutors were making anonymous online comments about their targets and judges.
As you’ve likely seen, Bill Clinton authored a oped piece in The Washington Post today arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act, which he signed into law in 1996, should be overturned by the Supreme Court. Many people think this today. And over the last year it’s become something like an orthodoxy on the Democratic side of the aisle. But was he right to sign it in the first place? Read More
After going back to verify their Menendez story, the Daily Caller says they found some “troubling elements” in the story.
Retiring Sen. Carl Levin says he has no regrets about blocking filibuster reform.