The more I thought about it, Chief Justice Roberts’ suggestion that President Obama should have stopped enforcing DOMA really was preposterous. From TPM Reader AN …
I read Sahil Kapur’s write up on Roberts’ and Scalia’s swipe at the Obama administration for continuing to enforce DOMA despite the Administration’s belief that it is unconstitutional. I wanted to make two quick points about this:
First, is there significant and recent precedent of an Administration refusing to enforce a duly enacted law passed by Congress and signed by a President?
I could be wrong but I cannot recall a recent example. I would not be surprised if the last time this happened (if ever) was pre-Civil War Lincoln presidency; but I think you’d agree, those were pretty unique circumstances to say the least. I know that Presidents exercise wide latitude in how they enforce laws or how much they prioritize between enforcement efforts; but willfully ignore a law? Scalia and Roberts both know this. Indeed, its almost hilarious since this is precisely the Supreme Court’s job!! I know some people try to question it but is there any question on who the final arbiter of a law’s constitutionality is? And even if Obama decided, unilaterally, to stop enforcing DOMA the case still winds up before the Supreme Court, right? Unless I am missing what exactly the issue is this strikes me as Roberts and Scalia being pissed that they they might have to make an unpopular ruling that will make them look bad.
Second, can you imagine the reaction from the right (and probably even the center and left) if Obama took it upon himself to declare DOMA unconstitutional? Is there much doubt that articles of impeachment would be drafted and signed by half the Republican House caucus before the week was through? Of course, Roberts and Scalia know this as well. For a group that insists that they’re above the fray and not partisan but merely “umpires who call balls and strikes” these guys sure don’t act like it.
