Pelosi to Boehner: How much will outside DOMA counsel cost taxpayers?

[ProSense]

Pelosi to Boehner: How much will outside DOMA counsel cost taxpayers?

by Joan McCarter

Five weeks ago, Leader Nancy Pelosi wrote to Speaker Boehner, asking for the cost to taxpayers of the House's intervention in at least 12 DOMA cases, since GOP leadership has decided to defend the cases in the wake of the Justice Department's decision to stop defending them. Boehner finally wrote back today, asking that she provide her support to the effort (fat chance) but apparently not responding to the requested information: what's this going to cost?

So, she's trying again, with a new letter asking how much it will cost to have former Bush Administration Solicitor General Paul D. Clement on the case, since it was revealed today that he will be taking the case. From the letter:

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Thank you for your response earlier today to my letter of March 11, 2011 concerning litigation relating to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). My letter had requested that you provide me with the cost to the House and to taxpayers resulting from the decision of the Republican members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to hire outside counsel to represent the House in support of the DOMA. You note that President Obama and Attorney General Holder have determined that DOMA is unconstitutional, a conclusion I share, and have declined to engage in further judicial proceedings in defense of the law. As you may know, presidents have acted similarly in the past on at least 50 instances since 1979.

Unfortunately, your letter did not respond to the central question in my March 11th letter: the cost to taxpayers of hiring outside legal counsel. Again, I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged....

The House of Representatives need not enter into this lengthy and costly litigation. Contrary to the assertion in your letter, a BLAG determination against House involvement in the litigation—which was the position of Democratic Whip Hoyer and me—would not have allowed the constitutionality of the law to “have been determined by a unilateral action of the President.” As you know, only the courts can determine the constitutionality of a statute passed by the Congress.

Thank you again, and I look forward to working together with you on behalf of our country.

best regards,

NANCY PELOSI
Democratic Leader (emphasis added)

more

[tallahasseedem]

1. I wish Pelosi was President...

But, I will take House Speaker again. We need to get it done in 2012.

[4lbs]

3. You do know what the bold part of ProSense's post means right?

It means that Obama can't simply issue a signing statement whisking away DOMA.

The courts must strike it down, or Congress must overturn it. Not the President.

The same logic applied to DADT. However, a lot of people didn't understand that. They probably won't understand it as it applies to DOMA.

[Igel]

4. They probably won't.

But leaving a suit unchallenged is generally bad legal practice. If somebody argues that DOMA is unconstitutional and nobody with standing shows up to argue otherwise, the court will either have to take up the defense itself given what evidence is before it or just rule for the plaintiffs.

I understood the original cry that Obama was effectively ruling DOMA unconstitutional to mean that his actions had that effect, even if his actions were of a different nature; in other words, in choosing to not defend the law, he was essentially stipulating that the law was unconstitutional and leaving the court little choice.

I've heard it said of people that they essentially pleaded guilty by simply not mounting any appreciable defense. The guilty verdict follows; they're just spared the ignominy of pleading guilty, while ensuring that the effect is the same. It all but ties the judges hands.

[msanthrope]

5. The suit was not unchallenged--it made it to the appellate level.

After due development, the DOJ did not find it had reasonable grounds to continue to challenge.

Now, I do not believe that the court has granted legal standing to anyone else to defend--did that change?

[Fearless]

6. Even if Dems take back a majority it'll just be corporate Dems.

This country is fucked for the time being.

[OwnedByFerrets]

2. WTG Ms Pelosi