Boehner’s DOMA backfire
The speaker's decision to spend $2.3 million defending DOMA was a political loser and maybe even counterproductive
House Speaker John Boehner’s decision to use taxpayer dollars to defend the Defense of Marriage Act after the Obama administration determined it was unconstitutional may go down as the Gettysburg of the Lost Cause of Traditional Marriage on Capitol Hill — and may have even contributed to DOMA’s demise.
The fight will continue in the states, and conservative Republicans may even keep up the fight in Congress, but leadership is ready to throw in the towel. ”While I am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it is always critical that we protect our system of checks and balances,” Boehner told reporters today after the Supreme Court struck down DOMA. “A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.” States, not Congress.
“It sounds to me that that battle will be moving to the states,” John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said. Eric Cantor hit the same tone, adding, “the marriage debate will continue in the states.” ”Congressional Republican leaders are speaking with resounding unity: the same-sex marriage fight is ending on Capitol Hill,” Politico’s Jake Sherman and Ginger Gibson reported today.
The quick capitulation makes Boehner’s decision to intervene in DOMA look all the more misguided. When the Department of Justice bowed out of defending DOMA in 2011, House Republicans intervened by hiring super-lawyer Paul Clement to defend the law on behalf of the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.
Democrats pointed out the obvious irony of a party crowing about the need to cut government spending hiring a lawyer who typically charges something like $900 an hour. The tab ended up costing taxpayers about $2.3 million, a far cry from the initial $500,000 budget.
If the House hadn’t intervened, the court probably would have appointed a lawyer to defend DOMA, just as it appointed Harvard Law professor Vicki Jackson to argue a procedural matter in March. The effect would have been roughly the same — taxpayer dollars used to to defend DOMA.
No comments:
Post a Comment