Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be named. The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.
“It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.”
“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.”
“He was just easy pickins,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it.
The incident transpired in a flash, and Friedemann said Romney then led his cheering schoolmates back to his bay-windowed room in Stevens Hall.
Friedemann, guilt ridden, made a point of not talking about it with his friend and waited to see what form of discipline would befall Romney at the famously strict institution. Nothing happened.
Friedemann, guilt ridden, made a point of not talking about it with his friend and waited to see what form of discipline would befall Romney at the famously strict institution. Nothing happened.
Obviously, it was a jerk thing to do and he should feel bad about it. I don't think anyone would say something like this was okay.
On the other hand, I don't think we should be judging the suitability of political candidates by the stupid things they did in high school. I'm guessing Obama did some stupid stuff in high school too, but I don't think it's a particularly useful part of the political discourse.
I know, I know, it's a crazy idea, but discussing some actual political issues might be a bit more pertinent (and dare I say it, responsible!) thing for the media to focus on, rather than digging up old skeletons from the candidates' high school days.
I know. That's why I avoided saying anything about Romney, but instead talked about how schools let douchebags get away with practically everything as long as they're popular.
Hordini wrote:
On the other hand, I don't think we should be judging the suitability of political candidates by the stupid things they did in high school. I'm guessing Obama did some stupid stuff in high school too, but I don't think it's a particularly useful part of the political discourse.
Yep.
Hordini wrote:
I know, I know, it's a crazy idea, but discussing some actual political issues might be a bit more pertinent (and dare I say it, responsible!) thing for the media to focus on, rather than digging up old skeletons from the candidates' high school days.
Unfortunately, that type of thing doesn't generate nearly as much traffic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:I'm just wondering how the kid who got attacked is doing in life right now.
Hordini wrote:
On the other hand, I don't think we should be judging the suitability of political candidates by the stupid things they did in high school. I'm guessing Obama did some stupid stuff in high school too, but I don't think it's a particularly useful part of the political discourse.
Yep.
Hordini wrote:
I know, I know, it's a crazy idea, but discussing some actual political issues might be a bit more pertinent (and dare I say it, responsible!) thing for the media to focus on, rather than digging up old skeletons from the candidates' high school days.
Unfortunately, that type of thing doesn't generate nearly as much traffic.
Sadly, I'm all too aware. Every once in awhile I allow myself to have a bit of crazy hope, though.
generalgrog wrote:Wow..... something that he did as a teenager in 1965 is news? This is just dumb.
GG
I'm sure it's at least as important as what school Obama (allegedly) went to when he was 6. Besides, it seemed like dumb political news day in the O-tizzle, and it would just seem arrogant of me not contribute.
Chowderhead wrote:I'm just wondering how the kid who got attacked is doing in life right now.
You didn't read the whole thing?
On June 12, 1965, Romney concluded his Cranbrook career at a commencement ceremony at the Christ Church, in which his father delivered a keynote address reported on by the local papers.
...
Forty years on, Mitt Romney accepted the school’s 2005 Distinguished Alumni Award.
A year earlier, John Joseph Lauber died at a Seattle hospital.
Chowderhead wrote:I'm just wondering how the kid who got attacked is doing in life right now.
You didn't read the whole thing?
On June 12, 1965, Romney concluded his Cranbrook career at a commencement ceremony at the Christ Church, in which his father delivered a keynote address reported on by the local papers.
...
Forty years on, Mitt Romney accepted the school’s 2005 Distinguished Alumni Award.
A year earlier, John Joseph Lauber died at a Seattle hospital.
Clearly Romney murdered the guy using the Distinguished Alumni Award...
Are people really going after him for stupid gak he did in High School? I dare anyone to genuinely say they weren't a dick to someone at one point in the 13 year old to 20 year old period.
While i agree with not judging him for HS activities he needs to be judged on how he looks back. It would be a great move for him if he just went to the guys house and apologized with flowers.
But he wont because he wont live up to it.
Harriticus wrote:Are people really going after him for stupid gak he did in High School? I dare anyone to genuinely say they weren't a dick to someone at one point in the 13 year old to 20 year old period.
Yes, but his dickishness was motivated by homophobia and he's done nothing to show that he's not still homophobic. He's done plenty to show he's still homophobic though.
Harriticus wrote:Are people really going after him for stupid gak he did in High School? I dare anyone to genuinely say they weren't a dick to someone at one point in the 13 year old to 20 year old period.
Seems fair to me given the BS about what school President Obama went to as a child.
I had a funny thought, kind of. The President was taken to the school, and given his age,
had no control over where he went to school. Where as Willard made the choice to "bully"
this fellow student. He wasn't forced to, he made the choice to do it.
Harriticus wrote:Are people really going after him for stupid gak he did in High School? I dare anyone to genuinely say they weren't a dick to someone at one point in the 13 year old to 20 year old period.
Yes, but his dickishness was motivated by homophobia and he's done nothing to show that he's not still homophobic. He's done plenty to show he's still homophobic though.
Yes, because the guy was openly gay, right? What? No? He was not openly gay? Just looked weird.
But I guess that Romney used his evil mormon powers to find out that the guy would be gay in a few years! And so if we look to his death certificate, it lists 30 year old haircut as cause of death! Mormon powers on an evil republican!!!
biccat wrote:I'm sure everybody likewise has a problem with Obama's bullying:
Spoiler:
That's bullying? I thought that's what we called "middle school".
I also like this part of the source article:
The Obama campaign and their lap-dog media buddies seem to want to equate what Romney did with the “School Ties” locker room fight between Matt Damon and Brendon Fraser.
The scene is here (link for brief ass shots that were still tame enough for Youtube), but the essence of it was a fight between two guys in a shower, which seems markedly different from, and less severe than, someone being held down and having their hair forcibly cut.
Shame that the scrabbling around in the dirt has already begun, although this time a pre-emptive strike by the Democrats. I guess we can expect a reply soon from the Republicans, although surely they exhausted most of their dirty-scrabbling in the last election (one which was particularly dirty IIRC?)
Wow. Some people never cease to amaze me by how stupid they are. Romney is horrible, he wants to demolish most Trading laws and make America complete free trade.
On the other hand, I don't think we should be judging the suitability of political candidates by the stupid things they did in high school. I'm guessing Obama did some stupid stuff in high school too,
The teachers at the Mosques run a pretty tight ship...
Its a good thing the Washington Post came out with this review of Romney's past from 40 years ago. Its amazing time that it came out right after oabama announced he was pro gay marriage. I'm sure its just coincidence though.
Good thing WAPO performed such an indepth review of Obama's past when he was first running. I'll just flip back to it...wait its not there. It seems to have been misplaced somewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
biccat wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:I'm just wondering how the kid who got attacked is doing in life right now.
You didn't read the whole thing?
On June 12, 1965, Romney concluded his Cranbrook career at a commencement ceremony at the Christ Church, in which his father delivered a keynote address reported on by the local papers.
...
Forty years on, Mitt Romney accepted the school’s 2005 Distinguished Alumni Award.
A year earlier, John Joseph Lauber died at a Seattle hospital.
Clearly Romney murdered the guy using the Distinguished Alumni Award...
Must have been one of those heavy wooden plaques. I always said awards were just killer death machines waiting to happen.
Yes this all very terrible. At least we didn't find out he hung out with murdering bombers in college. It would be horrible if we had a presidential candidate who did that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Harriticus wrote:Are people really going after him for stupid gak he did in High School? I dare anyone to genuinely say they weren't a dick to someone at one point in the 13 year old to 20 year old period.
On the positive if I had a time machine I'd fix a few problems...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.
“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.
I've seen a few forms of defense for Romney on this:
1) LIE-BURAL MEDIA!!!!!
2) Teh gays had it coming!
3) Why does it matter? Something Obama something.
At the end of the day, we all do pretty awful things to each other as kids and in highschool. I know I did, at least.
What matters is how we grow from this. Accepting your own immaturity and insecurity and growing from it is incredibly helpful. I'm no fan of President Obama, he's another neoliberal stooge who is far more concerned with selling out the working class so he can appear moderate than anything else, but I've heard him tell stories of his past about how he grew from such experiences as a child.
That's why all of this matters. I doubt we'll get much more from Romney than, "I don't remember," or "there they go again making a mountain out of a mole hill".
Romney has failed to demonstrate that he is a human being with the capacity to grow, care for others, show empathy, or otherwise be a fully functioning adult who is mature emotionally and has a strong core of beliefs. Every time he is given a chance to do so he fails completely.
Hey Frazzled, why don't you link other parts from that article:
“Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” Christine Lauber said.
Or
She described her brother as a “very unusual person.”
Or
Christine Lauber, who is a few years older than John Lauber, was at college when the alleged incident happened, and said the brother and sister were “doing our own thing” at the time.
It's kind of weird of you, Frazzled, to remove a quote from that story without context so it helps your point of view. Man, and here I was thinking you were a trusted news source :(
I linked the article. I figured the people thinking WAPO did anything but a hit piece (which has since been modified without comment by them) would not be swayed.
In the end I could care less. The election is Obama's performance review. We'll see if he gets the golden parachute or not.
TheHammer wrote:
3) Why does it matter? Something Obama something.
The funny thing is the omitting the bold leaves a fairly good defense.
Of course, it also means ending the whole "You candidate is worse than my candidate!" thing which seems to emanate from media surrounding both parties.
If this was President Obama's performance review than we would have elected President Kerry in 2004. The Republicans did a great job of nominating their own Kerry in 2012, so good on you guys.
Dogma, I find both candidates to be pretty awful. Their difference in most issues is fairly small (except foreign affairs, Daniel Larison does a good job of regularly talking about how flat out stupid Romney is here and that guy is a Republican) so a lot of my decision comes down to voting on the person.
I trust President Obama to grow as a person, learn from mistakes, and to just plain care about people and their interests far more than Romney. I think most of his policies are awful and stupid, but at least he isn't bourgeois scum without empathy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, biccat and Ouze, if you are really comparing that Obama story to what Romney did you are awfully stupid and Just Don't Get It.
I don't think anyone that is upset at Romney for what he did is really upset at teenaged Romney being an entitled spanker: they're upset because he managed to grow into an adult who is still an entitled spanker.
If you actually read the rest of Obama's story involving Coretta you'd know that he felt awful about it and grew up from being a child that could sink into ugliness due to peer pressure.
But, hey, don't let me stop you from thinking you won a cheap point because of your eagerness to quote something out of context.
TheHammer wrote:
Also, biccat and Ouze, if you are really comparing that Obama story to what Romney did you are awfully stupid and Just Don't Get It.
While I agree that the two incidents aren't especially similar, I believe the main point was that both incidents are so far into the past that they're irrelevant.
TheHammer wrote:
I don't think anyone that is upset at Romney for what he did is really upset at teenaged Romney being an entitled spanker: they're upset because he managed to grow into an adult who is still an entitled spanker.
Keep in mind he bullied someone that was also probably an entitled little spanker. Cranbrook is expensive.
biccat wrote:True, violence against women is much more serious.
You really can't be serious.
I can. Why don't you think that violence against women in our schools is something that needs to be addressed?
Amaya wrote:On topic, Romney is a prick and as much as I dislike Obama if it comes down to those two, I will vote for Obama just to vote against Romney.
Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.
rockerbikie wrote:Wow. Some people never cease to amaze me by how stupid they are.
The irony of giving someone a haircut because they think he's a homosexual is droll - at least they stopped short of giving him a wax and pedicure. You know what they say about homophobes, perhaps there's something in it.
Why is Biccat trolling this thread with a story about Obama giving a girl a 'slight shove' on the playground in what sounds like a middle school or younger environment and passing it off as a misogynistic beat down?
RossDas wrote:The irony of giving someone a haircut because they think he's a homosexual is droll - at least they stopped short of giving him a wax and pedicure. You know what they say about homophobes, perhaps there's something in it.
According to psychological studies, straight men who are homophobic tend to have a stronger arousal response from gay porn-- that is to say, by objective measures, they're turned on more by it than other straight men.
biccat wrote:
Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.
He hit a woman now? That doesn't seem to be what it says in the quoted text.
Though I suppose if your priority is distortion for political purposes, then sure, that's appropriate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Why is Biccat trolling this thread with a story about Obama giving a girl a 'slight shove' on the playground in what sounds like a middle school or younger environment and passing it off as a misogynistic beat down?
Because biccat trolls until he's seriously confronted, then he picks up his ball and goes home.
And I beat a fellow teenager until he had an asthma attack (I had far less self-control back then), though admittedly the fight wasn't one-sided. But I've grown since then, and certainly Obama has grown since he was six years old-- puberty and adulthood do that to someone. Especially since he's done more for women in his term than the Republican party has even attempted to do during the same time period, it's obvious that he's no longer a six year old thinking "heehee cooties".
Meanwhile, Romney has shown that he isn't likely to be homophobic personally (an article I posted a week or two ago about one of Romney's staffers comes to mind), rather, he's just pushing homophobia for political reasons.
TheHammer wrote:
Also, biccat and Ouze, if you are really comparing that Obama story to what Romney did you are awfully stupid and Just Don't Get It.
While I agree that the two incidents aren't especially similar, I believe the main point was that both incidents are so far into the past that they're irrelevant.
That's true, but perhaps it is the reaction to their re-appearance now that is different.
dogma wrote:
TheHammer wrote:
I don't think anyone that is upset at Romney for what he did is really upset at teenaged Romney being an entitled spanker: they're upset because he managed to grow into an adult who is still an entitled spanker.
Keep in mind he bullied someone that was also probably an entitled little spanker. Cranbrook is expensive.
Amaya wrote:Why is Biccat trolling this thread with a story about Obama giving a girl a 'slight shove' on the playground in what sounds like a middle school or younger environment and passing it off as a misogynistic beat down?
I'm not trolling. People are using this to compare Obama and Romney. Frankly, it's stupid, but if you're going to make a big deal about Romney's history, why not Obama's?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Meanwhile, Romney has shown that he isn't likely to be homophobic personally (an article I posted a week or two ago about one of Romney's staffers comes to mind), rather, he's just pushing homophobia for political reasons.
biccat wrote:...like Obama did until two days ago.
You don't get out much do you? Or pay attention to anything other than your conservative talking heads?
Obama had supported civil unions almost all of his political career. At the start of his presidential term, he said his position was "evolving." And here we see what it has evolved in to-- valuing personal freedoms over religious extremism. A pity he takes a federalist view, but then again, it's not like he could actually do anything to change it anyway with congress essentially being stonewalled in to doing little to nothing outside of emergencies.
Amaya wrote:Why is Biccat trolling this thread with a story about Obama giving a girl a 'slight shove' on the playground in what sounds like a middle school or younger environment and passing it off as a misogynistic beat down?
Because WAPO dragged up a story older than your parents about a school hazing and you're making it out like he ran around in white sheets with a torch leading the Klan on a crusade against the Tenderloin district?
TheHammer wrote:
I don't think anyone that is upset at Romney for what he did is really upset at teenaged Romney being an entitled spanker: they're upset because he managed to grow into an adult who is still an entitled spanker.
Keep in mind he bullied someone that was also probably an entitled little spanker. Cranbrook is expensive.
Is that an early victim blame?
Just pointing out that whether or not Romney is self-entitled doesn't really matter with respect to the incident, which is itself a political sideshow.
Melissia wrote:Obama had supported civil unions almost all of his political career. At the start of his presidential term, he said his position was "evolving."
What you're saying then, is that Obama was supporting a homophobic position until about two days ago for political purposes?
I'm pretty sure that's what I said.
You can call it "evolving," I'll call it flip-flopping.
Melissia wrote:And here we see what it has evolved in to-- valuing personal freedoms over religious extremism.
Obama has never valued personal freedoms, and gay marriage is not a "personal freedoms" issue. It might be an equal protection issue, or an equal benefits issue, but it's not personal freedom.
Melissia wrote: A pity he takes a federalist view, but then again, it's not like he could actually do anything to change it anyway with congress essentially being stonewalled in to doing little to nothing outside of emergencies.
You don't get out much, do you? Or pay attention to anything other than your liberal talking heads?
biccat wrote:
Obama has never valued personal freedoms, and gay marriage is not a "personal freedoms" issue. It might be an equal protection issue, or an equal benefits issue, but it's not personal freedom.
Equal protection is a civil liberty, and civil liberties are often referred to as "personal freedoms" in colloquial discourse.
biccat wrote:
You don't get out much, do you? Or pay attention to anything other than your liberal talking heads?
biccat wrote:gay marriage is not a "personal freedoms" issue.
Live in denial all you want, but it still remains to be an issue of personal freedom.
How is it a personal freedom issue? Lawrence was a personal freedom issue; this is about getting the government to confer benefits on a certain group of individuals.
biccat wrote:gay marriage is not a "personal freedoms" issue.
Live in denial all you want, but it still remains to be an issue of personal freedom.
How is it a personal freedom issue?
The same reason that miscegenation is considered a personal freedom.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Melissia wrote:The same reason that miscegenation is considered a personal freedom.
You don't have a personal freedom to government provided benefits.
Anti-miscegenation laws were an issue of personal freedom because they actually criminalized behavior. Like I said, Loving was a personal freedom issue (leaving aside whether it was correctly decided or not) because it involved criminalizing certain behavior. If you did X you were punished.
There are no criminal penalties for referring to a same-sex union as a "marriage".
Note that polygamy and incest are actual personal freedom issues.
Melissia wrote:Pretty much just like gay marriage is outlawed.
Name one state where you will be incarcerated for "gay marriage"
Irrelevant.
The fact remains that personal freedoms are outlawed. Just because one isn't jailed for it doesn't mean that the restriction isn't there. If the racist conservatives who opposed integration and miscegenation had not included criminal punishments to interracial marriages it would still have been a violation of personal freedoms, as stated in the above court case.
I quote again:
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Marriage is a matter of individual rights-- personal freedoms.
biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.
While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.
Slight shove = "hit a woman"
6 guys holding someone down = "gave a gay guy a haircut"
Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective
I recently told Biccat he went down in my estimation...
As I said, I don't think badly of Romney for this incident cos its just kids stuff, but slight shove has to be less of an assault than "forcibly pinned to the ground and shaved by a gang" and its painfully obvious unless your just sickeningly partisan.
biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.
While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.
Good, because that was the point.
streamdragon wrote:Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective
The Washington Post put out a story the day after Obama announced his 'support' for gay marriage that obliquely accuses Romney of torturing a gay student. They conclude the article by tying an award Romney received in 2005 to the death of that student (by natural causes) forty years later. The guy the WaPo interviewed for the story? Never heard about the incident until the WaPo told him about it. The family of the 'victim'? Upset that WaPo would politicize the story.
The idea of "even perspective" was thrown out the window a long time ago.
As I said, I don't think badly of Romney for this incident cos its just kids stuff,
No. Justin Beiber is kids stuff, starting a garage band after school is kids stuff, cutting class to smoke a joint your friend got from his brother is kids stuff.
Assaulting someone and violently violating their person is not "Kids Stuff". It's gross, hateful and (if true), done at an age when he was certainly aware of what he was doing. The kinds of beliefs that motivation by this kind of behaviour are deep-rooted and I wouldn't assume for one second they went away just because the person has grown up. I certainly believe they could have, but they'd have to somehow demonstrate how their current person is different (in that respect) from their younger self.
biccat wrote:The Washington Post put out a story the day after Obama announced his 'support' for gay marriage that obliquely accuses Romney of torturing a gay student.
biccat wrote:The Washington Post put out a story the day after Obama announced his 'support' for gay marriage that obliquely accuses Romney of torturing a gay student.
biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.
While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.
Good, because that was the point.
I must applaud you on your ability to toe that fine line that keeps me wondering "Is he being serious here, or making another joke?".
biccat wrote:
streamdragon wrote:Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective
The Washington Post put out a story the day after Obama announced his 'support' for gay marriage that obliquely accuses Romney of torturing a gay student. They conclude the article by tying an award Romney received in 2005 to the death of that student (by natural causes) forty years later. The guy the WaPo interviewed for the story? Never heard about the incident until the WaPo told him about it. The family of the 'victim'? Upset that WaPo would politicize the story.
The idea of "even perspective" was thrown out the window a long time ago.
I agree 100% that the WAPO article was beyond ludicrous, and that this is being blown supremely out of proportion. I actually groaned at the award/death thing, because it was so absolutely stupid.
sirlynchmob wrote:Not defending DOMA is good decision though. Why waste time and money defending a discriminatory piece of legislation?
I don't like DOMA, but I disagree strongly with the decision not to enforce it, and the attitude behind that decision. The executive does not have the right to determine what laws are constitutional, and it certainly does not have the right to choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to.
I think he should have lobbied to have DOMA repealed; but the decision not to enforce the law of the land was a low point in my opinion.
sirlynchmob wrote:Not defending DOMA is good decision though. Why waste time and money defending a discriminatory piece of legislation?
I don't like DOMA, but I disagree strongly with the decision not to enforce it, and the attitude behind that decision. The executive does not have the right to determine what laws are constitutional, and it certainly does not have the right to choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to.
I think he should have lobbied to have DOMA repealed; but the decision not to enforce the law of the land was a low point in my opinion.
For the law to be changed, first someone it affects needs to challenge it in court. Once someone is able to make a case against it, it will go away.
No wonder we have so many stupid laws still on the books though, do you really think the original 13 states need to defend the laws that state "it is illegal to carry ice cream in your pocket"?
Or to defend the law in texas where you have to get off the trolly car before you shoot an Indian?
For a fun afternoon, google the stupid laws in your state and city, then ask yourself would you want your state officials to waste money trying to defend these laws?
All levels of the government should take a year off from passing new laws and review all the old laws and just do away with the idiotic ones and ones that are blatantly unconstitutional.
Ouze wrote:
I think he should have lobbied to have DOMA repealed; but the decision not to enforce the law of the land was a low point in my opinion.
To be clear, they haven't stopped enforcing DOMA (specifically Section 3 of DOMA), they've just stopped defending it in court; and as far as I know they aren't required to do so.
sirlynchmob wrote:
For the law to be changed, first someone it affects needs to challenge it in court. Once someone is able to make a case against it, it will go away.
That, or it needs to be altered or repealed by another bill.
sirlynchmob wrote:ones that are blatantly unconstitutional.
DOMA is blatently unconstitutional?
Ouze wrote:I don't like DOMA, but I disagree strongly with the decision not to enforce it, and the attitude behind that decision. The executive does not have the right to determine what laws are constitutional, and it certainly does not have the right to choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to.
I think he should have lobbied to have DOMA repealed; but the decision not to enforce the law of the land was a low point in my opinion.
Odd, I disagree almost entirely.
I like DOMA, I think allowing states to decide whether they want to recognize out-of-state marriages is a good solution. But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it.
I suspect Obama was thinking of this when he instructed the DOJ to stop defending DOMA. He just played the issue poorly from a political perspective. But I think Obama is less politically savvy than most people give him credit for.
BLAG also contends that Congress could have rationally sought to base eligibility for federal benefits on a traditional definition of marriage in order “to avoid the arbitrariness and inconsistency in such eligibility ... and not depend[] on the vagaries of state law.” (BLAG Motion to Dismiss at 24.) However, as explained above, in all of the years preceding the passage of DOMA, Congress relied on the various states’ definitions of marriage without incident.
All couples married under state law were entitled to federal benefits, even if the particulars of the states’ definitions were variable. The passage of DOMA actually undermined administrative consistency by requiring that the federal government, for the first time, discern which state definitions of marriage are entitled to federal recognition and which are not.
Accordingly, the Court finds that consistency does not constitute a rational basis.
biccat wrote: But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it
Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?
Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?
biccat wrote: But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it
Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?
Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?
Most rational people can look at laws and decide if they're still applicable today and need enforcing or defending. Lets look at some fun ones from north carolina.
It’s against the law to sing off key.
Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields.
Are you staying these laws still need to be enforced and defended?
If there is ever a talent call in north carolina for american idol, should the cops be outside issuing tickets to everyone who sings off key?
but frazzled would be happy to see that in Barber NC.
Fights between cats and dogs are prohibited.
biccat wrote: But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it
Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?
Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?
Most rational people can look at laws and decide if they're still applicable today and need enforcing or defending. (snip)
Are you staying these laws still need to be enforced and defended?
You know, I started out typing how I agree they are dumb but I don't think, say, a law enforcement officer can choose which laws to pick and enforce, and that's really up to a prosecutor; but I realized as I was typing it that's not really true, LEO's choose every day when and when not to make an arrest; otherwise they'd spend all damn day arresting jaywalkers. So I see what you mean.
I still prefer that when faced with a law which is stupid, it's better to repeal it than to ignore it.
biccat wrote: But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it
Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?
Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?
Most rational people can look at laws and decide if they're still applicable today and need enforcing or defending. (snip)
Are you staying these laws still need to be enforced and defended?
You know, I started out typing how I agree they are dumb but I don't think, say, a law enforcement officer can choose which laws to pick and enforce, and that's really up to a prosecutor; but I realized as I was typing it that's not really true, LEO's choose every day when and when not to make an arrest; otherwise they'd spend all damn day arresting jaywalkers. So I see what you mean.
I still prefer that when faced with a law which is stupid, it's better to repeal it than to ignore it.
I agree, but in order to have a law repealed you have to go through all the steps as if passing a new law. thats why there are so many laws on the books and not much interest in getting rid of them.
Ouze wrote:Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?
Mostly prosecutor discretion. You can't (well, you could) force the government to prosecute all offenders of a law that they're aware of. It has a lot to do with separation of powers.
Ouze wrote:Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?
Enforcing a law is when the government acts against a person who is required to act under that law.
Defending a law is when an individual challenges either the constitutionality or applicability of a law against them.
Ahh, it's these kinds of things that make me hate being an American (or human) some days. Can we not, as a race, just treat each other appropriately? My God. Romney doing this as a late teen makes him a douchebag. Unqualified to run as president? No, just a douchebag. Gay people (or suspected gay people) don't deserve this kind of treatment from crappy homophobes. You know what? If everybody who ever enacted a hate crime of any kind against somebody else based on gender, race or sexuality put a gun in their own mouth and pulled the trigger, I think the world would be better off. I know I'd sleep without losing a wink if every person like that was off this world. That does include terrorists too, by the way. I'm preparing to be the guy getting this post locked by supporting mass-suicide of a large group of asshats. Does that make me a donkey-cave for supporting this? I don't think so, because it's a stance against those who tear down others. Homophobes, racists and terrorists may disagree with me.
And Biccat-I'm with Matty-my opinion of you has gone way down. Obama shoved a girl off him at a young age because he was getting teased and got nervous-"pushed" doesn't equal "hit." Romney outright led a witch hunt against someone who didn't style his hair the way Romney liked.
Scarily enough, my opinion of Melissia has been going WAY up based on what she's written in the off-topic area. I'm scared. I'll be huddled in the shower for the next few days now.
The significance of these happenings is not that people were badly behaved as teenagers, it is how they deal with the revelation now.
In this respect Romney fairs badly. His response sounds evasive and insincere to a modern audience, no matter how defensible his actions might be given the historical context.
He should have said something like this:
"I do remember the incident. It was a rotten thing to do, and I am sorry for it."
Even if he does not remember the incident, or feels it wasn't rotten, etc. it sounds better to express proper remorse.
Im defending a GOP the world must be ending.
But he apologized, let it go, sure his feelings are still there but we shouldnt judge him for things he did in HS, if we did, no one would be president.
Every once in awhile I allow myself to have a bit of crazy hope, though.
!!!"