Here's some more of that "laser-like focus on jobs" activity by the House teabaggers:
DOMA Targeted By Democrats As More Than 100 House Members File Brief Against Law
[House Majority Whip Kevin] McCarthy, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have been defending the federal ban on same-sex marriage since March 2011, when Attorney General Eric Holder deemed it unconstitutional and stopped defending it. They hired outside counsel to defend the law on behalf of the House of Representatives and, so far, have spent at least $742,000 doing so. But as of Tuesday, they marked their fifth consecutive loss in federal court when a Connecticut judge threw out the law as unconstitutional.
More than 100 House Democrats filed a new amicus brief in the federal case against the Defense of Marriage Act on Friday, according to a statement issued by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Wow... Five consecutive losses in federal court...and $742,000 of taxpayer dollars trying to defend an unconstitutional law. I wonder how many jobs could have been created with $742,000?
Democracy4Sale wrote: Wow... Five consecutive losses in federal court...and $742,000 of taxpayer dollars trying to defend an unconstitutional law. I wonder how many jobs could have been created with $742,000?
I figure it's about 3 given that $1 Trillion in SwindleUs legislation resulted in roughly 4 million jobs. That works out to something on the order of $250K for each job created or saved by the legislation and the bill thus far for defending the clarification on what the terms Congress used meant when it enacted laws that included those terms is not yet $750K.
C'mon LJ, do you really think Congress intended to include same sex marriages in legislation they passed in the middle of the last century that used the term marriage in the legislation? One would have to completely sever any tether to reason to pretend that they did. DOMA is nothing more, and nothing less, than a legal clarification of what certain terms used by Congress meant when Congress wrote them into legislation. DOMA doesn't, because it can't, prevent a future Congress from expanding that definition through another willful act of Congress. What it does do is prevent the definition that was used when the legislation was written from being expanded in the absence of a willful act of Congress. That principle is worth defending to protect and preserve the separation of powers contained in the Constitution. That you don't agree with the principle with respect to this particular law is irrelevant to the larger issue at stake here.
